fucktoyprincess
Posts: 2337
Status: offline
|
So I was sort of surprised yesterday when reading the Pulitzer awards and seeing that the board did not choose one of the three finalists for the fiction category. I guess they couldn't get a majority of the board to agree on any one of the books, so chose to not award a prize at all.
I think it's unfortunate for the authors that no one got the prize, because it almost looks like they thought it was a bad year for fiction so didn't want to give out an award (when, in fact, it sounds more like they couldn't agree on a winner).
Anyway, Ann Patchett had an article in the NYT today, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/and-the-winner-of-the-pulitzer-isnt.html?_r=1&ref=annpatchett
And while, I somewhat agree with her position, it seems as though the press on the lack of a fiction Pulitzer this year will actually help boost sales for all three books. But then I feel that one of these writers still deserved a prize - I am assuming the rules of the Pulitzer are that the same book cannot be nominated again. I think as a writer, the accolades of something like the Pulitzer would be just as important as the money (maybe even more).
For those of you who are fiction lovers, does it ever matter to you if a book is award/prize winning, or do you go more by what is bestselling or simply reviewed well? I do favor award winning books - I am more likely to pick up a book if I know it received an award (even in years past). (Just like if I'm selecting an old movie to watch, the fact that it won an award at Cannes, or an Oscar, etc. might encourage me to watch it).
_____________________________
~ ftp
|
No Pulitzer for Fiction (!) - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread