Pulitzer Project: The Store, T.S. Stribling (1933)

The Store is the second book in T. S. Stribling’s Vaiden Trilogy. I originally thought I’d try to read the first book too, but I had enough trouble getting on my hands on a copy of this book, that I gave up hope trying to find two Stribling novels! I ultimately was able to borrow a copy of this book from the University of Alabama library, thanks to my dad’s academic credentials there. In full disclosure, I finished this book years ago, but have taken a little break from writing here (didja miss me?)

A Brief Summary: The Store follows Miltiades Vaiden as he reckons with a changing racial and economic landscape. Post Civil War, Vaiden finds himself trying to “find his way” as he loses his job as an overseer of a plantation. The novel is ambitious and covers many hallmarks of Southern life in the 1880s – property disputes, “passing“, the Klan, and an underlying current of racially charged condescension and power dynamics prevail.

Setting: Florence, Alabama

Time Period: 1880s

Fun Fact: T.S. Stribling was the first Tennesseean to win a Pulitzer Prize (although Alabama also likes to take credit for him).

My Thoughts: One thing that struck me about the book was how aware Vaiden was of the power dynamics between Black and white people. He knows that the Black woman that he repeatedly rapes and abuses does not love him, and yet, even though he knows she is powerless to deny him, he turns to her for affection and to confide in her. Some readers may find the book hard to swallow due to interactions like that, or the constant racial slurs and racist remarks throughout the book. And yet, others may defend this as an accurate depiction of the 1880s. I wonder if reading this book when it was published in the 1930s was a very different experience than reading it in now, in the 2020s. While Stribling’s name has faded from the headlines and is now a pretty obscure author, I found this quote (from Wikipedia) which addresses Stribling’s legacy:

“Though not great literary art, Stribling’s trilogy is, nevertheless, historically significant; for in The Forge, The Store, and Unfinished Cathedral, Stribling introduced a subject matter, themes, plot elements, and character types which parallel and at the same time anticipate those that William Faulkner, who owned copies of this trilogy, would treat in Absalom, Absalom! and in the Snopes trilogy.”

James J. Martine, ed. Dictionary of Literary Biography: Volume Nine

I haven’t read Absalom, Absalom!  yet, although it is on my shelf. I am curious to see the ways that I see Stribling’s work reflected in Faulkner’s.

***

I would recommend this book to people who are currently thinking about race — the ways in which progress has been made since the 1880s and the ways in which things are very much the same; to people who, like me, love to read books set in the South and, in particular, in Alabama; to people who don’t mind reading about flawed and infuriating characters.

Extra Curricular:

Pulitzer Project: The Good Earth, Pearl S. Buck (1932)

The Good Earth.jpgA Brief Summary: Wang Lung is a poor farmer who has dreams of a better life. In the beginning of the book, he lives in a small two room mud hut with his elderly father. The book opens on his wedding day, where he has finally been able to purchase a slave, O-lan, from the wealthiest family in town, to bring home as a wife. Together, Wang Lung and O-lan toil to build a life together. We follow Wang Lung’s rise to fortune, lands, and wives. As Wang Lung slowly amasses land and fortunes, he slowly becomes the same kind of  corrupt landowner that he grew up hating. Meanwhile, China is undergoing the turbulence of famines and revolutions – the Xinhai Revolution.

Setting: Anhui, China

Time Period: 1911-ish

A Fun Fact: Not sure if this fact is “fun” but Anna May Wong was denied the role as the leading lady in the film adaptation because she was “too Chinese.” Instead, the role went to American/German actress Luise Rainer, who won an Academy Award for Best Actress for her role.

Luise_Rainer_in_The_Good_Earth_trailer_2

Review: The legacy of this book is pretty controversial. Writer Celeste Ng has written a pretty scathing essay on all the reasons why she hates this book.

I hate The Good Earth because, all too often, it’s presented not as a work of fiction but as a lesson on Chinese culture. Too many people read it and sincerely believe they gain some special insight into being Chinese. In one quick step, they know China, like Neo in The Matrix knows kung fu.

I agree with Ng in a lot of ways. If I am being generous, I would say that maybe in the 1930s, this book was seen as revolutionary or insightful on life in a foreign country. I think that like Oliver La Farge and Julia Peterkin, the authors’ hearts are in the right place. Pearl S. Buck was the daughter of missionaries and spent a good part of her life actually living in China (about 42 years.) She was even awarded the Nobel Prize for “her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces.”

anna may wong

Anna May Wong

But, like Scarlet Sister Mary, I don’t think this book really stands the test of time. It’s important to keep in mind, that at the time this book came out, there were still miscegenation laws in America, so that a Chinese actress could not kiss a White actor on screen. So of course it’s logical for 1930s-America to accept at face-value that Buck is an expert on China. While I didn’t find her writing as ridiculous as Peterson’s, the tone of the book seemed very judgmental. She writes like an anthropologist observing uncultured heathens in their natural environment.

 

But the writing and story itself, if we examine it strictly from plot and character development, are quite compelling. Wang Lung is a pretty fully fleshed out person; he’s flawed, selfish, ambitious, and hard working. The story of a man’s rise from rags to riches is common and crosses cultural identities. I would honestly have been more interested if Buck wrote more about life as a missionary in China, and I would have perhaps found her observations more compelling in a different medium (memoir? essays?). I’m sure she’s written other books, but it does irk me, as a Chinese-American, that Pearl S. Buck’s name is so synonymous with Chinese fiction.

My only other criticism is that by the end of the book, Buck has beaten the metaphor of “good earth” to death. She is obsessed with the idea of land as provider, the Good Earth. There are better books to read about farmers, about the Chinese revolution, and about how people can become corrupt or greedy as they become wealthier.

“Wang Lung sat smoking, thinking of the silver as it had lain upon the table. It had come out of the earth, this silver, out of the earth that he ploughed and turned and spent himself upon. He took his life from the earth; drop by drop by his sweat he wrung food from it and from the food, silver. Each time before this that he had taken the silver out to give to anyone, it had been like taking a piece of his life and giving it to someone carelessly. But not for the first time, such giving was not pain. He saw, not the silver in the alien hand of a merchant in the town; he saw the silver transmuted into something worth even more than life itself – clothes upon the body of his son.”

The importance of diversity and representation is that no single book becomes the defining book of a culture or nation. I’ve probably said this a million times, but I think what we need to do is read widely, so that we can see a cross-section of a time or culture. I wouldn’t recommend this book as an introduction to Chinese culture, but then again, I wouldn’t recommend any single book as an introduction to Chinese culture (or any culture).

***

 

 

Pulitzer Project: Laughing Boy, Oliver La Farge (1930)

the pulitzer project

laughing boy.jpgA Brief Summary*: At a ceremonial dance, the young, earnest silversmith Laughing Boy falls in love with Slim Girl, a beautiful but elusive “American”-educated Navajo. As they experience all of the joys and uncertainties of first love, the couple must face a changing way of life and its tragic consequences

Setting: T’o Tlakai, a fictional town in Southwestern America

Time Period: 1914

A Fun Fact: The book was adapted into a movie in 1934.

Review: After the disappointment of Scarlet Sister Mary, I was hesitant to pick up Laughing Boy when I saw it was a “Navajo” love story written by a rich white guy from Rhode Island. But, I gave La Farge a chance, and I was pleasantly surprised. I wasn’t completely blown away, but I enjoyed the book much more than I expected. Turns out, La Farge was an anthropologist who spent most of his life fighting for Native American rights. I think it was this interest and devotion that helped him create complex characters, especially in comparison to the caricatures we saw Julia Peterkin create.

This book tells the love story of Laughing Boy and Slim Girl. Laughing Boy is jealous of Slim Girl’s American education, while Slim Girl is trying to learn the traditional Navajo skills to fit into the community. It’s endearing to see the two of them try to figure out their place in society together, but neither of them ever feel like they fit in. I related to this predicament, as I’m sure most children of immigrants would. As Laughing Boy introduces Slim Girl to a lot of Navajo traditions, such as dances, horse taming, and blanket weaving, La Farge gives us a very basic primer as well. La Farge writes respectfully; for example, he keeps a lot of the traditional songs in the Native Navajo language instead of trying to translate into English. The book has a timeless feel, and I think part of this is due to such a narrow cast of characters and plot. Most of the story revolves around the two main characters, but we get a few glimpses into other people’s lives here and there. One scene I really liked happens when a few young Navajos go into a general store to play a prank on the storeowner.

I think there is an interesting trend going on in the Pulitzer awards. Between 1928 – 1932, four of the five books are about non-White people (even though they all had very White authors). We have just visited Peru in The Bridge of San Luis Rey, the Gullah people in Scarlet Sister Mary, we are visiting the Navajo here, and in just two short years, we’ll be out of the country, in China, with Pearl S. Buck’s The Good Earth. I am always thinking about the importance of diversity, and it’s nice to see the Pulitzer juries valued this even 100 years ago. However, I will definitely be eagerly looking forward to the first person of color to win the Pulitzer! Just taking a brief glance at the list, I’m not sure when this is – does anyone know?

***

I would recommend this book to people who are curious about Native American literature, but honestly, if you are, I would suggest you start with Native American authors, like Louise Erdrich, for starters. While I enjoyed the book more than expected, I don’t think I would recommend this to friends or revisit this book in the future.

Pulitzer Project: Scarlet Sister Mary (1929)

the pulitzer projectScarlet Sister Mary was the somewhat contentious recipient of the 1929 Pulitzer. In 1929, the jury nominated Victim and Victor by John Rathbone Oliver  to receive the prize. However, by the time the suggestion reached the Board, they superseded the pick with Scarlet Sister Mary, which was a nominee from the School of Journalism. The chair of the jury resigned in protest.

scarlet sister maryScarlet Sister Mary is the story of Mary, “a young black woman on a coastal South Carolina plantation who is abandoned by her husband and ostracized by her church for her sinful ways. Aided by a love charm she obtains from the local conjurer, Mary bears a houseful of children by different men.” Ten children, to be exact. The title of the book harkens back to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, and I suppose in a way, it’s the Black version of Hawthorne’s novel.

I will start with the positive aspects of the book. I can understand that in the late 1920s, this book may have been seen as very modern — a woman is sexually active with many different partners and is unapologetic about her actions. This is also the first novel that won a Pulitzer that was written about African Americans. Peterkin also has some lovely writing about the atmosphere and Southern environment. However, I don’t think this book has withstood the test of time.

What I found problematic about the story is that the author, Julia Peterkin, is a white plantation owner. She is renowned for her ability to capture the Gullah dialect and lifestyle. The Gullah people live in the Lowcountry regions of Georgia and South Carolina. However, Peterkin’s imagining of the life of Black people was offensive to me. In her book, Mary actually loves picking cotton, and she finds it fun and relaxing. She is also able to have a life of leisure and fun while being a single mother to ten children. I’m not sure where Peterkin’s imagination is coming from, but are you freaking kidding me? More than anything, it seems to me that Peterkin is imagining a happy life for African-Americans post-slavery as a way of alleviating any White guilt that she may feel. Peterkin may have felt a genuine affection for the Gullah culture, but I don’t think that this book is a respectable homage to the people or times.

I’ve spent some time reading about this book and its impacts on American literature. I find it hard to believe, but Scarlet Sister Mary actually became a favorite book during the Harlem Renaissance. W.E.B. Dubois wrote:

“Peterkin is a southern white woman, but she has the eye and the ear to see beauty and know truth.”

Apparently, several authorities (not really sure what this means) cite Peterkin’s work as paving the way for more realistic novels by African Americans including Zora Neale Hurston. If this is true, then I suppose I should relent and be grateful that Peterkin’s work exists. However, the fact that this book was adapted into a famous Broadway play consisting entirely of black-face performances makes me cringe. I am eagerly looking forward to reading a Pulitzer-awarded book actually written by a person of color. The near future of my Pulitzer reading isn’t looking too hopeful. Next up, we have a book written about Navajo Indians by a white man, and then shortly after, a book written about Chinese people written by a white woman. While these choices may have seemed very modern or open-minded at the time, I think we can all agree today that diversity is so important, not only in subject matter but in authors, editors, and jury members as well.

***

I honestly wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone unless you’re trying to read all the Pulitzers.

Don’t just take my word for it — here are some additional reviews and essays on this book:

The Pulitzer Project: The Bridge of San Luis Rey, Thornton Wilder (1928)

the pulitzer projectthe bridge of san luis rey.JPG

Thornton Wilder’s The Bridge of San Luis Rey was the 1928 Recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. This book took me by surprise and was such a breath of fresh air as I’ve been trudging through the 1920s. First, this book isn’t set in the United States at all. While we went to Europe for half of Willa Cather’s One of Ours, Cather’s story was still firmly rooted in the canon of American WWI stories. Second, the story also has a surprisingly modern and unconventional structure. The Bridge of San Luis Rey starts on July 20, 1714 with a freak accident on a bridge in “San Luis Rey,” Peru. This bridge was inspired by the great Inca suspension bridges built over the Apurimac River in the 1350s. Five people die in this freak accident, and a Brother Juniper witnesses the accident and thinks it’s the perfect opportunity to investigate the moral character of these people in order to prove God’s Divine Providence. He wants to show bad things happen to bad people and everything is part of God’s plan. The book is divided into five parts, with each part exploring the life of one of the victims of the accident, and each chapter ends with the character walking across the bridge to their death.

inca bridge.jpg

Photo Credit: TCS World Travel

At first, I was thrown off by the setting of the story, since I was so used to reading about 1890s-1910s in the US. In exploring the stories of these people, Wilder says he was trying to answer the question: “Is there a direction and meaning in lives beyond the individual’s own will?” While the US isn’t mentioned at all in this book (technically, since it’s set in 1714, the US isn’t even a country yet), the themes the book struggles with – faith, love, and destiny – seem very American to me. The book tackles all the same questions that any Great American Novel wrestles with, and it does this concisely and lyrically in 138 short pages. I almost wished more people died in this fictional accident so that the book could be longer. I later discovered the last passage of this book is famous and oft-quoted in the wake of tragedies. I think the entire book is quotable and I wanted to reread the book as soon as I finished it.

There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.

I spent some time wondering if I should be concerned about the authenticity of this book. Thorton Wilder, after all, never set foot in Peru — I’m not even sure if he spoke Spanish. Would this book be considered inauthentic or appropriative if it was published today? (In fact, this is a question that I think I’ll have for the next few Pulitzer winners as well.) Ultimately, I don’t think Wilder necessarily chose Peru because it is exotic and “other” (although those both help create a lush and vivid setting for this story). I think he wanted the story to take place in an older time, before the industrialization and automobiles that his peers were obsessed with (see Ernest Poole and Booth Tarkington) and away from American high society (see Edith Wharton). 1700 Peru makes a more compelling setting than 1700 Europe, wouldn’t you say? Please let me know if you disagree and find Wilder’s setting problematic. I’d love to think more about this.

The Pulitzer Jury unanimously decided on The Bridge of San Luis Rey, writing “this piece of fiction is not only an admirable example of literary skill in the art of fiction, but also possesses a philosophical import and a spiritual elevation which greatly increases its literary value.” In the aftermath of a book set in Peru winning the Pulitzer, there was an additional change in the wording of the terms of the award. Do you remember the original wording? 

“for the American novel published during the year which shall best present the wholesome atmosphere of American life, and the highest standard of American manners and manhood.”

We saw in 1926 that “wholesome” was changed for “whole” after Sinclair Lewis scathingly declined the Pulitzer Prize for Arrowsmith. The term “the highest standard of American manners and manhood” was dropped, and the new criteria became:

“for the American novel published during the year, preferably one which shall best present the whole atmosphere of American life.

This change in criteria gives the jury much more room for interpretation in selecting a winner. In fact, I believe this is the criteria that still exists to this day.

***

I would recommend this book to anyone, really.

Additional Reading:

A Literary Cocktail Party inspired by Arrowsmith

literary

I would call Sinclair Lewis’ Arrowsmith a “pretty serious book”, but one of my favorite things about it is its setting within the Prohibition Era. We see the protaganist, Martin Arrowsmith, going into speakeasies with his friends and sneaking into the back rooms of warehouses alongside the general public warnings on the dangers of drinking and gambling. I think this especially stood out to me as the other Pulitzer winners set in this era have all shied away from any mentions of drinking. Without further adieu, I invite you to The Ice House in the West Indies to join Martin Arrowsmith for his signature “rum swizzler.”

barrio47

This is Barrio 47, but I imagine The Ice House is similar to this

The Ice House, that dimmest and most peaceful among saloons, with its cool marble tables, its gilt-touched white walls, had not been closed, though only the oldest topers and the youngest bravos, fresh out from Home and agonizingly lonely… were desperate enough to go there, and of the attendants there remained only one big Jamaica barman. By chance he was among them all the most divine mixer of the planter’s punch, the New Orleans fizz, and the rum swizzle.

rum swizzle.jpg

Recipe courtesy of Liquor.com

Bermuda Rum Swizzle Cocktail:

  • 4 oz. Gold Rum
  • 4 oz. Black Rum
  • 8 oz. Pineapple Juice
  • 8 oz. Orange Juice
  • 3/4 oz. Grenadine
  • 6 dashes of Angostura Bitters

Shake vigorously with crushed ice, and then garnish with pineapple, oranges, maraschino cherries, and any other tropical fruit that catch your eye.

Although I’m glad we no longer have this law, it’s a period of time that I don’t know much about and am intrigued by. I suppose finding a book on the Prohibition should be added to my to-do list!

Additional Reading:

  • Font courtesy of Manfred Klein
  • Curious about the difference between gold and black rum? Apparently there are four types of rum.
  • Check out our first Literary Cocktail Party post here, featuring Harper Lee’s Go Set a Watchman, Lev Grossman’s The Magicians, and Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall.
  • Arrowsmith was the 1926 Pulitzer winner, and Sinclair Lewis was the first (and only) writer to refuse the prize. Read more about it here.
  • Fun fact: 1926 was also the year The Great Gatsby was published. Some people would say that Gatsby deserved the Pulitzer much more than Arrowsmith did.

The Pulitzer Project: A Brief History, or Why There was No Award in 1917

Pulitzer Project

joseph pulitzerThe Pulitzer Prizes were endowed by Joseph Pulitzer (1847 – 1911), the founder of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Joseph Pulitzer was born in Hungary and arrived in Boston in 1864 at the age of 17 to fight as a soldier in the Civil War. After the war, he tried his hand at a variety of things, from whaling to waiting tables; he also became a lawyer and an American citizen. He ultimately discovered his passion for reporting and accepted a job with the Westliche Post. By the age of 36, he was a wealthy man and the owner of the St. Louis Post Dispatch and New York World.

“I cannot understand why it is, Mr. Pulitzer, that you always speak so kindly of reporters and so severely of all editors.” “Well”, Pulitzer replied, “I suppose it is because every reporter is a hope, and every editor is a disappointment.”

Upon Pulitzer’s death, his will left funds to establish the “Pulitzer Prizes” as an incentive for excellence in the field of journalism and letters. “In letters, prizes were to go to an American novel, an original American play performed in New York, a book on the history of the United States, an American biography, and a history of public service by the press.” However, Pulitzer knew that society may change, and he therefore established an advisory board to oversee the administration of the Prizes. The board was given the discretion to change the prize categories and withhold awards if there was no excellent candidate, among other powers. The structure was similar to the way things are run now – a Jury (of three) comes together and submits a nomination to the Board. If the Board approves, the prizes are announced by the President of Columbia University.

In Pulitzer’s will, he described the Pulitzer Prize for the Novel as “for the American novel published during the year which shall best present the whole atmosphere of American life, and the highest standard of American manners and manhood.” However, when the Advisory Board established the prize, the Board settled on wholesome rather than whole. As you can imagine, this could drastically alter the contenders for the prize.

***

At the first meeting of the Pulitzer Prize Jury in 1917, there were only 6 applications for the Prize. One application didn’t meet the requirements, because it was a manuscript instead of a published book; the jury found 4 of the remaining 5 applications to be subpar. Ultimately, the jury recommended withholding the prize rather than giving it to the only one entry that seemed to qualify. The Board agreed and the rest is history. Accordingly, there was no award giving out in the first year.

I’ve really enjoyed learning more about the history and process of the Pulitzer Prizes. Stay tuned, I’ll be digging into why there was no award in 1920 next!

The Pulitzer Project: His Family, Ernest Poole (1918)

Pulitzer Project

I’m reading my way through the Pulitzer Prize winners and finalists! First up, His Family by Ernest Poole, winner of the very first Pulitzer Prize for the Novel.

His Family

A Brief Summary*: His Family tells the story of a middle-class family in New York City in the 1910s. The family’s patriarch, widower Roger Gale, struggles to deal with the way his three daughters and grandchildren respond to the changing society. Each of his daughters responds in a distinctively different way to the circumstances of their lives, forcing Roger into attempting to calm the increasingly challenging family disputes that erupt.

Fun Fact*: When Poole’s first novel, The Harbor came out in 1915 it was a critical and popular success but the Pulitzer Prize did not yet exist. When his second novel His Family came out in 1918, the “consensus is that it’s the lesser of the two works, that the Pulitzer committee was really honoring Poole for The Harbor

Setting: New York

Time Period: Roughly 1913 – 1915

Review: This is a book about New York City, modernization, and all the different ways you can be part of a family. The book explores the relationships within a nuclear family, responsibilities to a larger community, and your duties as global citizen. I can understand why this book would win the very first Pulitzer, because it does embody a lot of the themes of a Great American Novel and I can see similar themes in the 1919 winner, The Magnificent Ambersons. However, the book was a little too didactic for my tastes. Poole is no Steinbeck, and I don’t think his mode of macro and micro story-telling really worked as well as it could.

I would recommend this book to people who are trying to read all of the Pulitzers, who enjoyed going to the Tenement Museum, or are interested in books that tackle some of the larger social issues going on in the 1910s – World War I, women’s rights, and the rise of the automobile.

***

Additional Resources: