The lazy and incompetent Pulitzer judges

I don't read enough new fiction these days to offer a list of suggestions for the book that should have won the Pulitzer Prize, but like all other readers and writers I am pretty much outraged at the ludicrous decision of the Pulitzer judges to award no prize in fiction for 2012. None? Nothing? I can see that perhaps they didn't like any of the three finalists that the screening judges presented; I haven't read any of them but maybe they thought one was too weird, one was unfinished and perhaps unreadable, and one was only marginally a book, as it had been published in a magazine some 10 years ago as a single story (or novella?). But then - any judges who take their work seriously would have demanded more submissions from the review panel or offered something themselves. Presumably, they're literate and widely read and knew all year they'd face this responsibility - should have been thinking about what their choices would be, discussing fiction with the friends and family, poking around and looking. But, no, we don't like these three so the whole year of fiction is a loss? Ridiculous. Didn't like Charles Baxter's collection "Gryphon," to name just one strong potential winner? To award no prize is to make a powerful though absurd statement about the state of letters in America today or else to simply admit to the world that we're lazy and incompetent readers who wear our responsibilities lightly. Which is it, oh you mighty judges?