| re: How and why does the Pulitzer hold just esteem? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:25 am EDT 05/07/24 | |
| In reply to: How and why does the Pulitzer hold just esteem? - DistantDrumming 12:17 am EDT 05/07/24 | |
|
|
|
| I'll take a stab at it. Joseph Pulitzer was a publisher held in great esteem. When his will created and funded the awards, he did not micro-manage; he did not set up an administration for the awards, he vested the money and that control in the President of esteemed Columbia University. [Hardly could he have imagined what that individual would have on their plate already today.] The awards are structured bottom up rather than top down. Thus, after folks propose potential awardees from within their organizations, a small jury of people who actually know enough about the particular discipline to separate the wheat from the chaff vet those proposed within narrow categories. Those who know poetry do not decide on a recommendation of a play, etc. Then even after that process, the even more rarefied Pulitzer Board can decline to bestow the recommended awards. This is in stark contrast to all of the theatre awards of which I am aware. For the Tonys, for example, the final decision is left to an across the board vote by the largest (and most conflicted) group. Many awards are decided only by critics, who are not necessarily experts of any kind. And still others are closer to pay-to-play plebescites. To me the only group that has ever had any legitimate respectability is the Obies, and even that seems to be eroding now that it has been taken over. So yes, to me, the Pulitzers deserve their place. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | How and why does the Pulitzer hold just esteem? - DistantDrumming 12:17 am EDT 05/07/24 |
| Next: | I disagree with a lot of this - oddone 06:56 pm EDT 05/07/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.030689 seconds.