Last night, as I watched the primaries of Texas and Ohio(and Vermont and Rhode Island)unfold, I finished Booth Tarkington's Alice Adams which won the Pulitzer prize in 1922. It didn't take me long to read when I actually sat down to it, maybe only 3 days. And, it was okay. I'm not saying it was the best book I've ever read(by a LONG SHOT), but it wasn't too terrible at all, a fairly fast read actually, and maybe I'm just coming down off of a high of finishing All the King's Men. Keren was a bit worried that Alice Adams would appear to be sexist. It's about a family in a small Midwestern town in which the wife is constantly nagging the husband to be better and make more money so that his family can have more nice things, and is constantly telling him how much of a failure he is because after all these years he hasn't done anything about bettering the welfare of his family. This is juxtaposed with Alice Adams, the title character of the book, but also the daughter in the family, trying to keep up with the rich girls she wants to be like and attract a rich eligible bachelor, in this case the highly-sought-after Mr. Russell. By pretending too much and, I guess the old-fashioned expression is "putting on airs,"(as well as saying QUITE often, "people may talk about me" and either asking if they have or downplaying it...it makes Mr. Russell nervous, this constant preoccupation of hers with wondering what others think about her) she doesn't give him the most accurate picture of herself, and when Mr. Russell is at lunch with his rich cousins and hears some trash-talking about her and her family, he becomes uneasy, thoughtful and especially after the climactic disastrous dinner her family has for him, he is permanently out of the picture.
In the midst of this, Alice's father decides to actually get off of his extremely sickly ass and DO something since his wife won't quit harping on him. He decides to open a glue factory by using a recipe that he shared with his very wealthy boss, but up until now had not been acted upon. He does it without his boss knowing and then the boss squashes him, like a bug. Though in this process, Mr.Adams stands up for himself and being the poor, forgotten man. It is a pathetic speech, but reminds us all of what it is like to be the underdog trying to compete with the extremely wealthy.
Alice, though the heroine, is rather annoying. I felt myself constantly wanting to scream BE YOURSELF!, but it is not even today uncommon for women to act a certain way to try to attract a man, or be popular or whatever. The most interesting character, who unfortunately becomes a major player in the family's downfall, is Alice's brother Walter. Now the book I don't find to be sexist at all, even from an historical standpoint. Women's roles were definitely different in 1922, but I don't think that this book contributes to that outlook, it just depicts it. There are still nagging, social-climbing wives out there and there always will be, there are always women who will pretend that they are something or someone else to make a man fall in love with them, especially if they feel that their chances are running out. But what is interesting is the depiction of Blacks in this book. Now, this book takes place in the Midwest, where there never was slavery. But here there is still a dichotomy between the blacks and whites, something that will continue until even the present day. Walter, Alice's brother, has fun with "the coloureds" and interacts with them, causing much consternation for his family members, especially Alice, who tells her Mr.Russell that her brother is writing a book on them so he must observe their habits. Also, the depiction of the maid they hire for the dinner and other black people that are onlookers to the families demise are not depicted very well, but you get the picture with Tarkington's writing that this isn't necessarily his opinion, rather the opinion of the people of the time. Which when you read the novel, you are more likely to believe.
I was surfing around on the Pulitzer prize website last night to see how they decide on the award given in that particular year(esp. since as the farther you go back you don't have any way of finding out what other novels the winners were up against)and there wasn't much information to be found in that respect. What was interesting was in the FAQs, there was this question:
23. Why in some years was there no award given in a particular category?
According to The Plan of Award "If in any year all the competitors in any category shall fall below the standard of excellence fixed by The Pulitzer Prize Board, the amount of such prize or prizes may be withheld."

Hmmm. What does this mean? I find it particularly hard to believe that out of the thousands of books published in any given year the committee can't figure on one that depicts American life well enough to give it an award. I hope that when I'm done with this project I will be able to interview or at least speak with some members of the committee to see how it all really works. Same with the Canadian side...though they didn't award far less times than the U.S. did. I just don't know. PPs-38, GGs-35.