The Met Gala is the same day as the Pulitzer announcements

[quote]I’ll be standing outside the Columbia University gates hoping for a glimpse of the red carpet.

Mary!

The Met Gala is no longer classy and unworthy of anyone's attention.

I think “James”’s potential liability is that it HAS won major awards already—it is unusual for the Pulitzer to give its award to a book that’s already won other awards. It happens/-most recently with “The Nicel Boys.” I don’t think the revision of classic” is a problem—not only “March? But “ The Hours” won.

Yeah, James not winning because of the type of book it is occurred to me too, but I think its hype is too intense in the book world for it not to win. I'd be shocked if it doesn't. I'm more interested in the historical/non-fiction winners; they always turn me on to books I wouldn't have heard of otherwise.

March was a shitty winner btw.

My guess is one of the books about the 2024 election, will get a Pulitzer. Written by journalists.

Son years have been real shockers like when people all thought “Lincoln in the Bardo” would win but it wasn’t even shortlisted and the winner was “Less” which was on nobody’s radar. The publisher even had to produce more copies as they didn’t have enough of a print run.

“James” has indeed won the Pulitzer this year making it another National Book Award/Pulitzer winner.

R7. It is worth noting that there were four finalists in fiction this year. What that typically means is the Fiction Jury forwarded three titles to the Board, and the Board declined to give the award to any of the three. The Board has the option not to give the award at all (that happened several years ago) or to substitute their own selection. That suggests the Jury did not recommend “James,” but the Board went “rogue.” Looking at the three other finalists, it’s hard to see which one they would have picked—maybe the Gayl Jones, as she is one of those writers who comes out with a book every decade or so, usually to critical acclaim. The other two, neither of which I’ve read, sound too “minor” by Pulitzer standards, though many felt that way about “Less” (which I loved). The Board may have thought it was Everett’s time—he was a finalist a few years ago and the film, “American Fiction,” based on his novel “Erasure,” was well-received and nominated for many awards. Plus, the recuperation of a loved, but maligned classic, with what is apparently wit and critical perspective (I say “apparently “ because I haven’t yet read it) is pretty hard to resist. Everett is an excellent writer and the award both rewards craft and intelligence AND twits Trump and his minions, who are in the process of dismantling the NEH and the NEA. Similarly with Drama—the prize went to “Purpose,” a play somewhat about Jesse Jackson (though fictionalized.” It would have been fun to have “Oh, Mary” win, but “Purpose” is the favorite for the Tony Best Play. BTW, some years ago the Board went rogue in Drama, ignoring the jury’s three recommendations and giving it to “Next to Normal”—I gather the Board went to see “N2N” a few nights before final votes and it prevailed. They could have chosen not to give a Fiction prize this year, but with a “James” available, it would have been a head-scratcher NOT to go for it if there was no agreement on the other three.

Percival Everett was a shoe-in. White liberal guilt about race issues ensures that African-American novelists and playwrights are always prominent at the Pulitzers/National Book Awards these days.

R8 Excellent post; I bet that's what happened. We'll never have Pulitzer winner Mice 1961, but c'est la vie.

The first African American to win a Pulitzer Prize was Poet, Gwendolyn Brooks in 1950. The Pulitzers were established by Columbia University, in 1917, so, 108 years ago. Alice Walker was the First African American woman to win for literature for The Color Purple. There have been 29 Black journalists who won the Pulitzer in total, and of those 28 were for non hard news stories. Context is every thing.