Comments on: In Defense of the Pulitzer Board’s Decision to Give No 2012 Fiction Prize

By: Backscratching in Our Time: Denis Johnson and Michael Cunningham « One-Minute Book Reviews

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:54:03 +0000

[...] for the Page-Turner blog for the New Yorker, Cunningham doesn’t mention a conflict of interest: As I noted in April, Johnson helped to launch Cunningham’s career by providing a blurb for his first book and did him [...]

By: bippityboppityboom

bippityboppityboom — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 03:31:44 +0000

i was actually curious about what you thought about my comments–both about: ann patchett’s comment that we hadn’t ever had a “year more in need” of the pulitzer being a reference primarily to the rough year the publishing (and therefore the book-retail) industry had faced; and that i personally didn’t understand why the length of “train dreams” seemed to disqualify it in your opinion (an opinion that many seem to hold, mind you)….i’m not sure why you felt the need to simply delete my comments instead of responding to them, but i am curious what your response actually is?

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:21:17 +0000

Thanks, Simon. That’s a useful quote for people who are following the 2012 fiction Pulitzer flap.

By: Simon Evnine

Simon Evnine — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:43:53 +0000

“Awards are made by majority vote, but the board is also empowered to vote ‘no award,’ or by three-fourths vote to select an entry that has not been nominated or to switch nominations among the categories. If the board is dissatisfied with the nominations of any jury, it can ask the Administrator to consult with the chair by telephone to ascertain if there are other worthy entries.” Seems like the Board could have looked for winners beyond the three finalists.