Myers-Briggs by the Book

Have you ever done a Myers-Briggs test? That's the personality test that is supposed to classify you into one of 16 types, made up of four distinct groups. There's introvert vs. extrovert,
intuitive vs. sensing, thinking vs. feeling, and judging vs. perceiving.
I am usually an INTJ (The Strategist) or an INFJ (The Protector). I really ride the line on that thinking-vs-feeling thing. And before you start emailing me, yes I am an introvert. It isn't about how you present yourself to the world, it's where and how you get your energy. I recharge my batteries either alone or in small groups.
There are lots of ways to find out what your MB type is, so Google it and take one of the tons of online tests. This is important for the book angle we're going to talk about next. So go find out what you are and then come back. I'll wait...
Okay, now that we have that out of the way, Huffington Post has provided a handy guide that tells you what book characters most closely match your personality type. Are you a Huck Finn or a Sherlock Holmes?
Not surprisingly, I am either like Elizabeth Bennett from Pride & Prejudice or like Jo March from Little Women. There is also a handy guide that offers career choices. According to that, I should be a scientist or an artist. Wow. That's quite a range. I did buy a watercolor kit this weekend, so clearly I am on the right path.
This is obviously a fabulous test that should be taken incredibly seriously. Well, unless you are an ESTP. The HuffPost item then says you are like the character from American Psycho. Sorry about that.
Here is the link, so spend the rest of the day looking up your type and those of all your friends and family.
You're welcome.

Pulitzer to Fiction World: You Stink

For the first time in 35 years, there is no winner in the Fiction category for the Pulitzer Prizes. That despite the fact that three fine books were nominated: Train Dreams, Swamplandia!, and The Pale King.

But evidently those three books were not that great. Or at least that's my take-away from the announcement.
The judges are in for a PR-storm of mighty proportions. Even the three jurors who proposed the nominated books seemed mystified by the decision, or lack of decision. Juror Susan Larson, from The Times-Picayune, has said that she was incredibly disappointed that the judges could not come to a consensus for a winner.
She and the other 3 jurors went through 300 books to come up with their shortlist, or as she called it "the most intense book club ever." Larson was not a happy camper this morning on NPR as she said that this was a blow for fiction writers. However, trying to put a good spin on it, Larson said maybe now people will buy all three nominated books.
This isn't the first time that the nominees have been snubbed. In 1977, judges said the nominees just weren't worthy of the prize. Ouch. In 1984, the overall Pulitzer committee reversed the judges' decision and awarded the prize to a different book than the one selected. That must have been nice for the first-choice book.
And in 1941, no prize was awarded, despite the fact that For Whom the Bell Tolls was nominated.
People can be wrong, and we all know that taste is very subjective. One person's Pride and Prejudice is another person's Ulysses. However, I think the lack of an award in Fiction hurts the publishing business at a time when it needs it least. There are too many fabulous writers out there that are not receiving much-deserved recognition.
Speaking of recognition, The Tuscaloosa News received a Pulitzer for its coverage of the tornadoes last year, The Huffington Post took the top prize for its amazing online reporting on soldiers returning from war, and The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa., garnered the top award for its coverage of the Penn State scandal. As a former journalist, I love to see news outlets get the attention they deserve for serious reporting. That doesn't come for free, either, Mr. Internet.
For the full list of Pulitzers, click here.