The American novelist Michael Cunningham was one of the Pulitzer fiction jurists this year, sifting through over 300 books to present the Board with three finalists. In a two-part essay at The New Yorker, he details the selection process, what makes literature great, and his thoughts on the Board not awarding a prize this year. It makes for fascinating reading. You can find the first installment here. A highlight:
Utter objectivity … is not only impossible when judging literature, it’s not exactly desirable. Fiction involves trace elements of magic; it works for reasons we can explain and also for reasons we can’t. If novels or short-story collections could be weighed strictly in terms of their components (fully developed characters, check; original voice, check; solidly crafted structure, check; serious theme, check) they might satisfy, but they would fail to enchant. A great work of fiction involves a certain frisson that occurs when its various components cohere and then ignite. The cause of the fire should, to some extent, elude the experts sent to investigate.
Cunningham's second dispatch is here.
The Dish 