So, the topic for today is-who should of won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2011?
I don't have the authority to say anything, really, as I am just mostly a reader, not someone with a throughly sophisticated view on life or have any degrees or anything in my resume, really, that would mean my opinion means something more than just an opinion.
However: I have read Karen Russell's work, and am in love with it. How someone so young can be so bold, daring and already have published two works is impressive. And you should see her writing! I personally loved St. Lucy's Home for Girls Raised by Wolves-imaganative, lovely, full of brilliantly funny observations.
And I think she should have won.
The bigger story of all of this to me, however, is this: Why couldn't they decide? What was it about these 3 books that made them throw in the towel? All of them are exceptional, I imagine.
But why no decision? Too good to even compare one book to another? Too much good writing? (that's a problem I'd willingly take more of, by the way.) The books themselves are all so unique and different but so well written that there was no way to make a decision?
What drove the no-decision decision, I wonder?
And then I also silently think-good for the authors. We don't always need one winner. Sometimes there are more than one nominee that is worthy.
So why not award three and make 2011 a banner year for great fiction?