This Is Just A Great Story…

harding-thumb-217x300-8470

Every once in awhile, in the literary world, a really fantastic book written by an “unknown” comes out of nowhere and knocks the “big-boy” books (the ones written by the famous authors, and promoted by the literary machines) out cold. That’s what happened this year with the Pulitzer in Literature when Paul Harding’s “Tinkers,” a novel published by Bellevue, a small Literary Press, took the Prize. The book almost didn’t get published at all (several large presses passed on it before an editor at Bellevue agreed to give it a look. The editor stayed up all night reading it, weeping at the loveliness of the prose, and agreed to give it an initial 500 copy run). It’s the first time a book by a small press has won the award in almost thirty years.

Harding is 42, this is his first book, and no one called him to tell him he’d won the Pulitzer. He found out by accident, after looking at the Pulitzer site to see who’d won. When the book got taken he and his family had been living off of unemployment and his wife’s small income. Now Random House has given him a lucrative contract for his next two books, he’s teaching at the prestigious Iowa Writer’s Workshop, and “Tinkers” hit the NY Times Bestseller list. All due to word of mouth from small Independent Booksellers, who promoted the book to their customers and to each other. No reading tour, no big publicity machine, just enthusiastic readers excited about a book they read and loved.

I haven’t read the book yet. Last week I hit 3 different bookstores and no one had it in stock (!!! But all three stores had plenty of books by Stephanie Meyers, on her own end cap). So it’s on order from Amazon.

Here’s a great article about Paul Harding and his little book that could…

-Laura Kopchick

Published in:Laura Kopchick |on May 3rd, 2010 |1 Comment »

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Comment Leave a comment.

  1. On March 29, 2014 at 9:42 am Bruno Gladin Said:

    I agree with these claims for the importance of, and the challenges of doing, these kinds of digital projects. But it is less clear to me how these projects differ from print versions of document collections, except in their scope. That is, with the exception perhaps of the mapping tools, digital history projectsseem to me to bea bit like document collections on steroids. I would never quarrel with the benefit of wide distribution, and plentiful space, neither of which a book can enjoy. I use many of these sources myself for teaching and even for research. But I don’t quite see how it is structurally different (except in having to learn the software) from those earlier document volumes, or why they ought to be valued (as contributions) any differently than those are.

Leave a Comment