With his hands in his pockets, his posture relaxed and the air in his office dusted with the slightly sweet smell of ink, Prof. Mark Feeney (AMST) looks though a window onto the Boston Globe's slumbering, two-story printing press, and says, "It's cool to work somewhere that's both an office and a factory." The words resound with a sincerity that can only come from genuine fascination and enjoyment. After almost 30 years, Feeney still loves his job. At least one should hope so. This past May, he took home the Pulitzer Prize in Criticism, the closest thing the profession of journalism has to the Nobel Prize. Yet even with the all the hoopla that comes with such an achievement, Feeney has stayed firmly grounded.

Leaning back in his office chair, Feeney jokingly described the professional perks of winning the prize: "I get asked to do interviews, talks. Not a ton, . but no one was asking me before."

Born in Winchester, Mass., and raised in Reading, Mass., Feeney's climb up the Globe's ladder began after his graduation from Harvard in 1979.

Ever the literary lightening rod, Feeney held a range of positions at the Globe, from library researcher to book editor to the head of the news analysis section, Focus, finally settling as a member of the Living & Arts staff.

He's also taught at Brandeis and Princeton Universities and published a book, Nixon at the Movies, an examination of Richard Nixon's career through the films he watched as president. The New York Times called the book "mystifying" and "formidably intelligent."

Though once nominated for the Pulitzer in Feature Writing in 1994, it was Feeney's work in the arts that finally brought home the trophy. True to his varied nature, his 10 pieces submitted for consideration touched on a variety of subjects such as photography, film and the paintings of Edward Hopper.

Though some might have let such an award spur their inner ego to heights of insanity, Feeney remains reserved, almost blasé, when pressed to reveal the personal significance of his critical recognition.

"I don't know if this sounds egotistical, modest or both, but I don't feel that I needed to be validated," he said.

The attitude comes not from hubris but rather simple confidence in his work, as well as a keen historical understanding of the Pulitzer and its true context and meaning.

Which begs the question: How can any prize quantify the legitimacy of a single person's opinion? "It can't! It's bullshit! It's total bullshit," is Feeny's answer. "It's true of any prize."

Feeney learned this lesson some 20 years ago, when he sat on the Board of the National Book Critics Circle. A board of editors and writers from various major publications, it was their job to select from among the finalists the best books of the year in categories like novels, biographies and poetry. "It was ludicrous," Feeney recounted; judging "big, fat journalistic [books] against groundbreaking academic ones is like "[comparing] apples and oranges."

Flowing from topic to topic, Feeney's reflection started to expand into a detailed portrait of our culture and our proclivity for rankings and analysis.

"It's in the nature of our culture," he said. "We like superlatives, we love hierarchies," he said, explaining our need for critical validation. "It's nice to honor worth. The sad part is that people, understandably, think that the raising-up of a given work or an individual somehow reflects ill on other works that are equally laudable."

But regardless of the relative nature of an individual opinion, Feeney still respects the craft of its expression. "The enjoyment is legitimate, but the expression of that enjoyment is not," he said.

Describing his favorite film as a child, John Wayne's The Green Berets, he said: "If you had asked me to justify why it was such a great movie back then, I could have done it. It would have been a worthless justification, but I could have done it."

When it comes to good criticism, his recipe is simple: "It's good writing. You want clarity, you want flow, you want vividness, and you certainly want enthusiasm."

When pressed about his future plans, including the possibility of another book, Feeney remained reserved, stressing his lack of time outside his day job as an arts writer.

"If you're a journalist, you're a sprinter. You're used to doing things in short bursts. . You need a different set of muscles if you're an author. You need time."

Looking back on his award, Feeney remains humble, acknowledging the politics that may have played a role in his victory. Seeing as how the Washington Post has won six Pulitzers, he suggested that his award may have been the result of a preference for evenhandedness.

"I was not in the room at Columbia University when they took the votes, . but I guarantee that if 'Criticism' was toward the end of the day, that person from the Washington Post, she had the deck stacked against her. . One of the prejudices we have as people is we like fairness. We want everyone to get a fair shake," he says. "It's a filthy business.