I've always remembered what Saul Bellow said about the Pulitzer Prize — recounted in the May 11, 1984, NYT article "PUBLISHING: PULITZER CONTROVERSIES":
For years it seemed that Saul Bellow would never win the Pulitzer, although he was often a serious contender. In addition to ''Henderson the Rain King,'' his ''Adventures of Augie March'' was a finalist in 1954, and ''Mr. Sammler's Planet'' was a 1971 finalist. Both times the board decided to forgo a fiction award.What a kick in the head! They didn't give the award to somebody else, but to no one.
In ''Humboldt's Gift,'' published in 1972, Mr. Bellow's narrator, Charlie Citrine, is depicted as a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, who nevertheless agrees with Humboldt's assessment: ''The Pulitzer is for the birds - for the pullets. It's just a dummy newspaper publicity award given by crooks and illiterates. You become a walking Pulitzer ad, so even when you croak the first word of the obituary is 'Pulitzer Prize winner passes.' ''Now, when Saul Bellow died, they did not say "Pulitzer Prize winner passes." They said Nobel Prize winner passes:
Reminded of that passage soon after ''Humboldt's Gift'' won in 1973, Mr. Bellow laughed and said he thought it would be best to accept the award ''in dignified silence.''
Saul Bellow, the Nobel laureate and self-proclaimed historian of society whose fictional heroes -- and whose scathing, unrelenting and darkly comic examination of their struggle for meaning -- gave new immediacy to the American novel in the second half of the 20th century, died yesterday at his home in Brookline, Mass. He was 89.If you have to be a walking billboard for some prize-bestowing outfit, it's best to be a Nobel ad.
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
History, like journalism, was once a profession where the most accomplished writers sought to carefully re-construct without coloring with personal bias.
SWIDT?
The Nobel is a really dynamite award to win.
John Henry
While it may be a self dealing, faux publicity award, excellence in the creation and dissemination of leftie political propaganda is presently a requirement for consideration...
When these once noble prizes are given out as a popularity prize, they are meaningless. After Obama got the Peace Prize, (that he NEVER deserved), and this new popularity trophy for the 1619 lies....I have no admiration for them anymore. They are progressive participation trophies now. Meaningless.
NYT winning a Pulitzer Prize for the history/fantasy "1619 Project,"
That's a fair description of it; "alternate history" is probably better.
"As The 1619 Project’s official education partner, the Pulitzer Center" awarded themselves their own prize.
Right up there with Employee of the Month at the local Piggly Wiggly.
Pulitzer meaningless? Didn't that conclusive proof come with Walter Duranty? His "prize" is still displayed in their lobby. Shame? Of course not; they're leftists after all.
Remember that the Gay Lady has never returned the Pullitzer they won for Walter Duranty's stories on the Russia Communists. But then the tribe is fine with that!!!
Nobel has lost its bang.
"awarded themselves their own prize"
They claim to be separate, but the "Center" features the grandson of the "Prize" Pulitzer, both named Joe.
JAORE said...
Right up there with Employee of the Month at the local Piggly Wiggly.
The Piggly Wiggly award winner adds much more value to society than the Pulitzer award winner.
Things that USED TO have relevance, that don't anymore
Pulitzer Prizes
Nobel Prizes
"EXPERTS"
Serious Question
Can ANYONE think of a single thing (just ONE Thing);
that the "Experts" have said about this "Pandemic", that turned out to be correct?
Anyone? Anything?
When I was a kid, I thought it was the "Pullet Surprise". Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
gilbar's utilization of the sporadic all CAPS reads like Jimmy Fallon playing Nick Cage playing the Tiger King sounds.
Who Chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Winners?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee.
It consists of five members appointed by the Norwegian parliament.
Five people.
Five.
In Norway.
Norway.
The paper of record, in the age of the CD. Not everyone is a vinyl fan.
Howard, that is THE POINT of CAPS!!!
you'd KNOW That! if you STARTING paying ATTENTION!!!
TIGERS ARE MORE LIKE PEOPLE, THAN YOU THINK!!"
the one for literature was about the topical issue of jim crow, colson whitehead, for 2020?
I am re-reading A Confederacy of Dunces which is the funniest and most original book I’ve ever read, but I’m not sure it’s transcendent literature or anything. As much as I love and am awed by it, I think the story of the author’s suicide and his grieving mother’s insistence on getting her boy’s work of genius published is what actually won the Pulitzer.
The late Steve Mitchell wrote that for the longest time he thought everyone was talking about the “pullet surprise.” He thought it was pretty cool that famous writers won a chicken.
Tom Friedman has three Pulitzers. What more need be said?
The late Steve Mitchell wrote that for the longest time he thought everyone was talking about the “pullet surprise.”
I prefer the Anglo Pew-lit-zer, but it's impossible to say as an American without sounding like an asshole.
I understand what Scott is saying, but in the real world the prize has enormous value. Its value is accepted and amplified in the media and cultural elite, advances the winners' careers, gets you on the speech (for $$$) circuit, and so on. It's likely less valuable than in the past because the veil has slipped, but it's far from worthless.
Similar to what I say about degrees in journalism (even if that's called "communications" more these days). Garbage in terms of education--even education about journalism--but valuable in terms of contacts and networking.
It's sad, signs of a fallen world.
@J. Farmer
"I prefer the Anglo Pew-lit-zer, but it's impossible to say as an American without sounding like an asshole."
The Pulitzers (the Florida ones at least) pronounce it "pull-itz-er". They probably didn't want to sound like assholes either!
Heminway called it the "Pull-over Prize". Big wheels like Bellow and Hemingway despised the Pulitzer because it wasn't given just for literary merit but also for being a positive or significant work of fiction about american life. Usually the judges literary tastes before 1970 were more mainstream then the literary elite. I think GWTW, Pearl S. Buck, Upton Sinclair all got a Pulitzer.
As for Bellow, he's always bored me, so maybe he bored the Pulitzer judges too. Plus, he's a Canadian. The Journalism prize has always been a JOKE. In 2018 the WaPo got a Pulitzer for their hit piece and lies about Republican Roy Moore, in 2000 they gave it for a WaPo Fake story about GI's killing Korean refugees in the Korean War - 50 years Ago!
The prize always seems to go to the Wapo/nyt/Wsj and its either for helping the left-wing narrative, or helping the Democrats. Since 1980 a lot of their award winning stories have been partially or completely fake.
Studs Terkel and Tom shales have gotten Pulitzers. LOL!
I thought for sure, that Kael got one, but I was mixing her up with Ebert.
The fish rots from the head down. The culture rots from the awards down.
When I see "Pulitzer Prize Winner" these days it indicates something that I should avoid at all costs. Sort like if you went to the meat department and saw a big steak stamped with "Salmonella." Even on sale I wouldn't buy it.
Recent Pulitzer-winning topics:
2020: Slavery
2019: Frederick Douglass
2018: The Environment
2017: The Attica Uprising
2016: Custer
2015: Native Americans
2014: Slavery
2013: Vietnam disaster
2012: Malcolm X
2011: Slavery
2010: White Bankers Cause Great Depression
2009: Jefferson & Hemings
The Hugo awards have gone the way of the Pulitzer. A long slow slide, and then the Sad Puppies causing the Hugo awards committe to commit PC Hari-kari. Their bad choices have tainted the previous winners.
If you have to be a walking billboard for some prize-bestowing outfit, it's best to be a Nobel ad.
Scratch the walking part.
I have a Pulitzer. Seriously. Staff editor on the Patriot-News, for our coverage of the Joe Paterno scandal.
I even emailed the group asking if this meant I was a Pulitzer prize winner, and they said yes.
So I use it, but I don't make a big thing out of it. I'd considering dumping it in the wake of The New York Times trashing its value, but it might still mean something to people who don't realize it's a krep award. Capitalism corrupts.
Maybe there should be ranks-- like 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and Honorable Mention.
It's funny, but I've thought the same thing about the meaninglessness of these awards for decades- Nobel, Pulitzer, Oscar, Emmy, Golden Globe, all of them. Popularity and political purity contests, pure and simple.
Narr
But they can be helpful litmus tests for me in determining who is worth talking to
"What a kick in the head! They didn't give the award to somebody else, but to no one."
I guess that better than nothing is a high bar. Getting a Pulitzer prize is like getting an award for being the worlds tallest midget.
Since 1980, the literary awards do list the two runners-up. Sometimes they are more memorable than the winners. Those who want to peruse the tables may be able to pinpoint the year they went from knowing the names of almost all of the winners and runners-up to drawing a blank on almost all of them.
P.S. It's hard to be a perfectionist. Every time I changed something in the above to make it right, something else went wrong.
It's not meaningless, it shows what all good leftists believe. Principle #1 is to advance leftism By Any Means Necessary. All other principles are void when this one is relevant.
"Prizes are for boys- I'm all grown up." - Charles Ives, rejecting the 1947 Pulitzer Prize for his Third Symphony.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा