Paying attention to the Pulitzers

April 8, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
There's always lots of hype about the Academy Awards and the Grammys, but doesn't anyone care about the Pulitzer Prizes which were announced yesterday?

Among this year's winners:

Fiction: "The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao" by Junot Diaz

Drama: "August: Osage County" by Tracy Letts

History: "What Hath God Wrought" by Daniel Walker Howe

Biography: "Eden's Outcasts" by John Matteson

Poetry: "Time and Materials" by Robert Haas

Poetry: "Failure" by Philip Schultz

So are you impressed when someone is listed as a Pulitzer-Prize winner?

Would that designation make you more likely to read a book, go to hear a speaker, or see a show?

FYI: 2007's Pulitzer for fiction went to Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." The 2007 award for drama was scored by "Rabbit Hole," which is part of the Indiana Repertory Theatre's 2008/2009 season.

Your thoughts?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • FirewomanApril 9, 2008 7:43 AM
    I'm more likely to pick up a book I don't know anything or much about if it has won one. I peruse used book stores/Goodwill for things to read and if I find one that looks interesting or is a Pulitzer winner, I'll most likely buy it. I found Lahiri Jhumpa's Interpreter or Maladies that way. I actually found the book at a yard sale and read every story and loved them all. If there was going to be a Pulitzer winner here speaking, and if I had read the book and enjoyed it, then yes, I would go to see them speak. Poetry I prefer to find on my own regardless of what the Pulitzer picks are. I think it's fantastic for the writers to win one - Jhumpa may not have been that widely read if she had not won and that would be a shame.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • ChristopherApril 9, 2008 8:45 AM
    First of all Firewoman, her name is Jhumpa Lahiri not the other way around, and if anyone has not yet read 'Interpreter of Maladies' you are really missing out.

    Second, while I may be more likely to randomly pick a book that has won a Pulitzer, I think the discussion should focus on the winners in art features and criticism. There are a lot of really talented authors, etc. worthy of the award. Worthy critics however, seem to be few and far between.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • ScottApril 9, 2008 12:35 PM
    Of course the Pulitzer's matter! I might not follow them all that closely or even be able to name any of the winners in a given year, but it's great that there are competitions out there encouraging and rewarding achievement in the arts and letters.

    Don't forget about two of the most important winners (in my opinion):

    Feature Writing - Gene Weingarten of The Washington Post for his feature of Josh Bell's undercover performance in a Washington Metro Station

    and

    Music - David Lang for The Little Match Girl. I don't know the work or the composer yet, but it's always important to keep supporting living American composers.

    Not to mention Bob Dylan's special citation.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Cindy DashnawApril 9, 2008 2:31 PM
    With all the hype surrounding videos and all things electronic, thank goodness something still recognizes the power of the written word. Yes, the Pulitzers matter. Nothing can take us outside ourselves like a superbly written story, and I still believe being able to hold one in your hand, words printed on paper with all the longevity that implies, beats reading something online every time.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • FirewomanApril 9, 2008 2:54 PM
    Um.. first of all, Christopher thanks for pointing out that I flipped around her name. If you had read my whole post you would see that I refer to her as Jhumpa further down, thus illustrating that I do, in fact, know her name. I must've flipped it around when I was verifying how to spell it. I'll be sure to more carefully read my posts next time since there's a post critic.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • AndreaApril 9, 2008 3:55 PM
    I agree with Scott - Gene Weingarten's article Pearls Before Breakfast is wonderful.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT