Behold, the end result of the sort of vote-grubbing in genre literary awards I have grown to despise. In my old age I have also grown kind, and have so cut the name of the HWA member who posted this nonsense on Facebook.
![]()
It's hard to know where to begin. She
1. gets the name of the organization of which she is a member wrong
2. apparently doesn't vote on either the prelim or final rounds, as she would already have opinions on some of the works on the ballot had she done so
3. is close enough to Joyce Carol Oates—or just obnoxious enough—to call her "Joyce", but not so close to her as to get the book out of the library
4. doesn't realize that it's actually not hard to read everything on the ballot for the Stokers this year, as there are only one or two super-limited edition type pieces up there. The first twenty pages are often sufficient to decide to NOT vote for something
5. is all wrapped up in the idea of respect for the award, but publicly castigates an author who won the Grandmaster award from HWA, and has publicly declared that her own opinion isn't based on superior achievement in a book or story, but on best book available as a freebie perk of membership
6. thinks Joyce Carol Oates gives a shit. I can imagine the call now. "Did you say the Nobel Prize? Oh boy, I've been waiting for your call! Oh yes, yes I'll certainly send copies of my last twenty books—all three years worth! Oh wait, Bram Stoker award? Is that what you said? Yes. Yes, I remember you people. I'm still fumigating." *click*
Anyway, it's nuts.
PS: Speaking of awards and freebies, I can't wait to see what happens if this year's Hugo committee (or 2013's, 2014's, etc.) can't get it together sufficiently to create an all-nominee all-category all-format voter packet as the last few committees have managed to do. If you think "pros" are bad, wait till the fans start shrieking.
It's hard to know where to begin. She
1. gets the name of the organization of which she is a member wrong
2. apparently doesn't vote on either the prelim or final rounds, as she would already have opinions on some of the works on the ballot had she done so
3. is close enough to Joyce Carol Oates—or just obnoxious enough—to call her "Joyce", but not so close to her as to get the book out of the library
4. doesn't realize that it's actually not hard to read everything on the ballot for the Stokers this year, as there are only one or two super-limited edition type pieces up there. The first twenty pages are often sufficient to decide to NOT vote for something
5. is all wrapped up in the idea of respect for the award, but publicly castigates an author who won the Grandmaster award from HWA, and has publicly declared that her own opinion isn't based on superior achievement in a book or story, but on best book available as a freebie perk of membership
6. thinks Joyce Carol Oates gives a shit. I can imagine the call now. "Did you say the Nobel Prize? Oh boy, I've been waiting for your call! Oh yes, yes I'll certainly send copies of my last twenty books—all three years worth! Oh wait, Bram Stoker award? Is that what you said? Yes. Yes, I remember you people. I'm still fumigating." *click*
Anyway, it's nuts.
PS: Speaking of awards and freebies, I can't wait to see what happens if this year's Hugo committee (or 2013's, 2014's, etc.) can't get it together sufficiently to create an all-nominee all-category all-format voter packet as the last few committees have managed to do. If you think "pros" are bad, wait till the fans start shrieking.