|

Who will be the 2014 Pulitzer Prize Winner for Fiction?
April 13, 2014
Here is the final 2014 PPrize Prediction List with just hours to go before the 2014 announcement. There was only one adjustment - Karen Joy Fowler moves up in the list to the #8 spot.
Please keep in mind that this is a prediction and in no way can we guarantee the prize outcome. But we can always count on insightful community discussions. The books that are surfaced, and the comments about them are always engaging and interesting.
The 2014 PPrize Prediction List for the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
Comment on our lists, or offer your own opinion about who you think will win the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction:
|
BRAKiasaurus - Aug 15, 2014
OneMoreBook BRAKiasaurus So far, for me, the best thing I've read this year that was published this year was "Fourth of July Creek". I really enjoyed it! Had trouble putting it down. A wonderful novel. I'm also going to read "A Replacement Life", which has been well-received. Phil Klay's "Redeployment", which was met with huge fanfare, "We Are Not Ourselves" (Matthew Thomas' debut epic tome, for which publishers bid $1 million). I also picked up (as you will notice me mentioning in the 2015 forum) The Dog: Stories by Jack Livings. So that should keep me busy for awhile, ahha.edit
|
|
OneMoreBook - Aug 6, 2014
BRAKiasaurus I'm with you on "Constellation." I'm reading it right now, and it's wonderful. "Someone" and "The Son" were faves of mine, too. "The Lowlands," as well. I still can't understand "The Goldfinch" win, and I thought "The woman Who Lost Her Soul" was terrible. Ugh. I've been looking for contenders for 2015, but have spent most of the spring/summer reading through the Craig Johnson "Longmire" mystery novels, having noticed the book tie-ins during the A&E TV series' credits. They're really good, and an interesting diversion for me, reading modern-day western crime novels. What should be on my Pulitzer radar so far this year? :-) edit
|
|
BRAKiasaurus - Aug 2, 2014
I am working my way through some missed novels of 2013, and I have to say: I am shocked "a constellation of vital phenomena" wasn't a finalist. It is incredibly well-written, and though it is bleak, it is a story that deserves telling.
"Someone", "The Son", "All That Is", and CoVP were the best books from last year (from what I have read).... "Goldfinch" was compelling, quick, and had moments (primarily during the part set in Nevada that were heartbreaking and beautiful, but it was also messy, problematic, and at times very poorly written.edit
|
|
BRAKiasaurus - Jul 17, 2014
stpress If you want to send me a galley, I will read it and review it.edit
|
|
BRAKiasaurus - Jul 17, 2014
EdParks BRAKiasaurus Oh that's too bad--I'm honestly surprised! She is a wonderful writer, and the she imbues modest everyday moments with importance, with resonance, in a manner similar (though more accessible than) Salter. AGAIN! I MUST INSIST! COMPLETE TH BOOK! Hahah....oh well...edit
|
|
EdParks - Jul 11, 2014
BRAKiasaurus EdParks FYI. Largely on your suggestion I did give SOMEONE a try. I made it to page 35 and was bored silly. I didn't like the characters, the writing style, the story or the setting. For some reason Ms. McDermott and I just don't "hit it off".edit
|
|
Marybethking - Jun 29, 2014
Perifidia, I would really like to read this pool side. The publication date does nothing to help me with this. Has anyone ever had luck receiving an advanced copy? I never knew there was such a cultural war in the literary underbelly. New York just doesn't get enough sunshine. There's enough for everyone. And, some lower caliber writers like Nicholas Sparks and James Patterson have done things to really pay it forward! Ridley Pearson does a lot of charity work for the school I work for too. Probably shouldn't mention my classification of his work to those I work with.edit
|
|
BRAKiasaurus - Jun 26, 2014
JohnZ BRAKiasaurus Bruce Bernstein Will do!edit
|
|
JohnZ - Jun 21, 2014
JohnZ BRAKiasaurus Bruce Bernstein I finished reading "The Goldfinch" a couple of days ago. I will report back soon and let you know my feelings about the novel. As I've been working these last few days, I haven't had the time necessary to write my response. However, I will have a day off soon, and it is then that I will attempt to gather my thoughts into a more cohesive fashion and tell you what I think.
So stay tuned...edit
|
|
BRAKiasaurus - Jun 12, 2014
EdParks BRAKiasaurus You should pick The Son back up and finish it--I think it ties together beautifully. Really enjoyed that novel.
While I can see how McDermott might've let you down, "Someone" is fantastic...just wonderful--I honestly thought it was the most likely book to win. READ IT!
"All That Is" was wonderful, as I have stated, so I'll be keeping an eye on your recommendations in the future! Let me know what you think is good so far in the 2015 forum.edit
|
|
Likes: 2
ey814 - Jun 11, 2014
A good essay exploring the "some loved it, some hated it" response to The Goldfinch:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/07/goldfinch-donna-tartt-literary-criticism?mbid=social_twitteredit
|
|
Likes: 1
EdParks - Jun 10, 2014
BRAKiasaurus ALL THAT IS was on my short list for this year's prize. I believe it to be Mr. Salter's best book. I also think that what hurt its chances more than anything was that it was published too early in the year (April). Nonetheless, I am glad that you liked it as much as I. Having been disappointed by Alice McDermott in the past I didn't even try SOMEONE. And, just for the record quit reading THE SON as I felt it was too contrived.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
BRAKiasaurus - May 28, 2014
So it's too late for such things, but having read "All That Is", I'm starting to think that it really should have been "The Son", "Someone" and "All That Is" that were finalists...with one winning, of course. Anyway, just thought I'd throw it out there, how much I enjoyed Salter's novel. edit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - May 22, 2014
BRAKiasaurus JohnZ Bruce Bernstein
Hi. I'm still reading it, for a number of reasons.
1) As a writer, I prefer to read slowly, considering the characters and various plot points and details, etc. Also, the structure and choices the writer has made. And with regard to The Goldfinch, there's quite a bit to be contemplated!
2) I like to keep a story going for a good stretch of time. Sure, there are some books I have read rather quickly; but it's not a rule with me. The books themselves usually dictate my pace. For instance, I read The Accidental Tourist in a single sitting. With Gravity's Rainbow, however, I stretched the time out so that I had a few months in which to live with its characters and story.
3) Having read all of the other Pulitzer winners in fiction, I know that when I finish The Goldfinch, I'll have to wait till next April to read the next one. I know it must sound kind of silly, but there's something exciting about reading a book (or finalist) that has won (or been considered) for the prize.
Of course, there are other books on the horizon which have snagged my interest, so maybe I'll encounter a period in which I finish The Goldfinch in a white heat so that I may begin reading those other books.
4) I read every day, but life does have a way of intervening. As of late, I've been doing a lot of writing myself (something else I try to do every day), as there are some contests which I've entered. Truth told, after spending upwards of six hours arranging words and ideas on a page, I'm often exhausted and do not find the prospect of reading more words (albeit from other writers) to be very enlivening. One of the rules I have for myself is that when I sit down to read, I do it because I want to, not because I feel it's some chore to be tackled and finished.
As it is, I'm just about at the halfway point with regard to The Goldfinch. Having not finished it, I'm not ready to offer final thoughts on the book. What I've read so far, however, I've liked. I haven't felt that picking up the book is an exercise in drudgery at all.
Theo is a character whom I find myself liking more and more. And having lost a parent when I was a child, I can say that a good portion of what Tartt has to say about the nature of grief and loss is very close to what such a tragedy feels like. No doubt this -- as well as her vivid descriptions -- impressed the Pulitzer jury and board.
Writing of male adolescence is something at which Tartt is also adept. There are things in the novel she describes or observes (mostly with regard to Theo and Boris) that smack of truth and poignancy, and have even given me pause as I think back to my own childhood and the best friend I had. (And no: he and I neither stole nor sniffed glue, ha ha.)
But Tartt does love her adverbs, doesn't she? And too, there are some split infinitives (something that also afflicts Karen Russell's work) and dangling modifiers that leave me shaking my head here and there (of course, such are things one finds time and again in all kinds of fiction, prize-winning and otherwise). I have to wonder if writers and editors are just lazy sometimes, or if they feel basic grammar rules are so pliable that they can do anything they want with them. Who knows? It's something about which I try not to be a stickler, but being a writer, I have a real reverence for writing well... and reading books that have been written well.
For all this, I do find myself thinking time and again: Donna Tartt? Pulitzer Prize? For her work (viz., The Secret History, The Little Friend) falls in a strange hybrid range of popular fiction and literature, of best-sellers and more moderately successful works. (I don't say this as a snob; it's just something that is.) And that's something the Pulitzers rarely notice. Sure, it's happened before, though not often. (I'm thinking of Gone With the Wind and The Yearling here.)
As I've been reading it (I stated this in another post), I can't help but think of Rowling and Harry Potter. Those books and character kept jumping into my head as I was early into reading The Goldfinch, and I thought: Now what the hell is this? What are they doing rolling around in my head? Sure enough, though, it turns out that Tartt mentions Potter. She even gives the main character the nickname "Potter"! And Hobie's shop is a place one wouldn't be surprised to find in Daigon (sp?) Alley. So the cultural references have surprised me in that they're not things one usually associates with the Pulitzer. But too, there are other references that strike one as being more erudite, so perhaps Tartt was trying to offer something in the way of a balance.
Anyway, I'll keep you posted.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
BRAKiasaurus - May 16, 2014
JohnZ BRAKiasaurus Bruce Bernstein Any update on your opinion? I finished the novel. It is an ambitious, messy sprawl of a novel, hard to put down but easy full of problems. I'm shocked it won the Pulitzer in such a strong year, but it was a fun read nevertheless.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
michijake - May 8, 2014
Hi Brak, sometimes bookstores in airports/train stations can be a good source of first editions when other stores are sold out. I don't know if you're doing any traveling soon, but I just found a first printing of The Goldfinch in a Hudson Books at BWI airport - of course it isn't signed, but it's a start! Anyway just a tip if you're still looking.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - May 4, 2014
BRAKiasaurus Bruce Bernstein I'm presently reading the book, too. I'm enjoying it more than I thought I would. However, it is a curious bird (no pun intended, ha ha). Some parts of the story are fascinating and well-written, with immersive prose and details so sharp that they cut like a diamond. And then there are moments when Tartt slips into a state of battering loquacity. Which is to say, she (and her editor) might have been more relentless in honing and shaping the prose.
The sequence that occurs just after the bomb explodes -- when Theo finds himself trapped in a nightmarish realm -- leaves one feeling dazed and a little queasy. It's fine writing, and very evocative. But there are also sequences that strike me as needing a little more work. For instance, when Theo is interrogated at the school. Tartt covers the bases, sure; but some of the dialogue in this scene (particularly Beeman's character) seems stereotypical and a bit of a staple. No doubt we've all encountered people like Beeman in fiction before, and there's nothing he says or does that impresses me as original or enlivening.
One can certainly see Tartt's love of Dickens in the book. Perhaps this has something to do with how some of the characters are presented as interesting and three-dimensional, while others seem to have been drawn with a broad brush -- something for which Dickens was known.
Tartt also seems to have been unable to stop herself from cramming as many details into a scene as possible. It's as if she would have felt remiss to have left anything out. Which can make for a plodding read. That would certainly be the case here were she not as talented as she is. Also, she loves her adverbs, which for writers can be both a blessing and a curse. It's not that you shouldn't use them, but when you do, it's better to be sparing with them. When you neglect to be disciplined about them, your prose becomes heavy, burdened by these anchors that tip readers off to writing that has a tendency to be lazy. For when adverbs not used with frugality appear, a reader wonders if the writer decided to take the easy way out by not attempting to make a scene better realized.
Still, Theo is an interesting character, and the scenes that work, work well. The Pulitzer jury, when awarding the novel, wrote of how much they admired the contemplation of loss and grief that persists throughout Tartt's novel. Certainly that is evident. Maybe the fact that she chose to investigate such things across so vast a canvas is what confounds some readers.
As I get deeper into the story, I'll report back. At present, I think it's a good novel. Whether or not it is a great one has yet to be seen.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
BRAKiasaurus - May 3, 2014
Bruce Bernstein I have my own reservations about this novel. It was really divisive when it came out, some proclaiming it as genius, others condemning it as awful. While I am only about halfway through the book, my opinion falls somewhere in between. It seems clear to me that this novel has moments of genius and moments that are awful. The writing is uneven, the plot sometimes unconvincing; yet it moves quickly and is incredibly compelling. It's a hard book to put down.
I simultaneously empathize its detractors and its proponents.
All that said, this was a particularly strong year for fiction. How does an uneven--albeit ambitious--book win over the quiet perfection of "Someone" or the ambitious (but of a more consistent quality) novel "The Son"? I have no idea....edit
|
|
stpress - May 2, 2014
NEW YORK STORIES was submitted for the prize but didn't win. There are generous samples of it to be read online. Maybe you'll agree with the judges? ---Really, at this point the author will take any kind of review, no matter how devastatingly bad; ever mindful (as he is) that ANY publicity is good publicity. Poor fellow, he just can't seem to get a review.edit
|
|
ey814 - May 1, 2014
@tklein27 Cool. That didn't take long once you found it. And, confirms that my version as a first edition Dutch as well. Thanks!edit
|
|
ey814 - May 1, 2014
@JohnZ I agree with your observations about the Pulitzer Chronicles, I enjoy reading about the Pulitzer award process almost as much as reading the novels that might win the Prize! The politics and drama and history add to the enjoyment of collecting Pulitzers.edit
|
|
ey814 - May 1, 2014
@JohnZ I agree with you completely about the Pulitzer Chronicles. I enjoy reading about the Pulitzer Prize process almost as much as I enjoy reading Pulitzer winners! All the politics and drama add to the fun of collecting Pulitzers.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
tklein27 - May 1, 2014
Okay, it took a while. But I finally got my hands on the Dutch first edition. I listed it under its own page. Here it is:
http://www.fedpo.com/BookDetail.php/Het-Puttertjeedit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - Apr 22, 2014
ey814 Marybethking JohnZ Those Pulitzer Chronicles certainly are interesting. For a good number of those years, it seems as if they were suggesting finalists. On the Pulitzer site, it goes back only to 1980 (as you stated above). With the Chronicles, however, one is given a glimpse of the previous decades: if anything, it provides one with even more reading material (despite the stacks of books one has already accrued, ha ha). Now and then the jury members presented books they all agreed should win, like From the Terrace by John O'Hara (who never won a Pulitzer) and By Love Possessed by James Gould Cozzens (who won once). I remember reading how the Cozzens book was loved by the jury, and even though Cozzens had already won a Pulitzer (Guard of Honor), they felt By Love Possessed was the best possible choice for its year. Apparently, the board had a different take on the choices.
Another interesting thing about the Chronicles is that the volume also includes letters from various members heading the juries over the years. It's quite insightful to hear their polyphonic views as they're presented in synopses of different books that were in consideration. The inherent dissent is also eye-opening. If I remember correctly, one year one of the finalists was Donald Barthelme's The Dead Father. In the letter to the board, Ms. Welty (a member of the jury that year) was not very keen on this particular book. Perhaps a bit too meta for her. Who knows? Another year, I recall the jury being of the mind that A Flag for Sunrise (Robert Stone) deserved to win. The same goes for Continental Drift (Russell Banks). Of the latter, when I read it, I thought: Russell Banks wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winner that managed somehow not to win the prize. The book really is that good. And clever too. The way Banks utilizes the parallel stories of an American and a Haitian refugee to contemplate the state of America is bracing. I'd never read anything quite like it. The American Dream as well as the American Nightmare. It's a beautiful, brutal, tragic novel.
Marybethking: Sabbath's Theater! Oh, man. I know it was a finalist, and while it's a very good book, it can also be infuriating. Mickey Sabbath may well be one of the most trying characters in fiction. Halfway through, I had to ask myself: Do I really want to continue to spend time with this guy? Because it was Roth, and because of his talent and skill, I stuck with it. Upon finishing the novel, I was glad I did. I think the point of it was to ask a question: Is anyone above redemption? Certainly that's a question one may apply to Mickey, who does just about every reprehensible thing imaginable in the story. I was talking about the book not long ago, and as I described one of Mickey's little "tricks" he plays on his ex-wife in rehab (involving the journal), I found myself getting angry about it all over again. But too, one realizes how much pain Mickey is in (i.e. Drenka) and begins to feel something (or so I hope) approaching compassion.
With Train Dreams, I am in complete agreement. It would have been my choice had the board chosen to award a book that year.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
Bruce Bernstein - Apr 22, 2014
Goldfinch?!!! Seriously, how did the Pulitzer award that novel their prize for fiction. can someone explain?edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 20, 2014
Marybethking I have read Widow, and agree it is one of Irving's best. There have been a few of his that I didn't like as well (Fourth Hand), but because I like his writing style, I enjoy all of them. Did you know he writes the final sentence of his novel first, and then works backwards from that? That's about the oddest writing habit I know of! JohnZ I had forgotten World According to Garp was mentioned by the jury. This was prior to the actual naming of finalists (in fact, one year prior to that practice, which began in 1980 with The Ghost Writer (Roth) and Birdy (William Wharton) named as finalists). I dug out my copy of "Chronicle of the Pulitzer Prizes for Fiction," which provides copies of the jury letters. For the 1979 award, the jury "unanimously and independently" chose The Stories of John Cheever" as the winner, but mentioned as "among the other contenders" World According to Garp, Collected Stories of Irwin Shaw, Continental Drift (James Houston, not Russell Banks!), War and Rememberance by Herman Wouk, A Good School by Richard Yakes, Final Payments by Mary Gordon, A Woman of Independent Means by Elizabeth Forsythe Hailey, Better Times than These (Brown, no first name), Magic Journey by John Nichols, Shosha by IB Singer, and Billy Phelan's Greatest Game by WIlliam Kennedy. In a penultimate paragraph, the committee concludes that they could not agree on a nomination beyond Cheever, but put Irving's World According to Garp as a second choice. It's a bit of a stretch to call all of the books mentioned in the jury's letter a "finalist" (though, as you go back in time, that's what you pretty much have to do if you're going to determine "unofficial" finalists), but it's clear that World According to Garp would have been a finalist if the "recommend three books" process was in place back then! (In the final paragraph, the jurists complain about the burden of reading from among the 121 nominated books... I doubt modern jurists would have much sympathy, as I think the field of submitted books has swelled to in excess of 300!). edit
|
|
Likes: 1
BRAKiasaurus - Apr 20, 2014
ey814 BRAKiasaurus No luck thus far, but I appreciate the leads! This forum is awesome!edit
|
|
Likes: 1
BRAKiasaurus - Apr 18, 2014
Marybethking Just quickly, off the top of my head:
Sabbath's Theater, Train Dreams, Poisonwood Bible, Light Years (Salter), and maybe The Imperfectionists (though that last one might not qualify and I realize that not everyone loved it...but I'm shocked at how few awards it garnered)...oh yes, and Mating. edit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - Apr 18, 2014
ey814 Marybethking Actually, ey814, The World According to Garp was mentioned by the Pulitzer jury in its year. If I remember correctly, it wasn't their first choice, but it was definitely one they put in the running. The winner, however, was The Stories of John Cheever, and I can't say I disagree with that. But I still think it's great -- and deserved -- that Irving was a finalist. What's not so great is that it seems not many people are aware of this. As happens with writers who are considered too popular and successful, the literary quality of their work is often questioned, which is just silly. Whatever his subject, Irving serves it well. And the characters he creates live in a reader's mind long after he or she has read the book. I still think of Garp and Jenny and Helen and Roberta and Duncan and Walt and Mrs. Ralph (oh man!) and Michael Milton (ouch!). The Helen Jamesians. The terrible Undertoad! The dog in the alley, and the child in the sky. And it's a book I read decades ago, when I was a teenager.
And then there's The Hotel New Hampshire and The Cider House Rules and A Prayer for Owen Meany. I mean, Irving's written some wonderful books. I've actually been thinking of him while reading Tartt's The Goldfinch, as both are writers in the Dickensian vein. And who knows? Now that Tartt has won, perhaps future Pulitzer juries will be more willing to consider fiction that is both well-written and popular. It certainly happened with Gone With the Wind (a book of which I'm not fond) and The Yearling (a book I love). So maybe Irving might yet win.
As for Delillo, I think his best is still Underworld. Don't misunderstand, Falling Man is very good. (I don't think I've ever read a bad book by Delillo). But I think Underworld more deserving. And there's also Mao II and Libra (how was it not even a finalist?).
With regard to Erdrich, The Round House was very good (we've had this conversation, ha ha), but The Plague of Doves strikes deeper, I feel. As for the year The Round House was published (a year in which I also enjoyed Powers's The Yellow Birds very much), I think the choice for the Pulitzer was perfect. Johnson's The Orphan Master's Son shares first place with To Kill a Mockingbird as my favorite novel.
And Wallace. I liked The Pale King, and don't begrudge it being a finalist, but I don't think it was that year's best. Train Dreams was. But I give Wallace points for ambition. The Pale King is certainly that. I have yet to read Infinite Jest. I hear it's good, and someday I would like to get around to it.
And Philipp Meyer. It was very fitting to see The Son as being among the finalists. Finally! I remember thinking at a little after three on Monday, April 14th, when I was perusing the list of winners and finalists. Finally! How was it ignored by the National Book and NBCC and the Pen Faulkner group? It doesn't make sense.edit
|
|
Marybethking - Apr 17, 2014
Have you read 'A Widow for One Year?' It is also by Irving. I read it about five years ago and still think back to the wife's retelling of a tragic car accident.edit
|
|
Likes: 2
ey814 - Apr 16, 2014
Marybethking I'd award it to the books that I selected in my personal prediction list that didn't actually win :-) Don Delillo for Falling Man, Louise Erdrich for Round House and Phillip Meyers for The Son, most recently. I'd have David Foster Wallace actually win it for The Pale King, though he should have gotten it for Infinite Jest. And, though it's not all that fashionable to like John Irving, I think A Prayer for Owen Meany and The Cider House Rules were prize-worthy!edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 16, 2014
BRAKiasaurus Try Odyssey Bookstore (http://www.odysseybks.com/). They had signed editions as part of their signed first editions book club. You'll have to email them to see if they have any signed copies available. edit
|
|
Likes: 1
BRAKiasaurus - Apr 16, 2014
Marybethking Sure! That'd be great! Ebay's sellers are, naturally, out of my price range at the moment....so I'm just hoping maybe I could find something for close to the cover price. =) It's always a tricky prospect right after the announcement, but sometimes bookstores have left overs, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks!edit
|
|
Marybethking - Apr 16, 2014
I can see if Left Bank Books in Saint Louis has a copy. Try ebay?edit
|
|
Likes: 2
michijake - Apr 16, 2014
Marybethking Ooh good question! I definitely agree with "Blonde" by Joyce Carol Oates. I would also add:
"The Plague of Doves" by Louise Erdrich
"The Poisonwood Bible" by Barbara Kingsolver
"Mr. Ives' Christmas" by Oscar Hijuelos
"Housekeeping" by Marilynne Robinsonedit
|
|
Likes: 1
Marybethking - Apr 16, 2014
I have a lot of reading to do. We both agree on 'Someone.'edit
|
|
BRAKiasaurus - Apr 16, 2014
I realize that this may be a silly question--but is anyone aware of a local bookstore that might have signed copies of The Goldfinch? If not, it's no biggie...just wondering, as we are all spread across the country, if I could procure a signed copy (with hindsight)...but I also am resigned to the idea that I won't find one any time soon.edit
|
|
JohnZ - Apr 16, 2014
ey814 JohnZ I'm enjoying it more as I get deeper into the story. The bombing scene was jarring and powerful. Though I almost feel that Tartt put in things that will figure later in the story (I hear it's also a thriller). As a writer, I can't help but analyze various plot points and elements when I read a book (or see a film). Some detail is mentioned in a way that is fleeting, and later the plot turns on it. The "wow" moments, you know. I try not to do it, but it's become as natural to me as breathing. Sometimes I tell myself to hush and get on with it (ha ha). But the subtext always comes at me. One thing: interesting how Tartt describes Theo's mother in birdlike terms (hmm. symbolism, anyone?). But no doubt, she has a way with words (minus "suddenly" and "meanwhile"!). As I said, the bombing scene definitely gets your attention; though I'll admit I wasn't surprised by the identity of the person whom Theo tends. I saw it coming pages before Tartt surreptitiously makes mention of the man's identity (though not his name). Still, it was detailed and managed to engage all of one's sensations. And this evening, at work, I did keep thinking of it, which is usually a good sign. I'll keep you posted.
As for The Executioner's Song, Birdy, and The Ghost Writer. Birdy, if I remember correctly, was somewhere around 300 pages, maybe a little over. The Ghost Writer was short. I think it was originally published in excerpts in a magazine (The New Yorker?). Of the three, while all being good, Executioner's still gets my vote. The word masterpiece gets thrown around a little too often, but here it fits. Mailer went all the way with it, and I can't remember him taking a single misstep. It's a book into which you fall, get lost, and finish as though you're coming out of a fugue. I've known a number of people who, daunted by its length, said they weren't sure if they'd read it. But I kept at them (ha ha), and not longer after beginning it, they told me they loved it and couldn't put it down.
I remember buying the book one afternoon, coming home, reading a chapter or two, and going to work. That night, when I got home, my sister was sitting on the couch, the book in her hands. She looked up at me and said, politely but firmly, "Sorry, bro, but you're going to have to go out and buy another copy. I'm not giving this one up." Ha ha. She and I still joke about it. I remember, too, that we finished it in the same evening. She finished it first, and walked through the room in which I was sitting, zeroing in on the final chapters, and I looked up and saw her red, swollen eyes; she couldn't stop crying. Well, a short while later, I finished the book, got up, went to her room, and looked at her with my eyes red and swollen from crying. We looked at each other without saying a word, and just nodded.
It's one of my favorite memories. Sharing something great with others. That's what reading is at its best, I think. edit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - Apr 16, 2014
AlexKerner Marybethking I read an article in which Ms. Tartt was called by a reporter interested in her reaction to the prize. Ms. Tartt's responses were short, even shy, but also grateful. I think she also said she found it strange. In addition, she said it felt weird talking to the reporter as she (Tartt) was sitting at the desk where she writes her books. One gets the impression that writing is for her a very personal, solitary act. Perhaps she is reclusive. One would have to be to spend time arranging all those details into prose! edit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - Apr 16, 2014
brad766 Marybethking All great choices. Lolita -- now I could definitely see that! What an experience!edit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - Apr 16, 2014
Marybethking Interesting question. There are two years in which the winners didn't strike me as the best choices for the Pulitzer.
The first is 2006 (March). While not a terrible novel, it struck me more as a literary gimmick or conceit. Having read Ms. Alcott's Little Women, I pretty much knew in which direction March would go; therefore, I was never really surprised by the story: it had too much of a paint-by-the-numbers element at play. Even for this, there were elements of story that Ms. Brooks created for her novel that are not to be found in Little Women; and yet, almost from the introduction of a specific character, I knew exactly where she was likely to figure in the third act. And end up there in Act III she did.
Therefore, I would have chosen Lee Martin's The Bright Forever as the 2006 winner. It's very well-written, with vivid characters, and it's a page-turner to boot. One doesn't get that very often, I think. Not, at least, with something that qualifies as literature (I'm not being snobbish, just honest). The central event in the story deals with a girl's disappearance. But the manner in which Mr. Martin deals with this is stunning. Like Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, the chapters in The Bright Forever are told from the perspectives of different characters. Some of them are involved directly in the disappearance; others are connected, but in a way that brings to mind the phrase "collateral damage." The question that lies at the heart of the story deals with conscience and culpability, both individualistically and communally. It also has an echo of Wilder's Our Town. And really, the Indiana town Mr. Martin creates for his story is very striking. The only other time I've seen a portrait of a town drawn so vividly in books was Maycomb, from Ms. Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird.
The second is 2007, when The Road was awarded the Pulitzer. Perhaps if I had not read other (better) books by McCarthy, I might have liked The Road more. Certainly there are some beautiful passages; but again, not enough to warrant the prize. Really, it's the first book I've read by McCarthy in which I felt him manipulating, rather than earning, my emotions. He'd never done that before, and so I was disappointed when it happened as I read The Road. Also, I didn't buy how the two main characters always managed to get away or find food in the nick of time. McCarthy created such a brutal world that it should have been harder for them. And yet, from scene to scene, there it was: nick of time. What I really felt as I read it was that The Road seemed more like notes for a novel or a screenplay than a real novel itself. And the repetition didn't help. I understood its inclusion at first -- to show just how devastating the world had become, so unending in its horror and depravity -- but soon it grew monotonous. More than anything, it seems to me the prize was given to McCarthy more for his life's work, one title of which is certainly more deserving of the prize than The Road; that one is Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West.
For 2007, there were two novels that were more deserving, either one of which I would have been delighted to see win. One was a finalist: The Echo Maker, by Richard Powers. The other was The Lay of the Land, by Richard Ford. Of course, Mr. Ford had already won a Pulitzer (Independence Day), and The Lay of the Land deals with characters from that previous (actually two previous) novel(s). But The Lay of the Land impressed me in the way that Rabbit at Rest did: a beautiful summation of a great American character and life. As for Powers, he wrote a very literate, engrossing story. It could have come off as too esoteric, too dry, but Powers is so good at what he does that, even for the scientific and medical elements of the story, he never loses sight of its heart: a sister who desperately wants to reconnect with a brother who doesn't remember her. It's just a lovely, quietly devastating story.
Other than these two, I would also have liked to see Train Dreams win. Mr. Johnson wrote an epic in miniature, and while that sounds oxymoronic, if you read the book, you'll see it's an apt description.
Also: Gravity's Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon. Now, there's a feast of a novel! Imagine WWII as viewed through crazed carnival glass and running at the speed of a Keystone Kops serial, and you have an idea of what Pynchon accomplished. (It does help to have also The Gravity's Rainbow Compendium while reading the novel itself. Pynchon mentions some arcane things in the story, and unless you lived in England during the Blitz, you're likely to miss them.)
For Whom the Bell Tolls, by Ernest Hemingway: another one. Though I was glad he won for The Old Man and the Sea.
And then there are years when I've been pleased with the winners, but think maybe two Pulitzers would have been better rather than just one. Yes: I mean ties. Because in a given year, some works were published that were equally deserving.
The books that fall into this category:
The Feud, by Thomas Berger (hilarious)
Continental Drift, by Russell Banks (may be his best to date)
Where I'm Calling From, by Raymond Carver (terrific stories, with special mention going to "A Small Good Thing": it really is a masterpiece; just heartbreaking)
Whites, by Norman Rush (stunning stories)
Black Water, by Joyce Carol Oates (such incredible, unrelenting tension sustained throughout the entire story that it leaves you -- almost literally! -- breathless. I also think her novel, them, was deserving)
You Are Not a Stranger Here, by Adam Haslett (more great stories)
Jernigan, by David Gates (one of literature's great anti-heroes is to be found in its pages)
Billy Bathgate, by E. L. Doctorow (you get drunk on the prose; it's dizzying, really)
Underworld, by Don Delillo (why has this writer not won a Pulitzer yet? It makes no sense. This novel, however, might well be one of the best examples of ambition and execution. It seems as if the entire story -- which is huge and multi-layered and -charactered, is piloting toward the final sentence, which is all of a single word)
The Human Stain, by Philip Roth (along with American Pastoral, this is my favorite Roth novel)
Waiting, by Ha Jin (a complex story of love and marriage presented almost as if it were a fable)
Close Range: Wyoming Stories, by E. Annie Proulx (all right, this was a year when three -- yes, three! -- Pulitzers might have been in order. Ms. Proulx's imagination and mastery of form take your breath away. Like Carver's "A Small Good Thing," Ms. Proulx's "Brokeback Mountain" is also a masterpiece, and just as heartbreaking)
Tree of Smoke, by Denis Johnson (now this one he wrote as an epic that was indeed an epic! Years later, I still think of the characters, especially those two brothers and Kathy)
A Flag for Sunrise, by Robert Stone (what's to say? This man can write! Also, he's unflinching)
Someone, by Alice McDermott (it surprises me this beautiful novel was not a finalist)
What it comes down to, really, is the fact that every year great fiction is to be found. Sometimes one wonders why there should even be a need to choose. edit
|
|
Likes: 1
brad766 - Apr 16, 2014
Marybethking A lot: Train Dreams by Denis Johnson; War Trash by Ha Jin; Waiting by Ha Jin; Billy Bathgate by E. L Doctorow; Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov; Go tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin; For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
Marybethking - Apr 16, 2014
Hypothetically, if you could pick 5 books to give the pulitzer to that haven't won already; who would you pick? Mine would be The Big Easy by James Ellroy, Blonde by Joyce Carol Oates, The Three Day Road by Joseph Boyden, The Gift of Rain by Tan Twan Eng, and The Last Town on Earth by Thomas Mullen.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
AlexKerner - Apr 15, 2014
Marybethking she's a bit reclusive...although she did the circuit for this book and did a 60 minutes interview...so maybe she will show up for the ceremony.edit
|
|
Marybethking - Apr 15, 2014
Why?edit
|
|
Likes: 1
Marybethking - Apr 15, 2014
No, I have not. I probably should. I did read 'Little Friend' back in the day. I remember an overreaching critic comparing it to 'Kill a Mockingbird.' Needless to say, I didn't see even a glimmer of Atticus,Scout, or Mr. Radley as much as I hoped they might have found a new home. I'm taking a contemporary literature break because I kissed one too many frogs in my 2014 search. The filler is sometimes better than the cake itself apparently.edit
|
|
brad766 - Apr 15, 2014
Will Donna Tartt be at the awarding ceremony? I seriously doubt that.edit
|
|
Marybethking - Apr 15, 2014
I was so blind sighted by 'Someone' this year that I thought it would win for sure. Almost to the betting stage. Out of the three finalists, 'The Woman Who Lost Her Soul' was probably who the jury assumed the board would pick. It is the best of the three by far.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
Arcticsound21 - Apr 15, 2014
@ey814 I have to agree with you that The Son would get my pick out of the finalists, although I also haven't read The Woman Who Lost Her Soul yet. The synopsis keeps reminding me of Tree of Smoke for some reason.edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 15, 2014
DustySpines ey814 mgardne5 Yes, you can find out the Pulitzer Board on the Pulitzer website, it's not secret, just the jury members who are appointed each year. edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 15, 2014
DustySpines ey814 AlexKerner brad766 I think its that when awards involve critics heavily in the process, you get a list that more resembles the pulitzers (thus the NBCC dominance). The NBA has authors as judges and they've come out with some rather obscure lists in times... so much so that the National Book Foundation moved to a longlist format and told the judges that it's okay to nominate popular books. They (National Book Foundation) point out that the purpose of the NBA is to celebrate writers and books and to support the publishing industry, so the longer list was intended to do that. Although it makes it more difficult to get winning books sometimes, it's more fun with the Pulitzer's when they announce all of the winners/finalists at once.edit
|
|
Likes: 2
ey814 - Apr 15, 2014
JohnZ I'll wait until you finish or get further into the book to comment on favorite characters, etc., though I will say that I thought it could have used another edit. Of the three finalists, I still believe The Son was the more literary and deserved the prize (well, I haven't read Sochacis's book, so have to withhold judgement on that, I suppose). But, I liked Goldfinch and was glad the winner was something I already had and didn't have to do a frantic search for (ala Tinkers!). Interesting observation about the page lengths. I think Executioner's Son is the longest (just confirmed that on http://www.pitt.edu/~kloman/pulitzerindex.html, it weighs in at 1,056 pages). The Ghost Writer and Birdy were the finalists that year, so not sure if they had enough pages to top the 2,000 pages total for the year.edit
|
|
BRAKiasaurus - Apr 15, 2014
Marybethking Just curious--have you read the "filler" book this year? It seemed like it was the book a lot of people chose, as well...so just curious. I have not.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
JohnZ - Apr 15, 2014
So, anyone care to guess what book I'm currently reading? Ha ha.
I have to say, my expectations are high. Maybe more so than usual. The reason? I've never been a huge fan of Donna Tartt's work. Not that I think she's lacking in talent; it's just that I've never experienced the exuberant rush which has swept away others whom I know who have read and enjoyed her books. I had a good friend who talked passionately about The Secret History back in the day; but, as it turned out, it was a book into which I just couldn't get. Not my cuppa. It kept reminding me of a Young Adult novel I'd read when I was twelve (Killing Mr. Griffin, by Lois Duncan) and I just couldn't surrender to the story. Anyway, I didn't read The Little Friend, either -- just dipped into it here and there quite sparingly.
The fact that Tartt is more mainstream doesn't bother me, either (I love all kinds of books; on my shelves you will see King nestled next to Updike and Straub rubbing elbows with Tolstoy); though, I must admit, it surprised me when the Pulitzer board chose her. Which adds to those expectations of which I spoke.
Another element that adds to said expectations: A few weeks ago, a good friend of mine (different friend from the one who exuded a near-uxorious loyalty for The Secret History) told me that I had to read The Goldfinch. I told her I had purchased it (based upon some of the reviews it had accrued, as well as its inclusion as a finalist for the NBCC) but had yet to start it. She said (more or less) that I should drop whatever else I was reading and commence reading The Goldfinch.
And now that Ms. Tartt has won a Pulitzer (and I've read all of the other winners), I've taken the plunge. It's early to tell, sure; but I suppose I'm enjoying it. Though Ms. Tartt does seem preoccupied with wringing out just about every detail she can, as if she would feel remiss neglecting whatever her imagination offers her in the way of inspiration and creation. It doesn't bother me, really: I enjoy dense, languorous prose (Faulkner, Tolstoy, Styron, Mailer, Nabokov) as well as sharp, precise, minimalist prose (Hemingway, Carver, some McCarthy), given it's not repetitive or loquacious for loquacity's sake. And the length bothers me not at all. I'm not one of those readers. In fact, one of my favorites is The Executioner's Song, which I believe is the longest Pulitzer-winner in fiction. Really, though, I love books of all sizes, and I have found that regardless of length, a story well told is one in which I'm happy to become immersed and lost for a while.
So far, I'm wondering if Ms. Tartt is running the risk in the "loquacity" department. But I do find myself being engaged, though not in a rapturous way. Apparently, from what I've read and heard, the earlier sections of the novel move at a sedate pace. Well, that's fine; as long as, of course, what's being described and what's happening is of interest. The prose is good, though not earth-shattering (perhaps that will change?), and I'm enjoying the characters despite that I've yet to feel invested in them as much as I have other characters in Pulitzer-winning fiction.
For instance: I took immediately to Miles Roby (Empire Falls); to Celie (The Color Purple); to Scout (To Kill a Mockingbird); to Ginny Cook (A Thousand Acres); to Gus and Call (Lonesome Dove); to Sammy Clay and Joe Kavalier (The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay); to -- Well, it's a long list.
But there are other characters in some of the Pulitzer-winners who, while I wasn't enamored of them straight out, I grew to like; even to love. Characters like Jun Do (The Orphan Master's Son); Oliver Kitteridge (Olive Kitteridge); Jon Ames (Gilead); Cal Stephanides (Middlesex); Willie Stark (All the King's Men) -- Well, ibid. (Of them all, however, Jun Do might well be my favorite.)
So, as things stand for Theo, we'll see. The book is holding my attention; but I'm excited to see if there arrives a passage that grabs me and makes me think: Yes! Now, there! There! No wonder this book won! This is something that has happened for me while reading those books I've been happy to have seen win the Pulitzer. As for those books which have won that never impressed me (March, The Road, and The Store among them), I never arrived at said passage(s). I've finished those books thinking of others that are more worthy.
But I'm willing to give The Goldfinch a try. That said, I'll also be thinking about The Son (I've ordered Shacochis's The Woman Who Lost Her Soul and will read it upon finishing The Goldfinch) and then see if my opinion-to-be-determined will change. As I understand it, not everyone is enamored of The Goldfinch. At my bookstore today, one of the managers and I discussed it, and she said she knew a lot of people who loved it, as well as a lot of people who returned it.
So, we'll see.
Oh: An interesting piece of data I came across while reading articles about the Pulitzers today: In the category of fiction, it was rather a hefty year, as all three finalists, put together, total over 2,000 pages. One supposes this year's jury was interested in going epic.
Happy reading, all. edit
|
|
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 DustySpinesAlexKernerbrad766thanks that is helpful. Interesting that LA Times is so high.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines AlexKerner brad766 Year after year, the strongest predictor of the Pulitzer is the National Book Critics Circle Award... being a NBCC finalist is always the top predictor and winning the NBCC is always in the top 5, as is the ALA notable list. For this year's model, here are the top 10 predictor variables, in order of importance.
1. Book is a NBCC finalist from the same year.
2. Book won NBCC award for same year.
3. Book made ALA Notable list form same year.
4. Book appeared on NY TImes 10 best books list for same year.
5. Book NBA finalist from same year.
6. Book LA Times finalist from same year.
7. Book PEN/Faulkner finalist from same year.
8. Author PEN/Faulkner finalist within previous 5 years.
9. Author NBCC award winner within previous 5 years.
10. Book appeared on NY Times Notable books list same year.
The NBA winner is down a few more. By the time you get to #10, the actual points awarded are significantly lower, though, than the top 5. edit
|
|
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 mgardne5Oh I didn't know that. I must be thinking of the Booker jury which they make a big deal about.
Don't we know who's on the Pulitzer board, theoretically? edit
|
|
Likes: 1
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 DustySpinesEdParkstklein27well I hope she gets out just enough to sign any copies you need her to, and then disappears, so mine don't lose any value they might have.
I also thought she has somewhat of a cult following (judging from the crowd i saw) and wondered if that doesn't mean more regular folks--non collectors--would be looking for signed editions, for gifts, etc.edit
|
|
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 DustySpinesAlexKernerbrad766the Booker is expanded this year so I wonder if that would be tough since there are no limitations or at least fewer than before.
Also I want to ask, do any of the awards lists stand out as stronger predictors than others? I remember that in the Tinkers year, I think, it made the American Library Association Notable list and this was seen as a strong predictor of Pulitzer status. It would be interesting to know if it happens that one list or another correlates more strongly with the PPrize. edit
|
|
Likes: 1
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 DustySpinesWell the one thing I can add is that the UK quality is pitiful, even compared to the cheaper and cheaper efforts of many US publishers. The books seem ready to yellow and turn to dust. I rarely crack them open anymore for fear I will destroy them. edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines EdParks tklein27 I'm curious too. I read a piece on her in the Guardian and she seems pretty reclusive. I'm hoping the Pulitzer award will get her out on the circuit at least some!edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines ey814 AlexKerner brad766 I'll bet you could do much of the same thing for the Booker if it wasn't the case that it is announced pretty early. One of the main reasons this works with the Pulitzer is that its almost the last award announced (only the LA Times Book Award gets announced after it, as far as major awards go), so there are lots of chances to see how a book does. edit
|
|
Likes: 1
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 DustySpinesmrbenchly oh those back catalogs, they get the best of us!edit
|
|
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
EdParks tklein27I can't remotely agree with you about Saunders, but it does look like the winning book is mostly being sold for $200 or less--not much of a bump so far. I don't know how many signing events she did since the one I attended was billed as the only even Tartt did in Brooklyn, but I was curious to see how scarce or plentiful a Tarrtt signature on the Goldfinch would be. edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines mrbenchly Or to overspend on back catalogs of authors who didn't make the finalist/winner list :-) But, there is always that authors next book!edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines And in more countries, they're not publishing in a hardcover format, going to large trade paperbacks.... the UK and Australia come to mind. I understand the economics of that, but hope that isn't a trend.
I will say, though, that in many countries, the hardcovers seem better constructed and more solid than US trade hardcovers, and I often like the dustjackets for international versions more than the US version... that varies of course, but still often the case. So far, all of the dustjackets and cover artwork on Goldfinch has been the same as the US, will be interesting to see if any variations appear.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 AlexKernerbrad766I was going back through the lists and it is quite amazing the track record you've accomplished here. We've gotten spoiled.
My second thought was I wonder if it means anything for American literature if prize committees are so predictable?edit
|
|
Likes: 1
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 DustySpineswow that is taking it to a whole new level. And I feel exotic when I invest in Canadian firsts. One thing I have noticed is that books can be so expensive overseas!edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
michijake Probably not, it is still the #3 Hardcover fiction book on the NY Times Book Review list, and has been in the top 10 for 23 weeks, so the publisher is still making a boatload of money on it! Didn't Dan Brown's DaVinci Code stay in Hardcover for years before the publisher released a mass market paperback?edit
|
|
Likes: 1
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
ey814 mrbenchlythe deserved benefits of being the guy who runs the model is to clean up on copies of the frontrunners!edit
|
|
Likes: 1
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines I collect any version of a Pulitzer winner I can get my hands on, as long as it's the first edition of that country's release. I travel internationally for work, so can pick up current titles from interesting places. I had Marilynne Robinson sign my 1st Korean Edition of Gilead not too long ago. Ended up with Swedish (purchased in Norway), Italian, and Japanese firsts of Orphan Master's Son. They often make for interesting conversation starters at signings!edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
mrbenchly Actually, not all Goldfinches... the top one is the aforementioned Indiespensible version, and I think there's one more Goldfinch in there, the UK signed first, but the rest are Tartt's back catalog... when it started looking like she was a front runner, I splurged and bought signed copies of her first two books and an ARC or two... while you could still get them for cheap, and I think there was a copy or two of The Son in that stack. I was moving them to where I shelve Pulitzer winners and finalists! :-) The Library of Congress has me for now, but I'm working on it! edit
|
|
Likes: 1
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines ey814 I agree, mostly just a slipcover associated with the regular release of the book... that said, getting what is as close to a signed Powers book as possible was cool and, of course, a signed Pulitzer (Goldfinch) is a signed Pulitzer!edit
|
|
Likes: 1
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
Marybethking It's an iPad issue. I can see who "Liked" comments on my PC (Google Chrome or IE), but I can't on my iPad using Safari. On the PC, the person's picture shows up and if you hover the cursor over the picture, the person's ID shows up.edit
|
|
ey814 - Apr 14, 2014
Marybethking Yep, revealed on the same page as the announcement was made, but not until after the announcement is made.edit
|
|
Marybethking - Apr 14, 2014
Found it, nevermind.edit
|
|
Marybethking - Apr 14, 2014
Does anyone know was on the jury? Or, is that kept pretty hush hush?edit
|
|
Likes: 1
ddo - Apr 14, 2014
In hindsight it is easy to say that I loved the Goldfinch after it wins. But I have been a fan of the book ever since I read all 750 pages at Chrismas. I was so disappointed when the readers of The Tournament of Books did not embrace this amazing novel. They did not endorse The Son either. I love to read the comments here and use it has my favorite indicator of what to read next. Keep up the amazing work! May the 2015 readers' comments be as clairvoyant as the past six years!edit
|
|
Marybethking - Apr 14, 2014
Does anyone know how to view who has liked a comment you made? Livefyre won't let me click to see this. I'm on an IPad, don't know if that makes a difference? Thanks!edit
|
|
JpCambert - Apr 14, 2014
DustySpines JpCambert I find myself among those that enjoys the Big Bang Theory, although I don't care for Homeland, so, I suppose that my having enjoyed the Tartt book puts me squarely in the camp of those without taste. It apparently also puts the Pulitzer committee and a host of other awards committees, journalists (who named it one of the best books of the year), and book bloggers squarely in the same camp.
Expressing your opinion is fine. Expressing it in such an elitist and condescending manner rubs me a little bit the wrong way. But, who knows....maybe I'm just overly sensitive.edit
|
|
Likes: 1
DustySpines - Apr 14, 2014
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|