sitting Presidents aren't eligible for awards for drama, sadly.

what's the deal? no women, so no award?

I think this is so crazy!! How much would it suck to be nominated with two other dramatists and then told that none of you are good enough to be given the award? Christ, frickin' Wasserstein gets one and Durang isn't up to snuff? Gimme a BREAK.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: I haven't actually seen _Miss Witherspoon_.) I think this decision says way more about the Pulitzer committee than it does about the state of American drama.

I dunno. I like this idea: rather than hand a Pulitzer to the best of an inferior bunch... just don't give one out. It's an indictment of the state of modern drama.

And yes, modern drama's rather shitty these days.

I think the committee was dead on, though if I had to give it to one it would be Jenny Chow--but if this is really the three nominees (which is a little sad, as there were better shows) it's best to simply decline.

And I think it's sad and pathetic that there's a drama category and not a comedy one--because God forfend we value comedy over drama, which we've all been taught by shit-eating academics is the Alpha and Omega of all art, amen.

I kind of liked the no-theater prize thing. And I loved that the fashion editor of the Washington Post did win a Pulitzer (the first given for fashion writing). I'm not a regular Post reader, but am a regular fashion reader, so I checked out some of her columns. She does have a great point of view, and is both funny and insightful.

And yet the financial state of American theater seems rather solid at the moment.

When you charge $60 a head to see a show on Broadway, and theatre-heads line up to see whatever you run up there, it's no surprise if your theatre's doing rather well even if the shows are blah.