The Pulitzer Prize Archive. Volume 21 Chronicle of the Pulitzer Prizes for Fiction: Discussions, Decisions and Documents 9783110973303, 9783598301919

Citation preview

THE PULITZER PRIZE ARCHIVE A History and Anthology of Award-winning Materials in Journalism, Letters, and Arts Series Editor: Heinz-Dietrich Fischer Ruhr University, Bochum Federal Republic of Germany

PART G: SUPPLEMENTS

Volume 21

Κ • G • Saur München 2007

Chronicle of the Pulitzer Prizes for Fiction Discussions, Decisions and Documents

by Heinz-D. Fischer and Erika J. Fischer

Κ • G • Saur München 2007

Gefördert durch Mittel der Stiftung Presse-Haus NRZ Essen

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de

© Printed on acid-free paper © 2007 by Κ. G. Saur Verlag, München An Imprint of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG

Printed in Germany All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed / Bound by Strauss GmbH, Mörlenbach Cover design by Manfred Link, München ISBN 9 7 8 - 3 - 5 9 8 - 3 0 1 9 1 - 9

ν

PREFACE "One does not know precisely," Carlos Baker once stated, "what was in the mind of Joseph Pulitzer... when he realized a long dream and set up his literary prizes," since he was a newspaperman. When the Pulitzer Prizes were started in 1917, within the literature categories one was called "Novel." In 1949 this award group changed its name to "Fiction" to give it a broader basis so that also collections of short stories could be elegible for the prize. Now, after more than nine decades of existence of this award category one can say that rather often there were controversies between the jurors about the merits of fictional works, and in nine prize years the final decision was: no award! "The establishment of the prizes," in the words of Carlos Baker, "may be seen as a noble device for stirring up interest in American letters... Some of the Pulitzer Prize books in fiction are reasonably accurate mirrors of our native taste in literature. But if we try to measure the Pulitzer books on an absolute scale of value rather than on the relativistic scale of historical worth, how well has the system worked? Has it helped to produce the renaissance in letters that ought probably to be its aim? The best praise of any system is that it works and works for good. The Pulitzer Awards in fiction, as we employ the power of hindsight, seem to rise to, if not always always to maintain, the highest standards." The book at hand tells the fascinating history of the fiction awards and documents the discussions in the groups of nominating jurors and sometimes also among the members of the Pulitzer Prize Board. The complete written jury reports can be found in the second part of this volume, - they are excellent sources for further research in this field. This important material comes from the Pulitzer Prize Office at Columbia University, New York. Special thanks go to Professor Sig Gissler and Mr. Edward M. Kliment, the administrator of the annual award system. At the Ruhr-University of Bochum, again Mrs. Ingrid Dickhut helped in many ways to realize this book.

Bochum, FRG July, 2007

H.-D.F./E.J.F.

VII

CONTENTS PREFACE

V

HISTORY OF THE AWARD

1

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PULITZER FICTION PRIZE

3

F A C S I M I L E S OF JURY REPORTS

43

1917 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

45 45 46

1918 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

49 49 50

1919 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

51 51 52

1920 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

61 61 62

1921 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report.

63 63 64

1922 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

65 65 66

Vlll 1923 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

67 67 68

1924 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

69 69 70

1925 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

71 71 72

1926 AWARD: W i n n e r Jurors Report

77 77 78

1927 AWARD: W i n n e r . Jurors Report

83 83 84

1928 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

85 85 86

1929 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

89 89 90

1930 AWARD: W i n n e r Jurors Report

95 95 96

1931 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

99 99 100

1932 AWARD: W i n n e r . . . Jurors Report

101 101 102

1933 AWARD: W i n n e r Jurors Report

103 103 104

IX

1934 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

109 109 HO

1935 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

Ill Ill 112

1936 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

115 115 116

1937 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

119 119 120

1938 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

123 123 124

1939 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

127 127 128

1940 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

129 129 130

1941 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

131 131 132

1942 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

135 135 136

1943 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

145 145 146

1944 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report.

149 149 150

1945 AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

....

153 153 154

1946 AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

157 157 158

1947 A W A R D :

Winner Jurors Report

159 159 16°

1948 AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

165 165 166

1949

AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

169 169 170

1950

AWARD:

Winner Jurors . Report

173 173 174

,

1951

AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

175 175 176

1952

AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

1953 AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

193 193 194

1954

AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

213 213 214

1955

AWARD:

Winner Jurors Report

227 227 228

'

179 179 180

XI

1956 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

231 231 232

1957 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

235 235 236

1958 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

239 239 240

1959 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

245 245 246

1960 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

249 249 250

1961 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

263 263 264

1962 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

.

267 267 268

1963 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

271 271 272

1964 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

275 275 276

1965 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

279 279 280

1966 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report.... ...... .-.-

283 283 284

XII

1967 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

2 8 9

1968 AWARD: W i n n e r Jurors Report

293 293 294

1969 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

301 301 302

1970 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

305 305 306

1971 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

309 309 310

1972 AWARD: W i n n e r Jurors Report

311 311 312

1973 AWARD: W i n n e r Jurors Report

315 315 316

1974 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

323 323 324

1975 A W A R D : W i n n e r . . Jurors Report

325 325 326

1976 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

329 329 330

1977 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

333 333 334

289 290

XIII

1978 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

337 337 338

1979 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

343 343 344

1980 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

347 347 348

1981 AWARD: Winner Jurors . . Report

351 351 352

1982 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

.

355 355 356

1983 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

357 357 358

1984 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

361 361 362

1985 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

365 365 366

1986 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

369 369 370

1987 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

373 373 374

19-88 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

377 377 378

XIV

1989 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

383 383 384

1990 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

387 387 388

1991 A W A R D :

Winner Jurors Report

389 389 390

1992 A W A R D : Winner Jurors Report

391 391 392

1993 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

395 395 396

1994 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

399 399 400

1995 AWARD: W i n n e r Jurors Report

403 403 404

1996 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

407 407 4 0 8

1997 A W A R D : Winner Jurors Report

411 411 412

1998 A W A R D : W i n n e r Jurors Report

415 415 416

1999 AWARD: W i n n e r . . Jurors Report

421 421 422

XV

2000 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

427 427 428

2001 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

431 431 432

2002 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

435 435 436

2003 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

441 441 442

2004 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

447 447 448

2005 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

451 451 452

2006 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

453 453 454

2007 AWARD: Winner Jurors Report

455 455 456

INDEX

457

XVI

THIS

VOLUME

PULITZER VARIOUS ALL

OF

IS

DEDICATED

PRIZE-WINNERS

FROM

AWARD C A T E G O R I E S THEM BORN

ON T H E I R

IN

HUNDREDTH

AUDEN,

1907

H.

HOMER

W.

CARTER

JR..

WILLIAM

CHASE,

MARY

C.

DAY,

H.

PRICE

DELAPLANE, EDEL,

STANTON

JOSEPH

GILMORE, KRAMM,

JOSEPH

LASCH,

ROBERT

MICHENER, MORIN,

L.

K.

N.

JAMES

RELMAN

A.

G.

ROB Ι N S O N ,

JOHN

SWANBERG,

W I L L Ι AM

WELLER,

H.

L.

EDDY

GEORGE

-

BIRTHDAYS

WYSTAN

BIGART,

TO

R.

A.

A.

History of the Award

3

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PULITZER FICTION PRIZE In Joseph Pulitzer's original plan of awards there was also a prize for merits in the field of literature. It was called "Novel," and later the category was renamed to "Fiction." The award was primarely thaught for "encouragement of writers"1 outside of the journalistic areas. The original definition for this prize was as follows: "Annually, for the American novel published during the year which shall best present the wholesome atmosphere of American life, and the highest standard of American manners and manhood." Before the first competition for the award was opened there was some struggle about the wording "wholesome" instead of "whole." The Advisory Board finally accepted the term "wholesome" which stayed for about one decade.2 Thereafter, a change stipulated that the prize would be given "for the American novel published during the year, preferably one which shall best present the whole atmosphere of American life." 3 When the first Pulitzer Prize Novel jury came together in the spring of 1917 to determine a prize-winner based on the novels published in the year before, the following situation arose: "There were only six applicants for the prize," as the report of the jurors indicates verbatim, "one of whom sent not a printed book but a manuscript, which fails to meet the requirement of publication during the year. Of the five books submitted in competition, all but one seem to us unworthy of consideration for the prize. We are unanimously of the opinion, however, that the merits of this book, though considerable, are no greater than that of several other novels, which though not included in the formal applications, have been taken into consideration by us in arriving at a verdict. We recommend," the jurors wrote furthermore, "that the award be withheld this year."4 The Advisory Board and the Trustees of Columbia University accepted the verdict of the jury and decided on "no award" in the novel category.5 In 1918 the jury report does not impart any information on the number of contestants. It was stated concisely in the jury report "that the majority of the Committee award the Pulitzer Prize for the best novel of 1917 to His Family, by Ernest Poole. The Committee unites in according honorable mention to Bromley Neighborhood, by Alice Brown."6 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees accepted parts of the jury's proposal and for the first time awarded a Pulitzer Prize in the novel category, which went to Ernest Poole.7 With regard to the prize-winning book by Poole, Hohenberg is of the opinion that it "had not made anything like the impression of Poole's earlier and more successful work, The Harbor, which was similar in spirit to the Edward Bellamy-Jack London type

1 Carlos Baker, Fiction Awards, in: Columbia Library Columns (New York), Vol. VI/No. 3, May 1957, pp. 30 f. 2 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes. A History of the Awards in Books, Drama, Music, and Journalism, New York - London 1974, pp. 55 ff. 3 William J. Stuckey, The Pulitzer Prize Novels. A Critical Backward Look, Norman, Oklahoma, 1966, pp. 10 f. 4 Novel Jury Report, May 8, 1917, pp. 1 f. 5 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 51. 6 Novel Jury Report, April 10, 1918, p. 1. 7 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51.

4 of sentimental Socialism. So, while His Family carried off the award, there wasn't much of a stir about it."8 The same jurors as in the two preceding years were once again in office in 1919. The chairman of the jury wrote to the President of Columbia University on behalf of all members: "I hereby report that the Committee, after careful consideration, has reluctantly reached the conclusion, that no one of the novels... merits this distinction."9 The Advisory Board had practically already accepted this recommendation, when one of the members of the jury approached the administration of Columbia University, without previous notice, with nothing less than a revision of the initial jury vote camouflaged in the form of a question: "Is it too late to give the novel prize to Booth Tarkington's The Magnificent Ambersons?"^ The Columbia President consequently "fired off telegrams to each member of the Advisory Board and drew unanimous approval for The Magnificent Ambersons,"11 Ν. Booth Tarkington received the Pulitzer Prize for best novel of the previous year. 12 The jury acting in 1920 had some new members. As can be quoted from its report, this jury was "of the opinion that 'no award' should be made," 13 and this was, in the end, also accepted by the Advisory Board and the Trustees. 14 Before the decision of the jury was reached, however, the discussions turned into a remarkable controversy, caused by a new juror: "He had thought," as Hohenberg reconstructs the situation, "of recommending Joseph Hergesheimer's Java Head for the prize until he re-read the terms of the Plan of Award," that contained in place of Pulitzer's original wording 'whole' the term 'wholesome.'15 In a note to his chairman the jury member agreed that the Hergesheimer novel "doesn't at all obviously conform" to the conditions of the award and protested. But the Board decided to bestow "no award" in this prize category.16 The members of the jury in 1921 also differed in their opinions on who should win that year's Pulitzer Prize. H. Sinclair Lewis's book Main Street, one of the most controversial volumes of the previous year, was discussed in the jury, but the committee's chairman held the book to be "vicious and vengeful." He expressed in the report: "All the novels I have read recently are lacking in style, workmanship. I cannot vote a prize to any of them." But the Board overturned the jury's proposal to give "no award" and decided by a split vote to give the prize to Edith N. Wharton's The Age of Innocence, which also had been mentioned in the report. 17 After the public announcement of the winner, the bestowal of the award to Edith Wharton evoked a fierce debate as soon as the circumstances leading to the decision were made public. 18 The jurors of 1922, however, had no difficulties in reaching the unanimous recommendation "that Booth Tarkington's Alice Adams is the best novel of 1921 which can be construed as coming under the terms of the Pulitzer competition. We accordingly recommend it for the Pulitzer novel prize." 19 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees agreed Β 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. Novel Jury Report, April 22, 1919, p. 1. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Provost of Columbia University, May 20, 1919, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 57 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, April 29, 1920, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 55. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 58 f. Ibid., pp. 59 f. Novel Jury Report, April 24, 1922, p. 1.

THE MAGNIFICENT

AMBERSONS BY

BOOTH TARKINGTON AUTHOR OF

PENROD, PENROD AND SAM, SEVENTEEN, Etc., ETC.

ILLUSTRATED BY

ARTHUR WILLIAM BROWN

GROSSET PUBLISHERS

&

DUNLAP NEW

YORK

6 and honored Ν. Booth Tarkington with the award without any contradiction, although he had already won the same prize once before just three years earlier. 20 The jury of 1923 saw only slight changes in personnel compared to the previous year. It also arrived at a common suggestion. Yet the jurors' vote, penned by the chairman of the jury, reads as follows: "I beg to report that the Committee recommends for the Pulitzer Prize to be awarded for the best American novel..., One of Ours by Miss Willa Cather. I might perhaps add that this recommendation is made without enthusiasm. The Committee, as I understand its feeling, assumes that the Trustees of the Fund desire that award should be made each year. In that case, we are of the opinion that Miss Cather's novel, imperfect as we think it in many respects, is yet the most worth while of any in the field." 21 Once again, similar to the situation two years earlier, a novel by Lewis was passed over, because the reservations about the author and his work had been too strong. Thus Willa S. Cather received the Pulitzer Prize, 22 this time without developing into a controversy. In 1924, when the jury consisted of the same members as in the year before, the award proposal sent to the administration of Columbia University once again seemed to be lacking in conviction. In a note written by the chairman of the jury it was stated that "the committee on the Pulitzer Prize has arrived at the following decision: first, that in its opinion there is no book outstanding enough to merit a Prize this year, but that, secondly, if it is deemed that a prize should be awarded anyhow, the committee would name Margaret Wilson's The Able McLaughlins,"23 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees, however, had no doubts that The Able McLaughlins should win the Pulitzer Prize and had no problems in giving the honor to Margaret W. Wilson. 2 ^ There was once again dissent in 1925, when the jurors stated in their report: "The jury has come to no full agreement. The issue hangs, however, between three novels: Joseph Hergesheimer's Balisand, Edna Ferber's So Big, and Lawrence Stalling's Plumes." One juror favored Edna Ferber's So Big. Another preferred Balisand but voted to split the award between Balisand and So Big. The third jury member also pleaded that the award be split between Hergesheimer's Balisand and Ferber's So Big 2 5 The Advisory Board and the Trustees decided against the votes of the second and third jurors and declared Edna Ferber's So Big sole winner of the Pulitzer Prize for novel. 2 6 1926 turned out to be a special year in the history of the Pulitzer Prize for novel. A jury that was made up of three new members wrote in its report, "that Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, is the novel best deserving the award... In the opinion of the Committee, several novels are worthy competitors, this be especially true of The Smiths by Janet Fairbanks, and Porgy by DuBose Heyward." 27 After H. Sinclair Lewis had been unsuccessful twice in the preceding years, he was now to be honored by winning the Pulitzer Prize in the novel category 2 8 "That prize I must refuse," Sinclair Lewis wrote among other things to Columbia University, "and my refusal would be meaningless unless I explained the reasons. All prizes, like all titles, are dangerous... The Pulitzer Prize for 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. Novel Jury Report, April 3, 1923, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. Novel Jury Report, April 1, 1924, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. Novel Jury Report, April 3, 1925, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. Novel Jury Report, March 15, 1926, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op.

cit., p. 51. cit., p. 51. cit., p. 51. cit., p. 51. cit., p. 51.

ARROWSMITH By SINCLAIR

LEWIS

Author of Main Street, Babbitt, etc.

NEW

YORK

HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY

8 Novels is peculiarly objectionable because the terms of it have been constantly and grievously misrepresented..." 29 The $1,000 check, which Lewis had returned, was put back in the Pulitzer Prize Fund. 3 0 Nevertheless, H. Sinclair Lewis is listed as official award-winner of 1926 in the annals of the Pulitzer Prize. 31 Yet Lewis, who a few years later did not refuse to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature, indirectly brought about a change that was effectual for the Pulitzer Prize from 1927 onwards: "The Advisory Board," Hohenberg writes, "quietly returned to the original wording of the... award, as Joseph Pulitzer had set it down in his will. The insistence on 'wholesome' fiction, in theory at least, was dropped in favor of Pulitzer's specification for an American novel that best presented the 'whole atmosphere' of American life and the 'highest standard of American manners and manhood.' Hopefully, in this new dispensation, the jurors turned to one of the younger and uncontroversial American novelists, Louis Bromfield, and recommended his third novel, Early Autumn, for the 1927 award." 32 The Advisory Board and the Trustees accepted Louis Bromfield as best novelist of the previous year. 3 3 The jurors of 1928 announced in their report "the unanimous nomination of Thornton Wilder's The Bridge of San Luis Rey, as the recipient of this year's award. The decision is based on the opinion of the Committee," the report continues, "that this piece of fiction is not only an admirable example of literary skill in the art of fiction, but also possesses a philosophic import and a spiritual elevation which greatly increases its literary value." 34 It can be inferred from an additional paper by the jurors that the following books were also among the finalists: Islanders, by Helen Hull; A Yankee Passional, by Samuel Ornitz; The Grandmothers, by Glenway Wescott; and Black April, by Julia M. Peterkin. 35 "The jury's choice for 1928," Hohenberg underlines, "had nothing to do with American life or American manners and manhood, but the Advisory Board quickly accepted it," since "the critics already had hailed a major new talent" in Thornton Niven Wilder, who received the Pulitzer Prize of 1928. 36 He was awarded the prize for a story that was set in old Peru. "One result of the... Jury's successful recommendation of a story about Peru," Hohenberg writes, "was still another change in the... wording of the terms of the award. The insistence on the 'highest standard of American manners and manhood' was dropped. Instead, in a general revision of the Plan of Award that took effect for the 1929 prize season, the requirement in fiction called for a prize 'for the American novel published during the year, preferably one which shall best present the whole atmosphere of American life.'" 37 Now the jurors had plenty of scope for interpretation, and in 1929 they decided in favor of Victim and Victor by John R. Oliver. "The Committee's choice," as it reads verbatim in the jury report, "is made on the ground that this novel is of fine quality as a piece of literary work, ... It may interest... to know that Scarlet Sister Mary by Julia Peterkin came close in our estimation to the winning book." 38 This time the Advisory 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Letter to the Pulitzer Prize Committee at Columbia University, May 6, 1926, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit, p. 86. Cf. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 87; and Novel Jury Report, March 30, 1927, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 6, 1928, p. 1. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, March 7, 1928, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 87. Ibid., p. 88. Novel Jury Report, March 13, 1929, pp. 1 f.

The B R I D G E

of

SAN L U I S R E Y By

THORNTON

WILDER

AUTHOR OF "THE CABALA"

Illustrated by AMY

DREVENSTEDT

I 9 2 8 ALBERT & CHARLES BONI "· NEW YORK

10 Board and the Trustees did not follow the suggestion of the jury and opted instead for Julia M. Peterkin and her book Scarlet Sister Mary,39 The jury of 1930 had problems in agreeing on a clear favorite for the prize. "Effectively," the report indicates, "the choice of the committee is narrowed down to three books: Laughing Boy, by Oliver La Farge; Look Homeward, Angel, by Thomas Wolfe; and It's a Great War, by Mary Lee." Whereas one juror chose the book by Thomas Wolfe, a second one favored the novel Laughing Boy, and the third jury member deemed It's a Great War outstanding. 40 But it was stated in the report that "the members of the committee are not quite in accord, but have individually expressed their willingness to compound their differences by voting for Laughing Boy by Oliver La Farge." 41 The members of the Advisory Board found no difficulty in agreeing on Laughing Boy, a choice the university Trustees accepted. 42 This is how, in the end, the prize for 'best novel' went to Oliver H. La Farge. 4 3 Just before the opening of the judging for the 1931 prize, still another change in the terms of the award for fiction was suggested. It now should be defined as follows: "For the best novel published during the year by an American author." 44 While the Advisory Board was still dealing with this proposal, the jury took up its work and put three books on its short list: The Deepening Stream, by Dorothy Canfield; Years of Grace, by Margaret Ayer Barnes; and The Great Meadow, by Elizabeth Madox Roberts. In the end the jurors ranked Years of Grace first on their list of suggestions, "because of its vivid and interesting presentation of the change in character and mores throughout three generations of an American family." 45 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees endorsed this vote and therefore the Pulitzer Prize in the category 'novel' went to Margaret Ayer Barnes. 4 ^ In 1932 when the jurors selected from the submissions on hand, the jury regarded "as its first choice The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck. Two other books were favorably considered... Willa Cather's Shadow on the Rock and Robin E. Spencer's The Lady Who Came to Stay... Preference has been given to The Good Earth," the jury explained its choice "for its epic sweep, its distinct and moving characterization, its sustained story-interest, its simple and yet richly colored style... As a minor consideration, the Committee also took into account the fact that Miss Cather has already received the Pulitzer Prize. This fact was, however, not determining." 47 As both the Advisory Board and the Trustees were convinced by the jury's argumentation, the award was given to Pearl S. Buck. 4 8 The jurors, who had to decide on the award in 1933, explained briefly, when they made it known in their report that there was an "agreement upon The Store by Thomas S. Stribling." 49 Four other novels had also made the jury's shortlist. Yet The Store, as it was stated verbatim "was selected chiefly because of its sustained interest, and because of the convincing and comprehensive picture it presents of life in an inland Southern com-

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. Novel Jury Report, March 10, 1930, pp. 1 f. Ibid., p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 90. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 91. Novel Jury Report, March 26, 1931, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. Novel Jury Report, March 14, 1932, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. Novel Jury Report, March 16, 1933, p. 1.

51.

51. 51. 51.

11 munity during the middle eighties of the last century. I think," the chairman of the jury continued, "that the fact that the same author, Mr. T. S. Stribling, gave us another good book, The Forge, a few years ago, was a favoring circumstance, but did not definitely influence our decision..." 50 Because, as Hohenberg illustrates, "there was little argument over the... selection, The Store,in the end the Pulitzer Prize for 'best novel' was given to Thomas S. Stribling. 52 In 1934 the jury could not reach unanimity in its votes, and so it suggested "as its majority choice A Watch in the Night, by Helen C. White. The majority of the committee," the report continues, "considered as a close second Lamb in His Bosom, by Caroline Miller, and as a good third No More Sea, by Wilson Follett. A Watch in the Night is an historical novel of accurate background, sharply etched characters, and highly dramatic plot. Interest is sustained to the end from the collision of human motives and passions independent of the special issues historically involved." 53 That the decision of the jurors was not unanimous turned out to be a handicap, because the Advisory Board did not join in the vote for the book ranking first on the jury's list, but instead recommended to the Trustees that the Pulitzer Prize be awarded to Caroline Miller's Lamb in His Bosom.54 And this is what finally came to pass. 55 When the jurors discussed their favorites for 1935, they could not reach a unanimous vote in that year as well. "It seems impossible for your jury," it reads in their report, "to agree this year on anything but that there is, in their opinion, no outstanding novel. Although their choice is by no means unanimous, they do, however, between them recommend to the consideration of the Board the following novels: William W. Haines: Slim...; Ruth Suckow: The Folks...·, Josephine Johnson: Now in November...·, William R. Burnett: Goodbye to the Past...; Albert Halper: The Foundry...; Robert Cantwell: Land of Plenty...; Louis Dodge: The American ...; Stark Young: So red the rose.,."56 Hohenberg relates that the Advisory Board "chose Miss Johnson's novel but did not elaborate on the process by which it was selected." 57 Thus the Pulitzer Prize went to Josephine W. Johnson for her work Now in November,58 For the Pulitzer Prize of 1936 the Plan of Award was changed once again, specifying that the award should henceforth go to "a distinguished novel published during the year by an American author, preferably dealing with American life." 59 Among the ninetynine books submitted for the 1936 prize were Thomas Wolfe's Of Time and the River, Humphrey Cobb's Paths of Glory, John Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat, and Ellen Glasgow's Vein of Iron. None of these, however, was among the first seven books that were recommended in order by the Fiction Jury. 60 For on the jury's list Honey in the Horn, by Harold L. Davis ranked first, followed by This Body the Earth, by Paul Green; Time out of Mind, by Rachel Field; Ollie Miss, by Lowell L. Balcom; Deep Dark River, by Robert

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, March 19, 1933, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 92. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 17, 1934, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 136. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 18, 1935, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 138. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 138. Ibid.

12 Rylee; and Blessed is the Man, by Louis Zara. 61 The Board followed the advice of the jury and declared Harold L. Davis winner of the Pulitzer Prize for best novel. 6 2 In 1937 the jurors decided to present a list of suggestions consisting of six titles which reads as follows: Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell; The Last Puritan, by George Santayana; Three Bags Full, by Roger Burlingame; Mountain Path, by Harrietts Simpson; Yang and Yin, by Alice Tisdale Hobart; and Drums along the Mohawk, by Walter D. Edmond. "No comment on the first two novels seems called for," the jury wrote, adding: "Obviously, the Jury recommends them, not as best sellers but as deservedly best sellers." 63 "The Advisory Board, like the American public," as Hohenberg illuminates the decision-making process, "wasted no time in embracing Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler, the endearing figures in the most popular and enduring of all Civil War romances." 64 Gone With the Wind earned Margaret M. Mitchell the Pulitzer Prize for 'best n o v e l . A few years later the film adaption was also honored by winning several Academy Awards. 66 The jury that went to work in the spring of 1938 agreed by majority vote "upon the following points: 1. That in its opinion The Late George Apley by John P. Marquand clearly deserves the award. 2. That if, for any reason, this recommendation should be rejected the two novels next most deserving of the honor are The Sound of Running Feet by Josephine Lawrence, and Northwest Passage by Kenneth Roberts. The Late George Apley," as the jury justified its first choice, "is a novel of unusual finish... The book is remarkable not only for the keenness of the satire but, almost equally, for the broad, sympathetic understanding exhibited by the author, who is able to present his personages from their own as well as from his point of view." 67 These arguments also convinced the Advisory Board and therefore the Pulitzer Prize for novel was given to John P. Marquand 6 8 The jury of 1939 also reached unanimously one clear proposal, after considering these five novels during its final discussion: The Yearling, by Marjorie Rawlings; All This and Heaven Too, by Rachel Field; Black is My True Love's Hair, by Elizabeth Madox Roberts; May Flavin, by Myron Birnig; and Renown, by Frank O. Hough. "The jury is... unanimously agreed," as it reads in the jury report, "that its preference for The Yearling is sufficiently strong to justify it in expressing the hope that that novel will be selected." 69 This reasoning, according to Hohenberg, "won the Board's approval." 70 So Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings received the Pulitzer Prize for her novel The Yearling.71 The jurors of 1940 made it perfectly clear in their report: "We are unanimously agreed to recommend as our first choice The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. Despite the fact that it is marred by certain artistic blemishes, this novel has, we believe, excellences which make it the most powerful and significant of all the works submitted for our consideration." In addition to this novel the following books were also on the list of finalists: Escape, by Ethel Vance; To the End of the World, by Helen White; Seasoned Timber, by 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Novel Jury Report, March 15, 1936, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Novel Jury Report, March 15, 1937, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 139 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. Richard Shale (Ed.), Academy Awards, New York 1978, pp. 334 ff. Novel Jury Report, March 11, 1938, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Novel Jury Report, March 13, 1939, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 140. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52.

Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings

THE YEARLING

D e c o r a t i o n s by Edward Shenton

CHARLES

SCRIBNER'S

NEW YORK

:

1 9 3 8

SONS

14 Dorothy Canfield; and Night Riders, by Robert Penn Warren. 7 2 "When the report was distributed to the Advisory Board," Hohenberg found out, "two... wrote letters to try to influence their colleagues against The Grapes of Wrath... In the end" they were "unable to stop Steinbeck any more... When the award was voted by the university Trustees and made public, it was received with universal approval... The Pulitzer Prize served to confirm John Steinbeck's stature as a major American novelist," 73 who more than two decades later was also to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. 74 To the jury of 1941, which partly consisted of new members, sifting through the submissions at hand the exhibits it seemed "at first like a rather easy and uncontroversial year," since a magazine had beforehand given the impression that the prize would go to Ernest Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls. Yet, as Hohenberg explains, "the Pulitzer jurors, however, didn't see it that way. They unanimously recommended two coequal... prizes for Conrad Richter's novel of American pioneer life, The Trees, and Walter V. Tilburgh Clark's rousing Western, The Ox-Bow Incident. They put down the Hemingway... book... as secondary to their first choices." 75 Hohenberg discovered that "the report ran into heavy weather almost as soon as the Advisory Board met... The newspaper members of the Board rose in revolt against the jury's choices and voted for the Hemingway book... But the Board also turned down the jury's report as well," voting to give "no award" in the novel category 7 6 which was later on to be confirmed by the Trustees as well. 77 The jury of 1942 admitted in its report that it "found its task made very difficult by the fact that none of the novels brought to its attention seemed of really outstanding merit or equal to many at least of those which have received the prize in the past... But since it is probably inadvisable to omit the award for two successive years, a list of possibilities is here submitted," consisting of: Windswept, by Mary Ellen Chase; The Great Big Doorstep, by E. P. O'Donnell; Storm, by George Stewart; and Green Centuries, by Caroline Gordon. 78 Faced with the jury's irresolution, Hohenberg relates, "at least two members of the Advisory Board jumped into the breach with alternative suggestions," recommending Upton Sinclair's book Dragon's Teeth as well as Ellen Glasgow's In This Our Life, both of which were not even mentioned in the jury report. 79 The Advisory Board swept aside the jury report and recommended Ellen A. Glasgow's novel of Southern life for the prize. 80 The jurors of 1943 reached an unanimous decision saying in their report: "It is the judgment... that the novel most worthy of the Pulitzer Prize is Upton Sinclair's Dragon's Teeth. This book appeared first on the list of two committee members, and was the second choice of the third member." Other books like The Just and the Unjust, by James Cozzens as well as The Valley of Decision, by Marcia Davenport were also taken into consideration. 81 Yet the Advisory Board as well as the Trustees decided in favor of

72 Novel Jury Report, March 15, 1940, p. 1. 73 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 142 f. 74 Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, Munich - New York - London - Paris 1985, p. 269. 75 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 143 f. and Novel Jury Report, March 14, 1941, p. 1. 76 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 144 f. 77 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. 78 Novel Jury Report, March 16, 1942, pp. 1 f. 79 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 146. 80 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. 81 Novel Jury Report, March 10, 1943, p. 1.

15

Λ DRAGON'S TEETH Upton Sinclair V

J

The Viking Press · New York

1942

16 Upton Sinclair's book, 8 2 that already had been mentioned as a possible winning entry in the year before, but was eligible only in 1943 because of its year of publishing. 83 With Upton B. Sinclair Jr., as Hohenberg writes, "the oldest and most formidable critic of the American press" 8 4 was being honored. In 1944 the jurors tried out a special mode of evaluation by giving out points to determine the winner. As a result the following four books appeared on the jury's short list: Indigo, by Christine Weston; A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty Smith; So Little Time, by John P. Marquand; and Journey in the Dark, by Martin Flavin. 85 Based on the jury's criteria of evaluation the book by Martin Flavin got eight points, followed by the novel written by Christine Weston with seven and John Marquand's book with six points. In their report the jurors pointed out that Marquand had already won a Pulitzer Prize six years earlier and thus perhaps was not eligible. With regard to the novel by Christine Weston they noted that its theme was related to India and therefore could not necessarily be considered "American literature," whereas Journey in the Dark was, in a way, "American to the bone." 8 6 The Board chose the Martin A. Flavin book as winner. 87 The jury of 1945 also proceeded with said mode of evaluation. After adding up the points given to those books the jurors found most prizeworthy, the novels ranked in the top three were as follows: Colcorton, by Edith Pope; A Bell for Adano, by John Hersey; and The History of Rome Hanks, by Joseph Pennell. As each of the three jurors had an individual notion about the potential prizewinner, they went into details regarding their reasons, and there seemed to be indication that A Bell for Adano was leading marginally. 88 But John Hersey's book, as discovered by John Hohenberg, "ran into difficulty before the Advisory Board. There, one of the members, in an outburst of patriotic wrath, denounced the novel." But the Board's majority didn't follow him. The Pulitzer Novel Prize was voted to A Bell for Adano,89 and so the prestigious award went to John R. Hersey. 90 In 1946, the first year after World War II, the jury picked out three finalists without, however, agreeing on a clear favorite. The jurors' opinions differed substantially on Glenway Wescott's Apartment in Athens, Dan Wickenden's The Wayfarers as well as Richard Wright's autobiography Black Boy, which one member of the jury could not acknowledge as a novel. Faced with this situation, Hohenberg writes, "the Advisory Board passed the award for lack of definitive guidance from the jurors," 91 and so once again "no award" was written down in the annals of the Pulitzer Prize. 9 2 In contrast to this, the jurors of 1947 presented a unanimous choice, that in the end was to win the Pulitzer Prize: "All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren," Hohenberg relates, "was a welcome change from the uncertainties of the war years. It was the complex story of the rise and fall of an opportunistic country lawyer who became the virtual dictator of a Southern State and came to an untimely end through assassination. To many, the novel seemed to be a fictional retelling of the tragedy of Huey Long, the 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 146. Ibid., p. 198. Novel Jury Report, March 14, 1944, pp. 1 f. Ibid., p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Novel Jury Report, March 14, 1945, pp. 1 ff. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 198. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 198. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52.

17 Louisiana 'Kingfish,' but it went far deeper than that. Possibly, its philosophical overtones kept it from being more than a moderately popular book until it won the Pulitzer Prize by courtesy of the jury and the Advisory Board. Then, the critics hailed the selection and most of them, even the youngest dissenters, have done so ever since," Hohenberg explaines 9 3 When Robert Penn Warren's book received the 1947 Pulitzer Prize, 94 this was the last time an award was given in the Novel category which changed its name. From 1948 on the new award category used the term "Fiction" instead of "Novel," and the category's definition was as follows: "For distinguished fiction published in book form during the year by an American author, preferably dealing with American life." 95 This prize for the first time made short stories eligible for the award. The jury selected the following titles: The Big Sky, by Alfred B. Guthrie Jr.; Knock on any Door, by Willard Motley; The Garretson Chronicle, by Gerald W. Brace; The Stoic, by Theodore Dreiser; and Tales of the South Pacific, by James A. Michener 9 6 Although Michener's volume of short stories only ranked fifth on the shortlist of the jury, one of the jurors strongly stood up for it. Then the members of the Advisory Board also pleaded for the unknown newcomer and little by little convinced their colleagues. 97 Thus in the end James A. Michener was given the 1948 Pulitzer Prize for fiction. 98 His Tales of the South Pacific was soon to become the basis for the musical South Pacific, which would also be honored with a Pulitzer Prize two years later. 99 The jury of 1949 drew up the following list of four literary works it regarded as prizeworthy: Guard of Honor, by James Gould Cozzens; The Naked and the Dead, by Norman Mailer; The Ides of March, by Thornton Wilder; and The Young Lions, by Irwin Shaw. "The... listing is not made in order of preference," the jury report explains, "but each of the books recommended received the vote of at least two of the three jurors; the first two titles were unanimous choices." 100 Based on these remarks, as Hohenberg interprets the report, "it came down to a great newcomer, Mailer, with a tough and uncompromising war novel that was one of the best for World War II, and the wellestablished Cozzens..." 101 The Board decided in favor of James Gould Cozzens, who was already much better known to the public. 1 0 2 The jurors of 1950 prepared a list of merely three suggestions which, without any comments, contained the following titles: The Way West, by Alfred B. Guthrie Jr.; The Brave Bulls, by Tom Lea; and Hunter's Horn, by Harriette Arnow. 1 0 3 According to Hohenberg, "there was little argument" in the Board as to this ranking. Thus it was accepted and A. B. Guthrie Jr. was announced winner of the Pulitzer Prize. 1 0 4 One year later, in 1951, when a jury of only two went to work, these two made only one sole proposal, namely John Hersey's The Wall,105 "which dealt with Hitler's extermination of the jews," Hohenberg adds and completes: "The jurors had told the Board that they 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 198 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Quoted from John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 201. Fiction Jury Report, March 23, 1948, pp. 1 ff. Quoted from John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, o'p. cit., p. 201. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Ibid., p. 55. Fiction Jury Report, March 14, 1949, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 202. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, April 5, 1950, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, March 23, 1951, p. 1.

18 believed only the Hersey book was worthy of the prize that year. When... asked for alternatives, they proposed Conrad Richter's The Town, Robert Penn Warren's World Enough and Time, and Max Steele's Debbie, but they still insisted on The Wall even though it did not deal with the American scene... The Advisory Board was not impressed. For its own reasons, it voted for The Town," 106 and thus the award went to Conrad M. Richter. 107 The two jurors for 1952 judged the submitted novels quite differently. Whereas one of them observed at the beginning of his part of the report, "I do not find among these books... any one that seems to be a really great novel," 1 0 8 the other one declared: "Among the novels published in 1951 there were about 35 books that held my attention as being especially noteworthy." 109 Based on these opinions it cannot come as a surprise that the two jurors could not agree on a joint suggestion. Whereas the first juror favored The Caine Mutiny, by Herman Wouk, the other one pleaded for Jenkins' Ear, by Odell and Willard Shepard. 1 1 0 The Advisory Board gave the Pulitzer Prize to Herman Wouk's book The Caine Mutiny.111 As it had happened in the previous year, the two jurors of 1953 had completely different notions of prize worthiness. "I have read the seventy-nine novels sent to me," one of them wrote in his report, "my choice for first place is Jefferson Selleck, by Carl Jonas. This young man will bear watching... All of his ways of thinking arise from the deepest depths of American live." 1 1 2 In a ranking of altogether eighteen novels that made his shortlist, he placed fourteenth the title which the other juror ranked first, Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea}13 "Although short," this juror praised Hemingway's work, "this book contains all the elements that make a novel excellent... It is well written, well planned, and possesses the beauty that only a real work of art can have. What perhaps... is most important in the book is its universality." 114 Even the Dean of the School of Journalism, a member of the Advisory Board, lobbied for Hemingway, and the other Board members did not object. 1 1 5 So Ernest Hemingway won the Pulitzer Fiction award for The Old Man and the Sea) 16 One year later Hemingway also received the Nobel Prize for Literature. 117 A reconstituted jury of 1954 was, according to Hohenberg, "in such a disagreement that neither duplicated the other in any of the first five books each recommended. One juror liked Ramey by Jack D. Ferris and The Sands of Karakorum by James R. Ullman while the other recommended, as his first two, Myron Brinig's The Street of the Three Friends and Wright Morris's The Deep Sleep. One juror alone mentioned Saul Bellow's The Adventures of Augie March,"118 whereas this book was not even mentioned in the report of the other two jurors. Confronted with the diverging opinions of its two jurors as well as with the intricate situation that had developed because of their disagreement, the

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 202 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, undated (March 1952), p. 1. Preliminary Report, March 11, 1952, p. 1. Fiction Jury Report, March 10, 1952, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, March 24, 1953, pp. 1, 5. Ibid., p. 15. Choices for the Pulitzer on the Novel, undated (March .1953), p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 203 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 259. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 204.

19

Ν fa l-l-l η H h

f ^ z Η η

fa ω w « ?-< κ ο Ρ S H *

fa

S > 2; P ^

I J 8Ο CO fa h ^ s& Η E-c ^•< Η wO C r l ^ 0 5 fa Κ £ E-

I S o u fc^ CC
H

Ϊ* «

^

b | S s Β tf Ο Η Η D Κ ο > S Q W Γ« Ζ Z h f O

fa

g i a l

I

3 Ϊ * ! Q o g g U ~ w ζ £ I 3 fc ~ μ Η QJ 'S fa w 2 « CO s i g £ ο

§

ξ LD tf η r£] S

s ο S a , Η ^

η tr^

εt-1

ω Η w r, C/D pq £

a

f

c

l i e ζ ^ S g g g B * a ^gw

> ua S S

υζ; Q Bi S C Ο υ Η ffl U υU

οΟ g ο ° Ε Ih55 -H CO HΖ Bi oj fa fa

< >

ζ'* ι 13Ζ •— Ρ

Ϊ a *

b

^

B ,, δ Ρ X g § o

fa Ο χ Q

a κ Ξ

I « g

^ ο Ο Η fa ~ coI co

fa

Ä h A s « §

20 Advisory Board decided to plead for "no award" and this decision was also supported by the Trustees. 119 1955 not only saw a reconstituted Advisory Board with new ideas, 1 2 0 but also a new jury for the Pulitzer Prize Fiction category. Probably alluding to the dissent between jurors of previous years the report of that year's jury reads: "Believe it or not, we both voted for the same book: Milton Lott's The Last Hunt. To us, this seemed a fresh treatment of a significant chapter in the history of America... In second place we would put William Faulkner's A Fable. There are portions of this novel which seemed to us to be close to greatness but... we are agreed that it fails ultimately because of its inability to communicate with the reader... We... hope you will feel that our selection of The Last Hunt is a worthy one and the right one." 1 2 1 The Board, however, was not at all of this opinion and gave the Pulitzer Prize for fiction to William Faulkner, 1 2 2 who, six years earlier, had already won the Nobel Prize for Literature. 123 The same jurors were also appointed in 1956 to select in the Fiction category. The previous year, the two members of the jury stated at the beginning of their report, "was a far better than average year in American fiction, and the task of making a decision among the eighty novels regarded by their publishers as strong enough to be candidates for the Pulitzer award in fiction would have been far more difficult than it was had not one of them been head and shoulders above all others. That one is MacKinlay Kantor's Andersonville. The jury cannot recommend it too strongly for the award... When compared with Andersonville the runners-up in the field seem far behind. In our opinion these would be: John O'Hara's Ten North Frederick... (and) Robert Penn Warren's Band of Angels.In view of the praise for his book Andersonville the Board declared MacKinlay Kantor winner in the Fiction category. 125 In 1957 it was stated in the jury report that the previous year "was a poor one for the American novel. More than ninety novels were sent to the jury as candidates for the Pulitzer Award in fiction, yet most of them could not be regarded by any stretch of the imagination as serious contenders for that award or for any other... Outstanding among these was Elizabeth Spencer's The Voice at the Back Door. The jury recommends it for the fiction award... The only possible contender for the award other than The Voice at the Back Door would be in the jury's view The Last Hurrah by Edwin O'Connor." 1 2 6 Yet the Board, Hohenberg found out, "couldn't work up much enthusiasm for either work after a thorough reading of the report" 1 2 7 and decided on "no award." 1 2 8 A new jury went to work in the Pulitzer Prize Fiction category of 1958. "This has been a good year for the American novel," as it can be read in the jurors' report. "A number of works, such as A Death in the Family by James Agee, The Wapshot Chronicle by John Cheever, The Assistant by Bernard Malamud, The Town by William Faulkner, The Weather of February by Hollis Summers, The Goblins of Eros by Warren Eyster, The Velvet Horn by Andrew Lytle, all possess kinds of distinction." But the jury's 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 254 ff. Fiction Jury Report, February 15, 1955, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 248. Fiction Jury Report, February 17, 1956, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, February 13, 1957, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 258. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52.

21 favorite was By Love Possessed by James G. Cozzens. 1 2 9 Yet once again the Advisory Board was not entirely convinced and so, as Hohenberg writes, "itself picked James Agee's notable short novel." 1 3 0 This is how the Pulitzer Prize for fiction was awarded to the already deceased author for his book A Death in the Family, published posthumously. 131 The jurors of 1959, after carefully examining the submitted novels, had a rather clear idea of their favorite: "The committee takes both pride and pleasure in strongly recommending John O'Hara's From the Terrace for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction. In a year which was noteworthy for the number of first-rate novels published, this book stands out as a distinguished contribution... We recommend his book with enthusiasm and without reservation. As its second choice" the jurors named in their report "The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters by Robert Lewis Taylor... For the consideration of the final judges, we would like to record briefly our third choice, William Humphrey's Home from the Hill, an extremely able novel from a young writer of the school of William Faulkner." 132 In the Board, Hohenberg writes, "there was no argument... on O'Hara's merits; the doubt extended only to the book that was recommended, From the Terrace. In the end, the doubts prevailed, O'Hara lost the prize, and Taylor won" 1 3 3 for his book The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters ,13^ When the awards had to be decided on in 1960 the two jurors had a total of four books on their shortlist. "Of these four," as it is made clear in their report, "the most distinguished is Henderson the Rain King by Saul Bellow... Mr. Bellow is concerned with more than mere narrative, rich as his book is in incident, fantastic comedy, and, in general, imaginative creation... Like Henderson the Rain King James A. Michener's Hawaii departs from accepted narrative patterns... It is a seriously conceived and carefully written work of genuine stature and of more than immediate interest. Dance Back the Buffalo by Milton Lott is recommended because of its lucid, transparent writing... Faulkner's latest novel The Mansion... in fact, is a story of striking quality and atmosphere, because of its human tensions and not its social meaning." 1 3 5 The Board set aside the jury's report entirely and substituted "its own judgment." 1 3 6 Thus Allen S. Drury's book Advise and Consent was given the Pulitzer Prize, 1 3 7 without having even been mentioned in the jury report at all. The jury of 1961 first of all complained that "certain novelists, whose earlier work had aroused our hopes, published disappointing books during the year. William Styron's long-awaited Set This House on Fire and John Updike's Rabbit, Run both lavished major talents on minor themes... Fortunately, however, the stream of new talent which constantly revitalizes American fiction produced at least two first novels of unusual distinction. The first and more ambitious of these was To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee... This is our choice for the Prize. John Hersey's The Child Buyer is our recommendation for runner-up." 138 This time the Advisory Board acted upon the advice of the jury and 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1958), p. 4. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 256. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1959), pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 257. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1960), pp. 1 ff. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 257. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1961), pp. 1 ff.

22 declared To Kill a Mockingbird best novel of the year, 1 3 9 thus giving the Pulitzer Prize for fiction to N. Harper Lee. 1 4 0 The jurors of the year before were also asked in 1962 to select in the Fiction category. "Viewed as a whole," it says at the beginning of their report, the previous year "was a lack-lustre year for fiction. Older novelists of established reputation submitted new works only to disappoint. More regrettably, younger novelists, on whom the future must rely, produced no books of significance or even of real promise... The criteria we apply in our consideration are the classic ones: that a novel be well conceived, well constructed, well rounded, and well written. Two such commended themselves to us during the year. The first was William Maxwell's The Chateau, a quiet but sensitively written story of Americans in France... The other was Edwin O'Connor's The Edge of Sadness, which... seemed to us the best all-round novel of the year." 1 4 1 The Advisory Board voted in favor of "veteran novelist" Edwin G. O'Connor and his book The Edge of Sadness.^2 The Pulitzer Prize Fiction jury of 1963 began its report with bitter complaints about "the customary disparity between quality and quantity... It was a year, too, which saw headline novelists give rudimentary fiction... The most promising first novel of the year... was Reynolds Price's A Long and Happy Life, a beautifully-crafted Southern love story... As it happened, 1962 was also the year which saw the publication of William Faulkner's The Reivers, his last novel and also one of his most appealing. A genial comedy..., it contains a minimum of the rhetoric and moralizing which characterized Faulkner's later writing... Only one novel published last year rated a higher accolade from us: Katherine Anne Porter's Ship of Fools, published at last after twenty years of intermittent labor, was a literary landmark..., [it] is a novel of quality... We believe it deserves the Pulitzer Prize." 1 4 3 The Board, however, decided in favor of Faulkner, who had died the year before and was thus posthumously awarded his second Pulitzer Prize in the Fiction category 1 4 4 for The Reivers after winning his first one eight years before and the Nobel Prize for Literature yet another six years earlier. 145 In 1964 a new jury was set up, that got to the point right at the beginning of its report to the Board: "Your judges... have reluctantly concluded to recommend that no Pulitzer award be made in that field this year. More than ninety novels were nominated by their publishers this past year. Your judges have read most of them... and have carefully considered them all. A few seem to us more original, or more distinguished in other ways, than some of the titles which have in the past received Pulitzer awards, but no one of them imposes itself upon us as demanding recognition as 'distinguished fiction...' Among the books the judges most seriously considered were the following: (1) Norman Fruchter's Coat Upon a Stick..., (2) May Sarton's novella Joanna and Ulysses..., (3) Sumner Locke Elliott's Careful, He Might Hear You..., (4) John Killens' And Then We Heard the Thunder... If a prize were to be awarded for a 1963 novel we felt these to be the most serious candidates." 146 The Board took the jurors at their word and accepted the proposal of "no award." 14 ^ 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 256. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1962), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1963), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 248. Fiction Jury Report, January 15, 1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53.

23

THE A Reminiscence

WILLIAM FAULKNER

RANDOM HOUSE New York

24 The two jurors of 1965 had to judge more than eighty novels. "In our joint judgment the prize should go to Shirley Ann Grau for The Keepers of the House," as it was stated at the end of their joint report. 1 4 8 "The Keepers of the House is Miss Grau's fourth book of fiction," one juror emphasized and added: "With it she emerges, it seems to me, as, since the death of William Faulkner, the major Southern writer... No other novel of the year compares with it in the quality of the writing." 149 The other juror wrote in his part of the report about Grau's book: "I think Shirley Ann Grau is a good, solid, responsible and professional novelist rather than a first-rank or major novelist, but I see no harm in giving such a book and such a writer the prize this year, since I consider that the prize has been given to less good books and less good writers in the past." 1 5 0 As Hohenberg remarks, "there was no dissent in the Advisory Board," 1 5 1 and so the Pulitzer Prize for fiction went to Shirley Ann Grau. 1 5 2 When the fiftieth anniversary of the Pulitzer Prize system was celebrated in 1966, the two members of the Fiction jury stated bluntly in their report: "It was, on the whole, an undistinguished year for fiction, a complaint we fear is becoming recurrent... The year had its compensation, however, chief among them the publication of Katherine Anne Porter's Collected Stories... The event served to remind us of this artist's chaste and controlled style, her subtle sensibilities, and the power of her moments of revelation. Both in manner and matter this book stood out in the year's fiction, and we have no hesitation in recommending that it be awarded the Fiction Prize." 153 Three other works, Marguerite Young's Miss Macintosh, My Darling·, Vardis Fisher's Mountain Man and George P. Elliott's In the World were listed as runner-ups. 154 The Advisory Board accepted the jury's proposal and gave the award to Katherine Anne Porter for her Collected Stories,155 The three members of the 1967 Fiction jury "voted unanimously to award the prize to Bernard Malamud's The Fixer... Among other elements entering into this judgment, the jury noted the literary skill of the novel, unobtrusive but present, as the story itself achieves the quietly astonishing feat of beginning with despair and working through it to a climax of inward triumph, and even a kind of ironical joy in life. We are aware," the jurors added, "that this novel deals with the Russian rather than the American scene... Among other novels and short stories, there were perhaps a dozen or so seriously considered by the Judges... These included Fertig by Sol Yurick; The Last Gentleman by Walker Percy; The Crying of LOT 49 by Thomas Pynchon; Strangers and Graves by Peter Feibleman; Giles Goatboy by John Barth; and Nothing Ever Breaks Except the Heart by Kay Boyle." 1 5 6 Despite the fact that the content of the book ranking first, The Fixer, had no direct references to America, the prize was bestowed on Bernard Malamud. 1 5 7 With regrets the jurors of 1968 stated right at the beginning of their report that "for the first time in several years the Fiction Jury could not reach a unanimous opinion." One juror's choice for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction was William Styron's The Confessions of Nat Turner. Two of the judges favored Isaac Bashevis Singer's The Manor as their 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

Fiction Jury Report, January 15, 1965, p. 1. Letter to the Advisory Board, January 16, 1965, p . l . Concurring Report with Reservations, January 19, 1965, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 256. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 15, 1965, pp. 1 f. Ibid., pp. 2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 27, 1966, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53.

25 choice for the Pulitzer Prize. 1 5 8 A few days later the jurors added Thornton Wilder's The Eighth Day to their short list if neither The Confessions of Nat Turner nor The Manor should be given the Prize. 1 5 9 The Advisory Board selected The Confessions of Nat Turner and announced William C. Styron Jr. as prizewinner. 160 In 1969 a completely new jury sifted through the submitted material, creating a list of three finalists. "Our first choice," as it reads in its report, "is N. Scott Momaday's House Made of Dawn... because of its, in the words of one of the members of the jury, 'eloquence and intensity of feeling, its freshness of vision and subject, its immediacy of theme...' Our second choice is A World of Profit by Louis Auchincloss... which... is not uncharacteristic of the work of one of our best novelist of manners. Our third choice is And Other Stories by John O'Hara... which, though the author has never won a Pulitzer, contains at least two stories which reflect the level of artistic achievement that has characterized the author's work." 1 6 1 Hohenberg states that "the Board's membership wasn't exactly ecstatic but it went along with House Made of Dawn"^62 and gave the Pulitzer Prize to the American Indian author N. Scott Momaday. 1 6 3 For 1970 the jury was once again reconstituted. The three jurors made it fundamentally clear at the beginning of their report: "Of the seventy or so candidates not more than a dozen were marked by originality of subject or treatment, and several of the more promising entries were unable to sustain an opening streak of brilliance... Three books were finally selected as the best fiction of the year. One of the jurors rated John Cheever's Bullet Park, a novel of contemporary suburbia, as outstanding... Two of the entries were collections of short stories written over the past quarter-century by Jean Stafford and Peter Taylor, and both impressed us with their conscious artistry. Taylor's is the lesser achievement in manner and matter, but only when compared with Jean Stafford. Her range in subject, scene and mood is remarkable, and her mastery of the short story form is everywhere manifest. She is wonderfully skilled in digging out drama where others would see only drabness." 164 The Board's consultative committee and the full membership as well, according to Hohenberg, 1 6 5 voted in favor of Jean Stafford, who therefore received the prize for her Collected Stories,166 The jurors of 1971 suggested three candidates for the award as follows: "Losing Battles by Eudora Welty: though a genre novel and lacking in the freshness of some of her earlier works, it transcends mere fidelity to the culture of the Old South... Mr. Sammler's Planet by Saul Bellow: at times a compelling, urbane summary of man's twentieth century accomplishments on the planet... The Wheel of Love by Joyce Carol Oates: last year's National Book Award winner plumbs 'ordinariness' to deep roots... If you wish," the jurors declared in direction of the Advisory Board, "the Jury will undertake to reduce this list further, but it is not likely that we would be able to decide on a single, unanimous, persuasive choice." 167 As Hohenberg found out, the Board intermittingly

158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167

Fiction Jury Report, January 7, 1968, p. 1. Postscript to the Fiction Jury Report, January 15, 1968, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 20, 1968, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 320. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 17, 1969, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 321. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, January 8, 1971, p. 1.

26 "seriously discussed recognizing Eudora Welty for her lifelong achievements as a leading American writer," 168 but in the end opted for giving "no award." 1 6 9 For 1972, the Fiction jury wrote to the Board that the previous year "was a good if not great year for books. Fiction, however, fared indifferently, and your jury was disappointed that the overall level of the entries submitted was no higher than it was. The omens had been for an exceptional year with new novels by major writers... But the result was a Barmecide feast... All three jurors," the decision reads, "were unanimous in their recommendation for the Fiction Prize - Wallace Stegner for his Angle of Repose." It "impressed the jury as a solidly conceived, handsomely crafted work of fiction..." 170 As Hohenberg reports, "it was enough to convince the Board" and give the fiction award to Wallace E. Stegner, 171 based on his book Angle of Repose}12 In the following year, 1973, the group of jurors was not able to make up a joint report, but offered three individual evaluations instead. One juror ranked first Chaim Potok's My Name is Asher Lev, followed by Eudora Welty's The Optimist's Daughter and Isaac Bashevis Singer's Enemies,173 The second jury member had on the top of his list The Confession of a Child of the Century, by Thomas Rogers, ahead of The Sunlight Dialogues, by John Gardner and The Optimist's Daughter, by Eudora Welty. 1 7 4 The third juror, however, placed Eudora Welty's The Optimist's Daughter above Thomas Rogers' The Confession of a Child of the Century and James Park Sloan's The Case History of Comrade V.'75 As The Optimist's Daughter had, in a way, gained the status of favorite, the Advisory Board showed no hesitation in giving the Pulitzer Prize to Eudora Welty. 1 7 6 In 1974, when three completely new jurors took up the task of evaluating the submissions, it was stated in their report that their "first choice... is Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. For second place the jury chose John Cheever's The World of Apples. One juror wished... to record a desire that second place should go to Gore Vidal's Burr. For third place two jurors chose Gore Vidal's Burr, and one chose Isaac Bashevis Singer's A Crown of Feathers... Our first choice was unanimous... At least one (juror)... believes that no work of Fiction... begins to compare with Mr. Pynchon's book in scale, originality of conception, and sustained literary interest." 177 The jury's selection of Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow was not accepted by the Board which decided on "no award" in this prize category. 178 For the Pulitzer Prize Fiction jury of 1975, all members of the previous year were replaced and the new jurors informed the Advisory Board in their report "that out of the immense welter of indescribably bad fiction we have chosen one novel to which all of us would be happy to see the prize awarded... The novel is The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara... Its subject is... the Battle of Gettysburg, and the narrative is carried forward from the points of view of half a dozen officers, Union and Rebel... The Killer Angels

168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 321. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 10, 1971, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 322. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Letter to Herman Kogan, December 20, 1972, p. 1. Letter to Herman Kogan, December 21, 1972, p. 1. Letter to John Hohenberg, December 27, 1972, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, January 9, 1974, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53.

28 seems to (be) much more than a historical novel... Despite the diversity of points in view, it is a remarkable unit. The book contains no hokum, and the portraits limned are sharp and admirable. So we nominate this one novel and hope very ardently that the Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes will see eye to eye with us in this selection." 179 Because this vote was put forward with utmost conviction the Board bestowed the award on Michael J. Shaara Jr. for his work The Killer Angels.™ The jurors of 1976 voted by majority for Saul Bellow's Humboldt's Gift. Furthermore they had on their shortlist The Dead Father, by Donald Barthelme; The Surface of Earth, by Reynolds Price; Are We There Yet?, by Diane Vreuls as well as Ragtime, by Edgar L. Doctorow. "Our consensus as to Bellow's excellence," as the jury justified its favorite, "came from our feeling that Humboldt's Gift is a triumphant handling of a strong theme with rich understanding, compassion, sharp insight, and a splendidly sane sense of comedy... Artistically the novel is a wonderful return to a style closer to Dickens than to more contemporary, naturalistic, absurdist, and despairing modes. Bellow is satiric without being harsh, warm without being sentimental, humanistic without being didactic. The novel has integrity and invention. It projects with masterly imagination a complete world about which the author is convincingly informed, and can thus enlarge and deepen our understanding." 181 This enumeration of the merits evident in Humboldt's Gift caused the Advisory Board to award the Pulitzer Prize to Saul Bellow, 1 8 2 who in the same year was also to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. 183 After selecting the finalists for 1977 the jurors suggested three novels for the prize ranking as follows: " l . A River Runs Through It by Norman Maclean: This is the first volume of fiction by a man," it says verbatim in the report, "who... himself calls (his work) 'a little book' but its qualities are copious... The range of emotions and insights is broad and compelling and its concern with life in all its aspects has, despite the narratives' specific time and place, a sense of the universal... 2. October Light by John Gardner: Well-written, as is true of many of John Gardner's earlier books, but October Light is burdened by, among other things, a 'novel-within-a-novel' and verbal excesses that detract from what is essentially an interesting narrative... 3. The Franchiser by Stanley Elkin: A portrait of a part of the current American scene that has a strong sense of comedy and tragi-comedy, but ultimately sputters to an inconclusive end." 1 8 4 The Board found no book prizeworthy and opted for "no award" in the Fiction category. 185 In 1978 a new jury evaluated the entries in the Fiction category. It nominated, as the jurors explained in their report, "unanimously and enthusiastically" James Alan McPherson's book Elbow itoom. 1 8 6 "We also admired," one member of the jury wrote, "Peter Taylor's In the Miro District, Anne Tyler's Earthly Possessions, Paul Horgan's The Thin Mountain Air, William Maxwell's Over by the River, and for various reasons one or two others. In the long run, none of us felt that any of them was as good as McPherson's Elbow Room."187 The jury as a whole passed the following judgment of McPherson's book: "His language, his narrative skills, and his characters span a wide 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187

Fiction Jury Report, December 16, 1974, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, January 11, 1976, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 292. Fiction Jury Report, December 13, 1976, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (December 1977), p. 1. Letter to Richard T. Baker, December 15, 1977, p. 1.

29 range from the most self-consciously cultured to the most folksy and colloquial, but consistently enlivened, at all levels of style and substance, by a firm intelligence and compassion for the things that make us all human beings, and for those aspects of living that fiction, perhaps, can best tell us about." 188 Because of these remarks the Advisory Board had no difficulties in awarding the Pulitzer Prize for fiction to James Alan McPherson for his work Elbow fioom.189 For the award in 1979, when the jury had to evaluate more than one-hundred and twenty books, there was a unanimous favorite: The Stories of John Cheever by John Cheever. "There really is no strong agreement among the committee as to nominations beyond the Cheever," the jurors declared, nevertheless supplying two additional titles which to them seemed to be of interest: The World According to Garp by John Irving as well as Continental Drift by James Houston. 1 9 0 "Our feeling is," it says verbatim of the jury's first choice, "that Cheever's mastery of style, his sharp and compassionate understanding of people, and his rich inventiveness with form place him well ahead of other contenders for literary excellence. He writes with equal insight about all kinds of people and thus pictures life in the USA in all of its variety." 191 The Advisory Board had no reason to contradict this nomination and gave the Pulitzer Prize to John Cheever for his acclaimed collection of stories. 19 ^ The jurors of 1980 selected the following three novels as finalists: The Ghost Writer, by Philip Roth; The Executioner's Song, by Norman Mailer; and Birdy, by William Wharton. 1 9 3 Although the jury basically agreed on these three titles, the individual evaluations of the jurors differed considerably, as can be inferred from the jury report: One juror could not really decide whether Mailer or Roth was his first choice, and warmly supported Wharton as a third. A second jury member was very enthusiastic for Roth. He expressed some concern that Mailer's book may not really be a novel. The third juror was willing to list Mailer as a second choice and was willing to see Birdy on the list, though he considered it a much weaker book than Roth's. But the report added "that The Executioner's Song is clearly the best work of fiction published this year and perhaps for some years." 1 9 4 The Advisory Board shared this view and so the Pulitzer Prize for fiction went to Norman Mailer, 1 9 5 who, more than a decade earlier, had already won a prize in the "General Non-Fiction" category.19® In 1981 the consultations of the jury resulted in a rather unusual suggestion, after presenting the following finalists: 1. A Confederacy of Dunces, by John Kennedy Toole. 2. So Long, See You Tomorrow, by William Maxwell. 3. Godric, by Frederick Buechner. 197 "It is the unanimous, enthusiastic and emphatic recommendation of the jury," it was said of Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces, "that this extraordinary novel be awarded the 1981 Pulitzer Prize in Fiction... We hope the author's death will not be a consideration in the Board's final judgment, since the prize presumably is for the book rather than the author... We also feel that a Pulitzer for this novel would recognize 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197

Fiction Jury Report, undated (December 1977), p. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., Fiction Jury Report, December 9, 1978, p. 3. Ibid., p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., Fiction Jury Report, December 13, 1979, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., Ibid., p. 65. Fiction Jury Report, December 13, 1980, p. 1.

1. p. 53. p. 53. p. 53.

30 Walker Percy's selfless and vital service in bringing to public attention a superb work of fiction that in all likelihood would otherwise have languished unpublished and unknown." 1 9 8 The Board was of the same opinion and announced John Kennedy Toole as winner of the Pulitzer Prize posthumously. 199 The jury of 1982 also suggested three finalists by naming in mutual agreement the following books: (1) A Flag for Sunrise, by Robert Stone; (2) Housekeeping, by Marilynne Robinson; (3) Rabbit Is Rich, by John Updike. 2 0 0 Appraising the literary works separately and in detail the report states: "A Flag for Sunrise is a fiercely intelligent novel, sad, ironic, dramatic. In addition it is superb reading. It asks questions we try to hide from... Housekeeping... is full of wonderful intensities and subtleties... This is a first novel of unusual quality... Rabbit Is Rich is number three in John Updike's series on Harry Angstrom (Rabbit). Updike, le maestre: ... No one writing in English today can match his purity of style." 201 Although the jurors pointed out once again at the end of their report that they "strongly recommend Stone," 2 0 2 the Advisory Board did not accept this proposal. The committee decided in favor of the candidate ranking third and gave the Pulitzer Prize to John H. Updike for his work Rabbit Is Rich,2°3 In 1983 the work of the jurors was characterized by a disagreement on who should be the favorite for the prize, and this dissent was also expressed towards the Advisory Board. "Two of the jurors find themselves in complete agreement," as it can be understood from the report, "but the chairman, alas, disagrees, and feels sufficiently strongly about it to mention the fact. We did agree, however, to present... the following books, listed in the order of preference voted by a majority of the jury. Their strongest recommendation appears first; the chairman's strongest recommendation appears third. 1. The Color Purple, by Alice Walker... (is) far superior to any other work of American fiction published this year... 2. Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant, by Anne Tyler... This is a fine family novel for which the metaphor of the title is tellingly apt. 3. Rabbis and Wives, by Chaim Grade..., a collection of three interrelated novellas." 204 The Advisory Board declared Alice M. Walker winner of the Pulitzer Prize for her novel The Color Purple 205 A reconstituted jury acting in 1984 once again drew up a joint list of suggestions comprising the following works of fiction: The Feud, by Thomas Berger; Cathedral, by Raymond Carver; and Ironweed, by William Kennedy. "Although all are distinguished nominees," as it is made clear in the report, "the jurors unanimously agree that the prize should go to Thomas Berger, who in The Feud and other novels meets especially the award criterion for fiction 'preferably dealing with American life'... Our second choice is William Kennedy. Ironweed, too, has an American voice... Using a rich mixture of reality and fantasy, Kennedy creates a universe out of a single place and reminds us of the human characteristics we share with those we consider society's outcasts. Raymond Carver is our final nominee. His short-story collection, Cathedral, is a model of econo-

198 Ibid., pp. 1 f. 199 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. 200 Fiction Jury Report, January 8, 1982, p. 1. 201 Ibid. 202 Ibid. 203 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. 204 Fiction Jury Report, undated (January 1983), pp. 1 f. 205 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53.

31

John Updike

RABBIT IS RICH

Alfred A. Knopf 1981

New York

32 my and precisely observed physical detail." 206 The Advisory Board was especially taken with Ironweed and therefore the Pulitzer Prize went to William J. Kennedy. 2 0 7 The jurors of 1985 also presented a list of suggestions that included in alphabetical order the following novels: "Foreign Affairs by Alison Lurie: This witty comedy takes up what Henry James liked to call 'the international theme' - the impact of European civilization on its American visitors... I Wish This War Were Over by Diana O'Hehir: Meticulous characterization and an inspired sense of time and place distinguish this novel set in World War II America... Leaving the Land by Douglas Unger: This first novel treats a painful contemporary subject, the squeezing out of existence of small farmers, whose way of life is made obsolete during the book's thirty-year span by the takeover of agribusiness." 208 The Advisory Board voted in favor of the novel Foreign Affairs, and so the Pulitzer Prize for fiction went to Alison Lurie 2 0 9 The list of finalists of 1986, presented by a new jury, consisted of the following three suggestions: The Accidental Tourist, by Anne Tyler; Continental Drift, by Russell Banks; and Lonesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry. "The Accidental Tourist," as the jurors described the book on the top of their list, "is a novel of great merit... Anne Tyler has taken as her fictional territory that sprawling American landscape of the Middle Class... Continental Drift is a modern masterpiece. It is the one work upon which the jury agreed at once and without reservation... Continental Drift is a visionary epic about innocence and evil, and it is extremely well written... We feel that this novel is truly distinguished, and we give it our very highest recommendation. Lonesome Dove is an American epic. It is surely one of the most nearly complete western novels ever written... This is a monumental work of action, vision, and irony." 2 1 0 Despite the fact that the jury lavished its highest praise on Continental Drift the Advisory Board gave the award to Lonesome Dove and announced Larry J. McMurtry as winner of the Pulitzer Prize. 2 1 1 The jury composing the list of finalists in 1987 wrote at the beginning of its report that it "found this a puzzling, even exasperating year. Many of America's best novelists weighed in with books that do not compare favorably with their best past efforts... A likely candidate - Norman Rush's Whites - surfaced early. We three agreed at once," the report continues, "that this remarkable book was well worth the prize. But we were charged with finding two more to recommend - and this proved uncommonly difficult... It is our unanimous recommendation that Norman Rush's collection of remarkable stories, Whites, is alone worthy of this year's Pulitzer Prize for fiction. Our other recommendations - Donald Barthelme's Paradise and Peter Taylor's A Summons to Memphis are listed alphabetically and are offered with the understanding that all three of us found these novels something less than their author's best work, particularly their work in the short story form." 2 1 2 In spite of the high praise for the book by Norman Rush the Advisory Board did not endorse the jury's proposal but declared A Summons to Memphis by Peter H. Taylor winner of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. 2 1 3

206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213

Fiction Jury Report, January 31, 1984, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., Fiction Jury Report, January 15, 1985, p . l . Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., Fiction Jury Report, December 13, 1985, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., Fiction Jury Report, December 23, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit.,

p. 53. p. 53. p. 53. p. 53.

33 The three finalists that the jurors of 1988 agreed on were: Beloved, by Toni Morrison; Persian Nights, by Diane Johnson; and That Night, by Alice McDermott. "Beloved," the jury stressed in its report, "is a work of assured, immense distinction, destined to become an American classic... The writing in Beloved is dense and rich, its structure brilliantly fragmented, discontinuous, expressive... Persian Nights... is a brilliant and sometimes dazzlingly, vividly beautiful portrait of pre-revolutionary Iran, visited by a group of American doctors, and wives... That Night...: In a wonderfully balanced yet piercing fashion, McDermott tells us some particular and universal things about the passion and frailty of adolescent illusion and the eroding cycles of the blue/white-collar society in which they are set." 2 1 4 The Advisory Board found the jury's praise for Beloved to be the most convincing and therefore decided to bestow the award on Toni Morrison. 2 1 5 She earned the Nobel Prize for Literature five years later. The three jurors acting as members of the panel in 1989 complained unanimously at the beginning of their report, "that... it has been difficult to find any books that are of sufficient merit to deserve the Pulitzer Prize, much less to agree on three that can be submitted to the Board in good conscience. Of the dozens of books that have been nominated, only two have the support of all three judges... They are listed alphabetically, by author: "1. Where I'm Calling From, by Raymond Carver... is the definitive collection of stories by a writer who has been a major influence on American fiction and who died shortly after its publication... He was one of the rare postwar American writers of literary fiction whose principal subject was the lives of ordinary, blue-collar citizens... 2. Breathing Lessons, by Anne Tyler. This writer's eleventh novel is one of her best... Tyler is one of our most serious and accomplished novelists, and here she writes with characteristic humor and insight." 216 The Advisory Board voted in favor of Anne Tyler and her book Breathing Lessons.217 In 1990 the jurors made it perfectly clear that "the fiction jury unanimously and enthusiastically regards two (and only two) of this year's eligible titles to be supremely worthy of a Pulitzer Prize... A nearly flawless work by a writer of major stature, E. L. Doctorow's eighth novel opens with one of the most riveting passages in American fiction. Billy Bathgate, like Huckleberry Finn, introduces a narrative voice of exceptional charm and individuality... Billy Bathgate is Mr. Doctorow's masterpiece. Oscar Hijuelos' second novel, an exuberant depiction of the Cuban American experience in New York during the 1950s," as it was said of the second favorite for the prize, "vividly recreates an era in which the rhythms of Latin jazz filled the nighttime air. Gorgeously written, alternately comic and deeply moving, The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love joyfully, gently, and innocently celebrates the lives of two appealing brothers as, far from their native soil, they pursue an elusive American dream." 2 1 8 The Advisory Board was totally convinced by the high praise enumerating the merits of The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love and so the Pulitzer Prize for fiction was given to Oscar Hijuelos. 21 ^ For the award in 1991 the jury once again decided to offer "three choices for the prize in fiction: Linda Hogan - Mean Spirits... is an equation of tragedy and truth on the one hand, hope and endurance on the other - that most universal of tensions in literature. Its 214 Fiction Jury Report, December 26, 1987, pp. 1 ff. 215 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. 216 Fiction Jury Report, undated (January 1989), pp. 1 f. 217 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54. 218 Fiction Jury Report, December 16, 1989, p. 1. 219 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54.

34

BELOVED A

N O V E L

BY

Toni Morrison

V

Alfred A. Knopf

New York

1987

35 subject is native and important, its perception profound, and its writing distinguished... Tim O'Brien - The Things They Carried... are pieces in a mosaic that it has taken O'Brien - 25 years after the Vietnam War - to assemble... John Updike - Rabbit At Rest" was the third title suggested by the jury, which gave the following further explanation in their report: "Aware that the previous Rabbit was given a Pulitzer" nine years ago, "the jury would not recommend this one if it did not feel that it has gone far beyond the others and provided a climactic finish to the four-volume life history of a particular class and generation of Americans. It represents the work of an artist who has arrived at the very peak of his powers." 2 2 0 In view of this laudatory comments the Advisory Board had no reason to refrain from honoring yet another Rabbit-book with a Pulitzer Prize, and it therefore declared John H. Updike winner of the award. 2 2 1 The jurors of 1992 also drew up a list of three proposals that was ranked alphabetically and consisted of the following finalists: "Don DeLillo - Mao II. In the great tradition of American writing extending back to Whitman and Melville, Mao II is an attempt at a visionary politics and an attempt to write an anatomy of our discontent... David Gates Jernigan. Staggering under the weight of modern ennui and his own treacherous past, the narrator of Jernigan is one of the most memorable voices in recent American fiction... Jane Smiley - A Thousand Acres. In this book," the jury report continues, "Jane Smiley brings the enduring resonance of her prose to a profoundly American novel." 2 2 2 The Advisory Board voted in favor of Jane G. Smiley, who consequently won the Pulitzer Fiction Prize for her novel A Thousand Acres.223 In 1993 the three members of the jury put the following three novels on their shortlist of finalists: Black Water, by Joyce Carol Oates; A Good Scent from a Strange Mountain, by Robert Olen Butler; and At Weddings and Wakes, by Alice McDermott. "Elegantly written and haunting," the jurors commented, "Black Water is that rarest of novels: a fiction that goes beneath the historical record and newspaper headlines to unearth the truth of the human heart." Among other things it was said of A Good Scent from a Strange Mountain: "We moved into Vietnam and then moved out. With remarkable sensibility, Robert Olen Butler moves Vietnam into us, and it won't move out." Alice McDermott's At Weddings and Wakes was praised especially for its "density of details" as well as "the graceful narrative structure." 224 The Advisory Board regarded A Good Scent from a Strange Mountain as the best novel of the year and pronounced Robert Olen Butler Jr. the winner in the Pulitzer Prize Fiction category. 225 The jury of 1994 suggested fiction books by these three authors: Reynolds Price, E. Annie Proulx and Philip Roth. Price's volume, The Collected Stories, was mentioned first. The author was called "a consistent and plangent voice in American fiction: eloquent, graceful, controlled." Proulx's book The Shipping News, according to the jurors, confirmed that the author "is one of the most original narrative gifts to come along in years..." The third finalist, Philip Roth, in his work Operation Shylock presented "a masterpiece of contemporary fiction... Full of inventions that startle, sentences that glow and sparkling Rothian ironies, this novel gives relief from the sort of milky fiction

220 221 222 223 224 225

Fiction Jury Report, December 29, 1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54. Fiction Jury Report, December 11, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 5. Fiction Jury Report, December 22, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 6.

36

^Wii..

THE SHIPPING NEWS Ε. ANNIE PROULX CHARLES

SCRIBNER'S NEW YORK

SONS

MAXWELL MACMILLAN CANADA TORONTO MAXWELL MACMILLAN INTERNATIONAL NEW YORK OXFORD SINGAPORE SYDNEY

-'"V

A r v r T 7

\

37 that would have us believe ours is a world without ideas." 2 2 6 The Board picked E. Annie Proulx and her book The Shipping News as the winner. 2 2 7 In 1995 the jurors started their report by saying that Joyce Carol Oates' novel What I Lived For "is a late 20th Century masterpiece - a sprawling, encyclopedic and deeply moving story of business, politics, sex, science, and morality..." The Collected Stories by Grace Paley, in the eyes of the jury, presented "a view of a life and of a time as profound and encompassing as any novel... No writer of our time has a more distinctive voice than does Grace Paley... This volume is a masterpiece of style and substance." Third on the shortlist was Carol Shields with her book The Stone Diaries. "Even though the author does not sustain the brilliance of her opening chapters," the jurors stated, "the book as a whole is clearly prizeworthy, though not, we all feel, so obviously prizeworthy as our more artistically integrated nominees." 228 The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award on Carol Shields for The Stone Diaries 229 The Fiction jury of 1996 first mentioned Richard Ford's Independence Day. "Ford actually knows and cares," the jury report states, "how ordinary business gets done... Independence Day ends in triumph, thanks to... Richard Ford's artistry" in making the story "credible, admirable and profoundly moving." Oscar Hijuelos' book Mr. Ives' Christmas, according to the jury, "is a laconic and somber novel, with a sweet reverence at its center that reverberates like a hymn in the desert..." Third on the shortlist was Sabbath's Theater by Philip Roth. This novel, the jury said, "has composed a brilliant symphony of erotic and tragicomic mourning... Philosophically rich and wild, Roth's storytelling possesses an unwaveringly deep understanding of both comedy and sadness." 230 The Board decided in favor of the book Independence Day and Richard Ford won the Pulitzer Prize. 2 3 1 In 1997 nominating jury in the Fiction category proposed the following three books as candidates for the award: Unlocking the Air and Other Stories by Ursula K. Le Guin. The collection was called "a series of carefully crafted meditations, using a variety of fictional techniques... The clarity of her vision and of her extraordinarily well-craftet prose" are outstanding. "Certainly... such an achievement is worthy of the Pulitzer Prize." Steven Millhauser's volume Martin Dressier: The Tale of an American Dreamer was mentioned as second book on the shortlist. The jury called it "a witty, compassionate parable about capitalism, technology, and the imagination... This is an extraordinary book, and could come to be regarded as a classic." Third on the jury's list was The Manikin by Joanna Scott. In her "rich and elastic language," the report says, the book is "almost a poem, with a poem's deep texture and a poem's compelling powers of persuasion." 232 In addition, a minority report was attached in supporting a fourth book, The King of Babylon Shall Not Come Against You by George Garrett. 233 The Board was most impressed by the work Martin Dressier: The Tale of an American Dreamer and Steven Millhauser won the prize. 2 3 4

226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234

Fiction Jury Report, December 18, 1993, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., Fiction Jury Report, December 31, 1994, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., Fiction Jury Report, December 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., Fiction Jury Report, December 28, 1996, pp. 1 f. Minority Jury Report, December 28, 1996, p. 2. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes...,

New York, April 12, 1994, p. 5. New York, April 18, 1995, p. 7. New York, April 9, 1996, p. 7.

New York, April 7, 1997, p. 6.

38 The jury report for the 1998 Pulitzer Prize in Fiction contained these three finalists: Underworld by Don DeLillo, American Pastoral by Philip Roth, and Bear and His Daughter by Robert Stone. Don DeLillo's work was characterized as a "magisterial ode to American culture and modern literature" that "has the reach and wildness of Idaho, but the dark beauty at its center resonates with the specificity of human loss." According to the jurors, Philip Roth's book "delivers the promises and myths of a post-war America, then watches with helpless compassion as the dream discharges." Robert Stone's volume was explained this way: "Typically fueled by whiskey, rage, or religious zeal, his characters court various forms of disaster, and in so doing lead the shaken reader into a number of living hells." 235 The Board members voted in favor of Philip Roth and his work American Pastoral,236 In 1999 the three finalists in the Fiction category were: Cloudsplitter, by Russell Banks; The Hours, by Michael Cunningham; and The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver. Claudsplitter was called by the jurors "an elegantly rendered and finely written novel about the career and passions of John Brown, icon of the pre-civil war antislavery movement.... It is a memorable novel, worthy of Pulitzer consideration." Cunningham's book The Hours was praised as "a beautifully written, kaleidoscopic work whose four-person complexity affects us with lyrical directness." The Poisonwood Bible was chosen by the jurors "for its rare and sensitive evocation of the western presence in Africa and the moral considerations surrounding it." 2 3 7 For the Board members The Hours was the best book in the competition so that Michael Cunningham earned the Pulitzer Prize. 2 3 8 The jurors of the following year, 2000, had these three fiction books on their shortlist: Close Range - Wyoming Stories, by Annie Proulx; Interpreter of Maladies, by Jhumpa Lahiri; and Waiting, by Ha Jin. "Proulx's vernacular language," the jurors said in their report, "suggests the fierce beauty of her Wyoming surroundings, with sentences utterly inimitable, colorful, spiky - that are among the glories of contemporary letters." Lahiri's work was praised for "a gradual acccumulation of narrative material; clear, straightforward sentences that convey crucial details without drawing attention to their own beauty; credible, casual dialogue." Waiting, the book by Ha Jin, was characterized this way: "The language is spare, flat, almost reductive in places; at times it sounds like fairy-tale narration, at times like social-realist description." 239 The Pulitzer Prize Board decided in favor of Jhumpa Lahiri and her book Interpreter of Maladies?^ In 2001 the jurors put the following three finalists on their list: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, by Michael Chabon; Blonde, by Joyce Carol Oates; and The Quick and the Dead, by Joy William. "Brilliantly conceived and passionately rendered," the jurors said about Chabon's book, it "moves with the power of a locomotive, but its moral center is what sustains the momentum: Chabon understands the transcendent power of myth (artistic or religious) as well as the earth-bound charms of fantasy, adventure, and old-fashioned romance. Funny, wrenching, and razzle-dazzle wise, this novel is in love with the sigthts and smells and sounds of life lived day-to-day." Blonde, the jury added, "is audacious, excessive, unstintingly serious and even severe in what its intellec235 236 237 238 239 240

Fiction Jury Report, December 31, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 6. Fiction Jury Report, December 31, 1998, p. 2. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 6. Fiction Jury Report, undated (ca. January 2000), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 5.

39 tual and narrative curiosity force upon the reader... Blonde deepens our sympathies for ourselves (at a cost), it sharpens our distaste for venality, it broadens our view of what's relevant to moral judgment, and it snares us with our own indecencies." William's book was called a "firestorm of a novel... If The Quick and the Dead eventually scatters into a meteor shower of brilliant images, the traces it leaves behind possess a breathtaking, ominous beauty." 241 The members of the Pulitzer Board were most impressed by the work The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay so that the Pulitzer Fiction Prize went to Michael Chabon. 2 4 2 When the jurors of 2002 made their selections, they got the following three works on their list: The Corrections, by Jonathan Franzen; Empire Falls, by Richard Russo; and John Henry Days, by Colson Whitehead. "The Corrections," the jury report states, "is one of the gems of contemporary American writing. Jonathan Franzen has taken the by now familiar literary convention of the dysfunctional family... and fuels it with fresh, powerful energy... With devastating humor and brilliant, sharp observation, Franzen creates characters major and minor, each of whom he infuses with life... In the realm of the comic and the psychologically dark, in the arena where the novel is a true social and moral revelation, Franzen is a burgeoning American master." Richard Russo's book Empire Falls, the jurors said, "is a deeply moving story of class, gender, family, power and vengeance. The central conflict is between the intelligent, dutiful Miles Roby, and his employer, Francine Whiting, the town's most powerful person... By turns affectionate, humorous, and passionate, Empire Falls provides insights into American culture far beyond the town limits." Colson Whitehead's novel was described by the jury this way: "A still-young black man, a hack writer who will supply on demand articles of any length on any aspect of late 20th century pop culture from Barbie dolls to Planet Hollywood, finds himself in West Virginia for the staging of a festival and issuing of a stamp to honor John Henry, the 19th-century steel-driving man... We learn a lot about railroads and stamp-collecting, and listen to brilliant satirical riffs..." 243 In the eyes of the Pulitzer Prize Board Empire Falls was the best novel, and so Richard Russo earned the award 2 4 4 In 2003 the jury members decided to put these three fiction books on their list of finalists: Servants of the Map - Stories, by Andrea Barrett; Middlesex, by Jeffrey Eugenides; and You Are Not a Stranger Here, by Adam Haslett. "Andrea Barrett," the jurors stated in their report, "has the cool, meticulous vision of a 19th-century scientist, and her inter-connected stories unfold with a quit precision that belies their depth." Middlesex, in the eyes of the jury, "is a vastly realized, multi-generational novel as highspirited as it is intelligent... Like the masks of Greek drama, Middlesex is equal parts comedy and tragedy, but its real triumph is its emotional abundance, delivered with consummate auhtority and grace." And the third book on the list of finalists was praised with these words: "The lithe, austere stories of Haslett's debut collection offer a beautiful testament to the ache and longing of human connection. Death and mental illness are all over these stories, but so, too, is the profound capacity for mercy: the road we build between the unbearable and the grace to go on." 2 4 5 The Board decided in favor of Jeffrey Eugenides and his novel Middlesex.246 241 242 243 244 245 246

Fiction Jury Report, undated (ca. January 2001), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 85th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 16, 2001, p. 6. Fiction Jury Report, December 29, 2001, p. 2. Columbia University, The 86th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 8, 2002, p. 6. Fiction Jury Report, January 2, 2003, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 87th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 2003, p. 6.

40

Winner of the

r

Pulitzer Prize

asm·

GIL EAD A

ΓίΌΛ EL

Ipi

THE NEW YORK TIMES, THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005

41 When the jury members of 2004 made their report they stated right at the beginning: "The three fiction choices have more in common, in one sense, than most such Pulitzer lists. All three treat some large American subject." In the alphabetical order by names, the first work mentioned on the list was Susan Choi's American Women. "Her book is a moving work which speaks to today and to the past, times of turmoil and tragedy," the jury said and called the volume "hard-hitting prose." Another finalist was Edward P. Jones with his book The Known World. In the eyes of the jury, it was "a masterwork of historical imagination... This striking work, elegantly and (unlikely as it may seem) wittily told, is nothing less than an inquiry into the pathology of submission." Third on the jury's list was Marianne Wiggins' Evidence of Things Unseen. She "has written a saga, of sorts; one that traces the expansion of America," the report says. 2 4 7 When the Board made its final decision for the award, the result was in favor of Edward P. Jones and his book The Known World,248 In 2005 the jury came to the following decisions for the list of finalists: War Trash, by Ha Jin; An Unfinished Season, by Ward Just; and Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson who received the award for her outstanding book. 2 4 9 The 2006 fiction jurors selected the following three finalists: March, by Geraldine Brooks; The March, by E. L. Doctorow; and The Bright Forever, by Lee Martin. In the eyes of the members of the Pulitzer Prize Board Geraldine Brooks' book March was the best and so it earned the award. 2 5 0 Nominated as finalists in the 2007 fiction category were: The Road, by Cormac McCarthy; After This, by Alice McDermott; and The Echo Maker, by Richard Powers. The Board voted in favor of The Road so that Cormac McCarthy was the winner. 2 5 1 It was the author's 10th novel. 2 5 2

247 248 249 250 251 252

Fiction Jury Report, November 29, 2003, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 88th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 5, 2004, p. 6. Columbia University, The 89th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 4, 2005, p. 5. Columbia University, The 90th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 17, 2006, p. 6. Columbia University, The 91st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 16, 2007, p. 6. N.N., Fiction, in: The New York Times, Vol. CLVI/No. 53,917, April 17, 2007, p. Β 8, col. 1.

42

THE R O A b Cormac McCarthy

ALFRED

A. KNOPF

2006

NEW

YORK

Facsimiles of Jury Reports

45

1917 Award

Winner By d e c i s i o n

of the Board

was no winner category

in the

of that

Jurors Robert

Grant

W i l l i a m M.

Pane

William

Phelps

L.

year

there

Novel

46

Report läay 8, 1917.

Professor William M. Sloane, Chancellor of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, New York, Έ. Y. Dear Sir: On behalf of the jury selected by you to nominate an award of the Pulitzer prize for "the American novel published during the year which shall best present the wholesome atmosphere of American life and the highest standard of American manners and manhood," I have the honor to make the following report: There were only six applicants for the prize, one of whom sent, not a printed book; but a manuscript, which fails to meet the requirement of publication during the year.

Of the five books submitted in competition,all but

one seem to us unworthy of consideration for the prize. We are unanimously of the opinion, however, that the merits of this book, though considerable, are no greater than that of several other novels, which though not included in the formal applications, have been taken into consideration by us in arriving at a verdict.

We recommend that the award

be withheld this year for the reason that no American novel of 1916 stands out so conspicuously from the rest as to deserve this 'special mark of recognition.

An award by us

47 - 2 would only mean a choice among equals and would be liable to misinterpretation. We take the liberty of suggesting that it would be advisable in future to give the jury a longer period for consideration_so that the field can be more comprehensively covered, especially if the material submitted by the formal applicants does not rise above the very low level of this year.

It would, seem well also that the existence of this

annual prize of $1,000 should be more widely advertised, or at least called to the attention of the established writers of the country, so that in one way or another the important books

may

be included among the formal entries.

Perhaps,

too, some weeding out of obviously inferior matter could be accomplished before the jury is consulted. Yours very truly

49

1918 Award Winner Ernest

Poole, His Family,

New York: The Macmillan Company,

1917

Jurors Robert Grant William M. Payne William L. Phelps

50

Report /a,

y^—T^^C PAZ

try / f / ^

7ΪΓ~ /T-^iTCTf- 'Stasis-

/ A v p^ptlu^

.

^ l ·

51

1919 Award

Winner Booth

Tarkington,

Ambersons, Dunlap

New Y o r k :

Publishers,

Jurors

.Robert

Grant

W i l l i a m M.

Payne

William

Phelps

L.

The

Magnificent Grosset

1918

and

52

Report A p r i l 22, 1919

President Nichols Hurray Butler,

Dear Sir:« On behalf of the jury appointed toy you to consider the award of the Pulitzer prize for the best novel of 1918, I hereby report that the Committee, after eareful consideration, has reluctantly

reached

the conclusion, that no one of the novels of 1918 merits this

distinction.

Yours

sincerely

53 Kay 13,

1919

Mr, TTrank D. Fackentha.1, ColuEbia U n i v e r s i t y , Eew York.

Dear Mr. J a c k e n t h a i , F l e a s e eon&ider the l e t t e r which I wrote

to President B u t l e r some weeks ago, as the

f i n a l report of the committee t o award the P u l i t z e r prize.

A f t e r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the coxamittee

has been unable to agree t h a t any novel of 1916 deserves the p r i z e » I am s o r r y t h a t the announcement ehould be made only a t the l a s t moment, but owing p a r t l y t e Mr· Payne's i l l n e s s ,

f i n a l d e c i s i o n in the matter

was unavoidable u n t i l now. Trusting t h a t t h i s has not inconvenienced President B u t l e r ' s arrangements, Yours v*ry t r u l y ,

I are,

54 May 20, i 9 T j Dear Mr. Jacken t h a i : Is i t too l a t e to give the novel prize to Booth l a r k i n g t o n ' s The Magnificent Ambersons? I have a l e t t e r from Judge Grant t h i s morning, who says " I would have voted to give i t the prize r a t h e r than not award one".

I am writing Judge Grant and Mr. Payne

today. Let me know i f i t i s too l a t e or i f you would p r e f e r not to give the p r i z e . And b e l i e v e me F a i t h f u l l y yours,

55

May 2H-, I9I9 Professor William Lyon Phelps Yale University Hew Haven, Connectlout Dear Professor Phelps: I have communicated, by telegraph, with the members of the Advisory Board of the School of Journalism, and they have voted to award the prize for the best novel of 191S to Tha Magnifloent tebersons, by Booth Tarkington, as suggested in your letter of the 20th« Faithfully yours,

lioholaa Murray But1b®

56

WEST! NIGH

N E W C O M B C A R L T O N , PRESIDENT aay 21,

following quota the

in

ooisasficaticm It

too

Saptlfle'Si«

lata

ssttssA

L«t

π® fcnuuf i f

the

prize,

g i v e . the

Aatoeraona?

i s o m i n s vfafi . n a y s I than net

to

fröre Chnirtsui S o v e l

would

I

a latter

lkwre v o t e «

to· give

απ».

J a » writ. Sag Judge

it

too

is

naqucts.

"Wi?«

lata vote

or on

Jury

novo! prise

have

i f

to

recei.VÄ Booth

TnrSington*«

f r o e Ju4ge it

the

Grr-nt· & M

yem w o u l d

awarding

Sicholna

1919

prise Mr.

prvfet

prise*

"Mxrr-.y B u t l e r

6r.a*fc'

rather

p'tyne not

this

to

today. give

57

N E W C O M B C A R L T O N , PRESIDENT

T69FY

FBI

GEORGE W . E. A T K I N S , FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT

6 TG NEWVOBK

ι OA MAY 2 2

Ν I CHQLAR MURRAY B U T L E R

1919

Of]**

C O L U M B I i UN I VEHS I T V

MY VOTE

FAVOSASLE

TO

AWARD

NEWYORK

TARKINGTON Ε

Ρ

MITCHELL 10 40 A

58

N E W C O M B C A R L T O N , PRESIDENT

G E O R G E W . E. A T K I N S .

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT

AT 2780 BROADWAY, N E W YORK T1SgFY

FR I 13

CNT.RNS "MR P H I L A D E L P H I A

DR N I C H O L A S

MURRAY BUTLER

PA

133P M A Y

AWARD THE

NOVEL

ANDERSON" SAMUEL

C WELLS

337P

1919

1 7 9 COLUMBIA

I V O T E TO

22

P R I Z E TO

UNIVERSITVN.EWYORK TAfiK-l NGT0N.S " T H E

MAGNIFICENT

59

N E W C O M B C A R L T O N , PRESIDENT

G E O R G E W . E . A T K I N S , FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT

2 7 8 0 BROADWAY, NEW YORK T210FYFFW

5 SPRINGFIELD

NICHOLAS

MUB1AY COLUMBIA

I VOTE

TO

MAS 7 4 7 Ρ

BUTLE* UNIVERSITY

AWARD THE

PRIZE

MAY22

1919

^ 6 5 NEWARK TO

BOOTH

TARKINGTOR SOLOMON Β

GRIFFIN •Ί18Ρ

61

1920 Award

Winner By was

decision

of the Board

no w i n n e r

category

in the

of that

Jurors Robert

Grant

W i l l i a m L. Stuart

P.

Phelps Sherman

year

there

Novel

62

Report April 29, 1920. President Nicholas Murray Butler, Columbia University, New York. Dear Sir:On behalf of the Jury designated by the American Academy of Arts and Letters to recommend for a -Pulitzer Prize the best novel of 1919, I have the honor to report that we are of the opinion that no award should be made. Yours very truly,

63

1921 Award

Winner Edith Wharton, Hew Y o r k Company,

The Age

of

Innocence,

L o n d o n : D. A p p l e t o n

1920

Jurors Hamlin

Garland

Robert

M.

Lovett

Stuart

P.

Sherman

and

64

Report The 1921 Novel Jury Report is missing in the Pulitzer Prize Office at Columbia University, New York

65

1922 Award

Winner

Booth

Tarkington, Alice

New Y o r k :

G r o s s e t and

Publishers,

1921

Jurors

S a m u e l M.

Crothers

Jefferson

B.

Stuart

Sherman

P.

Fletcher

Adams,

Dunlap

66

Report April 24, 1922

Mr. Philip M. Hayden Office of the Secretary Columbia University Hew Yorlc City My dear Mr. Heyden: Dr. Crothers, Professor Fletcher, and I agree that Booth larkington's "Alice Adams" is the test novel of 1921 which can be construed as coming under the terms of the Pulitzer competition.

We accordingly recommend it for

the Pulitzer novel prize.

Sincerely yours

Chairman of the Jury

67

1923 Award

Winner

Villa New

C a t h e r , One

York: Alfred

of A.

Ours, Knopf,

1922

Jurors

S a m u e l M.

Crothers

Jefferson

B.

Bliss

Perry

Fletcher

68

Report Hew York, April 3, 1923

Mr. P. D . Fackenthal, Secretary of the University.

Dear M r . Fackenthal: I beg to report tlxat tiLe Committee recommends for the Pulitzer Prize to be awarded for the "best American novel in 1922, "One of Ours" by Miss Willa Gather. perhaps add that this recommendation is made without siasm.

I might enthu-

The Committee, as I understand its feeling, assumes

that the Trustees of the Fund desire that award should be made each year.

In that case, we are of the opinion that

Miss Cather's novel, imperfect as we think it in many respects, is yet the most worth while of any in the field. Very truly yours,

69

1924 Award

Winner M a r g a r e t W i l s o n , The Able

McLaughlins,

New York

and

- London: Harper

Publishers,

1923

Jurors

S a m u e l M.

Crothers

Jefferson

B.

Bliss

Perry

Fletcher

Brothers

70

Report April 1, 1924.

Hr. F. D. Fackenthal, Secretary, Columbia University. Dear Mr. Fackenthal: "Jj^committee on the Pulitzer Prize has arrived at the following decision: first, that in its opinion there is no "book outstanding enough to merit a prize this year, but that, secondly, if it is deemed that a prize should be awarded anyhow, the committee would name "Margaret Wilson's" The Able McLaughlins. It is understood of course^CIiat if the Trustees desire the award to be made t|ViHr· no public announcement shall be made of the opinion of the committee that no book is worthy. Truly yours,

71

1925 Award

Winner Edna F e r b e r , N.Y.:

So B i g , G a r d e n

Doubleday,

Company,

Page

1924

Jurors Oscar W.

Firkins

Jefferson William

A.

B.

Fletcher

White

and

City,

72

Report 3 April 1925 Trustees of tiie Pulitzer Prize Sund; Gentlemen: I beg to submit the following report oi" the Jury consisting of Er. ./illiam Allen ihite, Profess-or 0. ΊΙ. P'irkins, m d myself, on' tiie prize i'or tiie test novel of 1924. Tiie Jury hrs come to no full agreement. The issue hangs,: however, between three novels: Joseph EergesheimerTs Balisand. Sane Berber's 3o Big, end Ic&rence Stalling*s Plumes. ϊϊτ. .ixiite's first choice is So Big. Professor firkin's is Balisand. Por second choice "both Sr. .Vhite end Professor Pirkins n m e Plumes. If s positive choice by the Irustees is desired, I siio aid prefer, myself, Ballsand. but my greater preference under the circiuastances would be to divide the prize between Balisand end So Bis. i£r. white's preference for 5o Bis rests upon his conviction that Hiss Berber has presented a needed lesson and that moreover the book sustains powerfully to tue end its hürnen interest. Eis objection to Balisand is that he'recognizes its artistic skill but regexds its' motive as "trivial" . Professor Pirkins on the contrary stresses very highly indeed the distinguished style and the thoughtfulness of Balisand. He has not expressed himself as to So Big, 'beyond declaring Iiis willingness to count it as a poor1'third. As for myself, Be.lisand end So Big seem admirably to illustrate two widely sundered literary appeals. I agree with Professor Pirkins heartily as to the artistic distinction of Balisand and do not myself find its motive trivial. It gives a dramatic and graphic picture.of a very interesting phase of bygone American life, the postrevolutionary period in Virginia. At the same time its dramatic interest does, I think, fall oil' seriously in its '-latter half. ^.gain, there is no disputing the strong emotional appeal and lively narrative interest of So Big. On the other hsnd tais very appeal to the feelings "is -6t times,•as it seems to. me, rather raw. Regretting that I sm unable to present a more definitive decision I remain Sincerely yours,

73 N e w Y o r k , April 7, 1925

M r . Samuel 0. Fackenthal, Columbia University, New Y o r k City Dear M r . Fackenthal: It w a s impossible to make a n unanimous a g r e e m e n t on first, choice i n the committee selected to recomm e n d a novel the-trustees of the Pulitzer A w a r d this year, and I have consented; to .join the other two m e m b e r s of the committee i n recommending Mr. Joseph Hergisheimer's "Balisand" though m y own feeling was v e r y strongly i n favor of Miss Edna Ferber's "So B i g " . M y second choice,and I believe that of another member of the/committee, was M r . Stalling's "Plumes", b u t 1 believe a third m e m b e r of the committee very strenuously o b j e c t e d to "Plumes" a n d it was impossible to unite on that as our committee's recommendation. Miss Ferber's "So Big", I b e l i e v e , was r a n k e d third b y the other two members of the committee. I realize that in the matter of style and technique "Balisand" was superior to either of the other two novels.. My o b j e c t i o n to it was v e r y strong and was b a s e d u p o n the fact of the unimportance of its thesis. Every author consciously or unconsciously dramatizes an idea a n d the idea back of "Balisand" w a s thin and trivial, and besides, "Balisand"s hero was a cad. I felt, o n the other hand, that Miss Ferber's thesis was one uf ν.ίυ badly needed' i n America and one w h i c h was dramatized w i t h m u c h skill. The contention of her b o o k is that America'heeds creative spirit i n something beside finance; that we should express ourselves in beautiful thing?, beautiful architecture, beautiful lines and that beauty is the sad and vital lack of America. Hence, I stood for "So B i g " and I am earnestly hoping that if the Pulitzer judges feel t h a t a n unanimous decision of our Committee on Award is obtained for "Balisand" somewhat b y reason of m y dislike for a m i n o r i t y report, that the judges w i l l remember w h a t I have said of "So B i g " a n d if the matter is opened, w i l l give it consideration. This is,in no sense,a protest. I shall feel entirely happy i n the av/ard to "Balisand" if the judges

74 2

confirm the comraittee's r e p o r t . " B a l i s a n d " i s a b e a u t i f u l book and worthy of the award even i f I do n o t ' t h i n k i t i s so worth" as e i t h e r "-So B i s " or " P l u n e s " . Possibly a d e v i l i s h l u s t ^ f o r propaganda, which i s always more or l e s s i n my h e a r t prompts me in tnxs f e e l i n g . : e s p e c t f u l l y submitted,, ι

Mr. William Allen Väiit Emporia, Kansas.

9

λ

75 Hew Zork, A p r i l 7, 1925

Mr. J e f f e r s o n F l e t c h e r , Columbia University, Department of English Hew i o r k City Dear Mr. Fletcher: Enclosed I am sending you f o r Mr. Fackenthal a note explaining my vote on "Balisand". I

As I have explained i n my l a s t paragraph, my note to Mr. Fackenthal i s in no sense a p r o t e s t , but an explanation.

If,

on the other hand, you think i t

unwise to hand in e i t h e r that, I trust your judgment entirely.

Only because you suggested some such note i n our

telephone conversation, do I submit i t at a l l . I assure you i t has been a pleasureto work under your d i r e c t i o n in t h i s award and I wish our judgment had been more unanimous but I trust you w i l l b e l i e v e me when I say I am not at all/!aappy at the f i n a l result.. Sincerely yours,

76 April

23.1925-

To t h e P r e s i d e n t of the Advisory Board on. t h e P u l i t z e r

Prizes,

Columbia University,Hew 2 o r k C i t y . Dear S i r : I wish t o r e g i s t e r my emphatic p r o t e s t a g a i n s t the award of the P u l i t z e r n o v e l p r i z e f o r 1924 e x c l u s i v e l y t o Miss F e r b e r ' s So B i s . 1 acquiesced^unr e l u o t a n t l y , t h o u g h not u n r e g r e t f u l l y . i n M r . F l e t c h e r 1 s recommendation t h a t the p r i z e be d i v i d e d between So Βίκ and B a l i s a n d l do not l i k e d i v i s i o n s , b u t I l o v e h o n e s t y even more than I h a t e d i v i s i o n , a n d t h e divided award seemed t o me an h o n e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e c o m m i t t e e ' s h o n e s t l y d i v i d e d mind.Even so the award was s l i g h t l y u n f a i r t o B a l l sand. The u n f a i r n e s s becomes g r o s s when Bali-ea®& So Βίκ t h e d o u b t f u l e q u a l , i s placed by t h e Advisory B o a r d ' s award i n the p o s i t i o n of t h e u n q u e s t i o n a b l e s u p e r i o r . I w i l l n o t s o i l my f i n g e r s w i t h pay f o r any share t h a t I may have had even i n the i n n o c e n t p r e l i m i n a r i e s t h a t have i s s u e d i n t h i s q u i t o u s d e c i s i o n . I returiJjherewith the h u n d r e d - d o l l a r c h e c k e n d s h a l l f e e l

inientire-

l y f r e e — a f t e r " p r i l 2 7 t h — t o communicate my views of t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n t o my p e r s o n a l f r i e n d s or t o t h e American p u b l i c . Very t r u l y y o u r s ,

O.VTFjhk J rn/l

77

1926 Award Winner Sinclair York:

Lewis, Arrowsmith,

H a r c o u r t , Brace

Company,

1925

Jurors Richard Edwin

Burton

Lefevre

R o b e r t M.

Lovett

and

New

78

Report Pulitzer Prize ^ for r the best novel of 1925 The Committee reports as follows: It is the judgment'of the Committee,of which the un? dersigned is chairman,that Arrowsmith by Sinclair is,is the novel best deserving the award for the year 1925,having in view the fiction bearing a publisher' s imprint for that y.earjand with due regard for the conditions

governingthe Prize,as announc-

ed by Columbia University. In the opinion of the Com^mittee,several novels are worthy competitors,this beespecially true of The Smiths,by Janet Pairbants,and Porgy,by Du^a^^Heyward.

79

CpPtj

£For the information of the Advisory- Board of the Softool of Journalise]

April 23, 1926 [Personal and Confidential] Mr. Sinelair Lewie o/o Haroourt, Brace and Company 363 Madison Avenue Hew York City My dear Mr. Lewis X take very great pleasure in notifying yon« in confidence, that the prize of §1000· established by the wiH of the late Joseph Politzer f o r the best American novel published during the year 1925 has been awarded ttt Arrow» smith, published by Haroourt, Brace and Company· Public announcement of this prize will not be made until Monday, May 3rd, and in due course a check covering the amount of the prize will be sent to you. Very t ruly yours

Frank D. Faokenthal D

80

May S, To the P o l i t z e r P r i z e Committee. Courtesy of Mr. Frank 0 · Fackenthal, Seoretary, Ooluabia University, Yew York City. Sir·:Ζ wieb t o acknowledge your oholoe of my novel "Arroweaith" f o r the F a l i t s e r Prize* That p r i z e I must r e f u s e , and ay r e f u s a l would be meaningless unlets χ explained the reason*. - All p r i z e · , l i k e a l l t i t l e s , a r e dangerous· The seekers f o r p r i z e s tend t o labor not f o r inherent excellence but f o r alien rewards; they tend to write this» or tiMrously t o avoid writing t h a t , in order t o t i e k l e the prejudices of a haphazard coamittee. And the P u l i t z e r Prize f o r Hovels i s peculiarly objectionable because the t e r a s of i t have been constantly and grievously a i s r e p r e sented. Those t e r a s are that the p r i z e s h a l l be given *for t h e American novel published during t h e year whioh s h a l l best present the wholesome ataosphere of Aaerioaa l i f e » and the highest standard of American manners and manhood.· This phrase, i f i t means anything whatever, would appear t o aeen t h a t the appraisal of t h e novels s h a l l be made not according t o t h e i r actual l i t e r a r y merit but in obedience t o whatever code of Good Foxa aay chance to be popular at the moaent. That there i s such a l i m i t a t i o n of the award i s l i t t l e understood. Beoause of the condensed manner in whioh the announcement i s u s u a l l y reported, and beoause oertain publishers have trumpeted t h a t any novel whioh has received the P o l i t z e r P r i s e has thus been established without q u a l i f i c a t i o n as the best K0.Y3L, the public has ooae t o believe t h a t the prize i s the üigaest honor whioh an American novelist can receive. The P u l i t z e r Prize .for Hovels s i g n i f i e d , already, much more than a convenient thousand d o l l a r s to be accepted even by suoh w r i t e r s as smile seeretly at the actual wording of the terms. I t i s tending t o beooae a s a n c t i f i e d t r a d i t i o n . There i e a genera l belief that t h e administrators of t h e prize are a p o n t i f i c a l body with the discernment and t h e power t o grant t h e p r i z e a s the ultimate proof of merit. I t i s believed that they are always guided by a committee of responsible o r i t i o e , though i n t h e case both of t h i s and other Pulitzer P r i z e s , t h e administrators can, and sometimes do, q u i t e a r b i t r a r i l y r e j e c t the recommendations of t h e i r supposed advisers·

81

-2-

If already the Pulitser Prize le so important, i t i s not absurd t o suggest that in another generation i t may, with the actual terms of the a»ard ignored, become the one thing f o r A i c h any ambitious novelist will s t r i v e ; and the administrators of the p r i z e may become a supreme court, a college of cardinals, so rooted and so saered that t o challenge them will be to commit blasphemy. Such i s the French Academy, and we have had the spectacle of even an Anatole Trance intriguing f o r election. Only by regularly refusing the Pulitzer Prize can novelists keep such a power from being permanently set up over them. Between the Pulitzer Prizes, the American Academy of Arts and Letters and i t s training-school the National I n s t i t u t e tf Arts and Letters, amateur boards of censorship, and the inquisition of earnest l i t e r a r y ladies» every compulsion i s put upon writers t o beoome safe, p o l i t e , obedient, and s t e r i l e . In protest, ? de» olined election to the Jfational I n s t i t u t e of Arts and Letters some years ago, and now I must decline the Pulitzer Prize· 1 invite other writers t o consider t h e f a c t that by accept« ing: the prises and approval of these vague i n s t i t u t i o n s , we are admitting t h e i r authority, publicly confirming t h a i as the f i n a l judges of l i t e r a r y excellence, and Ζ inquire whether any prize i s worth that subservience. I am, s i r s , Yours sincerely, (signed)

Sinclair Lewis.

83

1927 Award

Winner Louis

Bromfield,

A Story

Early

of a L a d y , New

Frederick

A. S t o k e s

Burton

Jefferson

B.

R o b e r t M.

Lovett

York:

Co.,

Jurors Richard

Autumn

Fletcher

1926

84

Report March JOth

Dear Mr Packenthai: The Pulitzer Prize Committee of Fiction,for

1926,consisting of Robert M.Lov-

ett,Jefferson 3. Fletcher,and the undersigned,have the honor to report their selection of the best ncr/el for the year. The choice falls on

Louis Brora t

field1 s Early Autumn. As c h a p m a n of the Committee,allow me to say that it is the committee' s unanimous opinion that in awarding the Prize in years to come,it would gre«fc/r ly expedite matters if three copies of all the books in competition were sent by the publishers so that a copy of each might be synchronously in the hands of the committee members. Sincerely yours, chairman

/ ^ « W ^

85

1928 Award Winner

Thornton

W i l d e r , The B r i d g e

of

San Luis R e y , New York:

Albert

and

1927

Charles Boni,

Inc.,

Jurors

Richard

Burton

Jefferson

B.

Fletcher

Robert M.

Lovett

86

Report March. 6 t h

Dear Mr.

ckentrial:

The P u l i t z e r P r i z e Jury on the Novel f o r 1 9 2 7 , o f w h i c h the

undersigned

Z£c

h a s the honor to foe c h a i r m a n , b e g s to r e p o r t , un animous n o m i n a t i o n of Thornton Wilder* a The B r i d g e o f San L u i s R e y , a s a s the r e c i p i e n t this year1s

of

award.

The d e c i s i o n i s "based on the o p i n i o n o f the Com m i t t e e t h a t t h i s p i e c e of f i c t i o n i s n o t only an a d m i r a b l e example of l i t e r a r y of f i c t i o n , " b u t a l s o import and increasüSi

possesses

skill

a philosophic

a s p i r i t u a l e l e v a t i o n which its literary

Respectfully

submitted,

value.

in the a

greatly

March 7, 1928.

Frank D. Fackenthai, Esq., Columbia University, New York City. Dear Mr. Fackenthal: I believe that the report of the jury on the Pulitzer prize in fiction will be in your hands by March 15. I understand that Mr. Richard Burton, as Chairman, is in charge of the matter. Our choice has fallen upon The Bridge of San Luis Rey, as the piece of fiction of highest literary value published during the past year. It is a mere subterfuge to say that it has anything to do w i t h the highest standard of American manners or manhood. Books of less literary merit, which satisfy the special requirements of the award, are Islanders, by Helen Hull, and A Yankee Passional, by Samuel Ornitz. The Grandmothers, by Glenway Wescott, might be considered a compromise.- Mrs. Peterkin's Black April challenges The Bridge of San Luis Rey in literary merit, but granting the prize to a novel which presents a rather unedifying picture of life in a primitive negro community; would seem to be an ironical answer to the terms on which the prize is offered. The committee appreciated highly your efforts in the matter of getting the books to them. I think we considered more books J more thoroughly than in any previous year when I have served on the jury. Personally, I read upwards of seventy novels of the past year, either tirectly for the Pulitzer prize, or in connection

RML: Β

89

1929 Award

Winner Julia

Peterkin,

Indianapolis: Company

Scarlet

The

Bobbs-Merrill

Publishers,

1928

Jurors Richard

Burton

Jefferson

B.

Robert

Lovett

M.

Sister

Fletcher

Mary,

90

Report Snglewood,^,^. March 15

Dear % Jk ck en thai · As chairman of the Pulitzer Committee to select the prize ^ovel for the year 1923,1 have the honor to state that the three judges,Robert M. Lovett,Jefferson B. Fletcher and the undersigned, concur in nominating "Victim and Tic tor, "by John R. Oliver, published by The Macmillan Company of New^jfork· The Committee's choice is made on the ground that this novel is of fine quality as a piece of literary work,deals with important elements in the native life,and has most unusual spiritual elevation and significance.It is a sound piece of literature and acuter.

noble interpretation of human char-

91 2 -

For these reasons it stands out from the

rank and

file of current fiction,although the year brought

forth a few admirable stories,and it may interest you to know that

Scarlet Sister Mary by Julia Pet-

erkin came close in our estimation to the winning book. Respectfully submitted.bv

92

Englewood,K,J, Api^'il

My dear Mr Fackenthqyt: I r e p l y to your iiöte a t once· High i n t h e l i s t of books which seemed to our Committee to b e s t d e s e r v e

consideration

for the

award of t h e P u l i t z e r p r i z e i n f i c t i o n were Upton S i n c l a i r 1 s Boston, which, however,was marred i n the o p i n i o n of two of the t h r e e j u d g e s "by i t s

tendencies

towards propaganda;MaVistan^hapman' s The Happy Mountain,a f i n e study of Tennesee r u r a l l i f e ; a n d J u l i a . ^ j g - t e r k i n 1 s S c a r l e t S i s t e r Mary,which I m y s e l f would have chosen f o r t h e award,had n o t V i c tim a n d j / i c t o r a p p e a r e d . A l l t h r e e , j^f* 9 the j u r y a g r e e d in

g i v i n g i t a p l a c e among t h e e x c e p t i o n a l

93 - 2 -

n o v e l s of t h e y e a r , b o t h a s a study of n a t i v e it^fsks and f o r t h e b r i l l i a n t e x e c u t i o n of t h e p l a n . I t i s Mrs P e t e r - k i n ' s t h i r d study of the n e g r o l i f e Ün her South G a r o l i a a p l a n t a t i o n , a n ^ her work s u r e l y i s of g r e a t m e r i t am ong g'erire d e l i n e a t i o n s of American c o n d i t i o n s . l t should be under-stood t h a t Heyward's Mamba s Daughters appeared in 1929,and so does n o t come i n t o t h e award which d e a l s only w i t h n o v e l s p u b l i s h e d d u r i n g 1928.T^is a l s o a p p l i e s t o 3inf|/air L e w i s ' s e x c e l l e n t p i e c e of work,Dodsworth*Rolwaag r s Feder V i c t o r i o u s , t h o u g h a f i n e t h i n g , i s hardy ψ t h e o r i g i n a l i t y and power of h i s G i a n t s i n The E a r t h , of t h e p r e c e e d i n g s e a s on, •Trusting t h a t t h i s s t a t e m e n t may be what you des i r e , ! am lours

sincerely,

94 - 3 -

P . S . I r e a l l y f e e l that In view of the undesirable p u b l i c i t y concerning the award, t h i s time, and the f a c t t h a t I always am open to misrepresentation in connection with my l e c t u r e work, i t would be w e l l to r e l e a s e me from the Committee on F i c t i o n .for the f u t u r e . S h o u l d you care to place me on the Drama Committee,that would be agreeable^especial·* l y , s i n c e I conduct y e a r l y a ^ o l u m b i a coiirse on the current Hew Xork p l a y s , a n d have to attend and jud them anyway. I served s e v e r a l y e a r s , e a r l i e r · cd u II •J 0

w υ >h-1

h V

u DC ja υ U Si -α S I J3 «C jäR 0 0 a υ Ά ζ u II

II Ο

CD 3= Ο II __1 C CO QC ÜJ >

I— ζ LU m ο L_ hO a:

•

u LU

UJ > , o

Τ Ο ' Ϊ Λ ο j J . a i i i ^ υ s κ "3 * Λ S ® Ε" a

£

G gjä· % a η 3 υ·— ' O j a5 -· u

DC LU CQ Ο QC

0

CO

W

D Ο

3