Pages

Sunday, March 15, 2026

'Scarpetta' Review: A Tale of Two Timelines

So: Scarpetta. Some spoiler-free thoughts.

First, full confession. While I am familiar with the source material, truth is that I came in way too late to the Scarpetta series of novels by Patricia Cornwell to actually enjoy them—primarily because reading the first book (Postmortem, 1990) thirty-plus years after it was first published was riddled with long passages about (now) very outdated technology. It made reading the earlier books a total slog, which then put the kibosh on reading the more recent ones because they are chronological in nature.

That said, not having an intimate familiarity with the books should have made the proceedings fresher, without that nagging book-versus-adaptation comparative analysis we tend to do when watching adaptations of books on TV or in film.

The verdict? I enjoyed Scarpetta but can recognize its flaws and agree with some of the criticism leveled at it. Bias (because of my JLC super-fandom) and all.

This first season is actually adaptations of two Cornwell novels—the aforementioned Postmortem and 2021's Autopsy. Liz Sarnoff, who serves as Scarpetta’s showrunner and head writer, cleverly draws a parallel between the two pieces of source material that allows dual timelines—one set in present day, the other in 1998. Two timelines allow for two casts, and this might be Scarpetta’s greatest first season strength. Allow me to explain.

Undeniably, the present-day timeline has the stacked cast of the year—three Academy Award winners (Kidman, Curtis, and DeBose), recognizable TV talents (Cannavale and Baker), plus a few excellent character actors sprinkled in for good measure (Lenny Clarke and a fantastic Stephanie Faracy). Hell, even author Patricia Cornwell cameos as the judge who sears Kidman’s character in. But this is also where Sarnoff and company throw everything and the kitchen sink at the audience in an attempt to give all these incredible actors something to do. At times, it all feels a little overstuffed and narratively off kilter.

The 1998 timeline, by contrast, is more linear—a simpler, straightforward procedural in which younger versions of the same characters grapple with the first case involving a newly-appointed (and first female) Chief Medical Examiner, Kay Scarpetta. This is also where I’m going to give a well-deserved shoutout to casting director John Papsidera, who really nails the younger versions of the primary cast. The standout is Rosy McEwen, whose past credits include Black Mirror, The Alienist, the film Blue Jean, and alongside Julia Garner in the Rosemary’s Baby prequel, Apartment 7A. As the young Scarpetta, McEwen embodies Kidman’s ticks, tricks, and quirks to perfection. Also noteworthy is the genius casting of Bobby Cannavale’s real-life son, Jacob Lumet Cannavale, as the young Marino, Hunter Parrish as the young Benton, and Mike Vogel (Under the Dome, Bates Motel) as Bill Boltz, a city attorney. Sosie Bacon, daughter of Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick, shines in the small but consequential role of journalist Abby Turnball.

Kidman is serviceable in the titular role, while Cannavale shines and Baker gets lost in the background. DeBose is good, but she’s saddled with an annoying character. No surprise, but Curtis is the scene-stealing standout—even if she veers dangerously close to her Emmy-winning character from The Bear at times. Her Dorothy (older sister to Scarpetta) is brash and bawdy, a flamboyant children’s book author who’s hot on men and cool on motherhood, which sets up much of the sisterly resentments between her and Kidman. Much of Scarpetta is an exploration of grief, with the contrast between how Dorothy and Kay each handle an early-life tragedy setting up much of the later conflict. Again, some backstage kudos to the show’s costume designer Ane Crabtree, who opts to emphasize Curtis’s cleavage to the point that her breasts deserve their own credit here. Note to Sarnoff: The winning Dorothy formula going forward is to dial down the character’s anger (which, as mentioned, dips into Donna Berzatto territory) and tap into Curtis’s sizable comedic chops.

Even when the audience risks whiplash from the myriad competing storylines and subplots, Scarpetta manages to keep itself narratively on task and together, leading to a jaw-dropping third act and cliffhanger that will likely lead viewers to tune in for the previously announced second season. Interestingly, both seasons were originally slated to shoot simultaneously last year. For scheduling reasons (likely those of Kidman and Curtis who are juggling multiple projects these days), it did not, and the second season is now slated to begin filming in Nashville later this month. That might be the biggest gift given to Sarnoff and her creative team, who can now take the show’s first season criticism and apply it to the next eight episodes.

Saturday, January 3, 2026

2025: The Year in Music

I’m nothing if consistent in my inconsistency. Looking back on past year-end listicles to see which format I wanted to use for this year’s roll of favorite albums, I realized that I hadn’t made such a list since 2021. I started my annual list back in 2015, with subsequent lists posted for 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020. Poor 2018—it was nothing personal. Apologies to 2022, 2023, and 2024, too, for my lack of spotlight on the many fine artists who put out great albums in those years. Chalk it up to life and its many competing obligations. Adulting sucks sometimes.

2025’s list of top albums has more than a few repeat visitors. My blogging habits may be inconsistent, but my taste apparently is. Five of this year’s entries are from female solo artists, two from male solo artists, and three from bands. Countries represented include the United States, England, and Iceland. For the first time (in such an illustrious history of doing this), bands comprise my top three picks of the year. Not surprising, many artists used their platforms to explore the collective cultural anxieties of our time and express political opinions—even those whose more obvious intent was to make us dance. It made for an interesting year, lyrically speaking.

This year, I reverted back to the older format of commentary/capsule reviews of each entry, including what I feel are the top three tracks on each album. To freshen up the proceedings, this year I included the month of release and a one-word adjective to describe each album, which proved more challenging than you’d think.

With ears carefully trained toward the sounds of 2026’s first great albums, here is my list of the top ten albums from 2025, in countdown order:

 

10 - Here For It All
Mariah Carey

Released: September 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Authentic

On her 16th album—her first in seven years—the incomparable Carey largely stays in the lane she’s carved out for herself with this sophisticated collection of impeccably well-written R&B. And while the story here could be how slickly produced and cohesive the album sounds (which is does), the real discovery here is how honest Carey is with showing us the condition of her vocals, now a slightly more weathered instrument after decades of powerhouse notes, whisper-tones, and seamlessly creamy, luscious vocals. It’s a natural progression for any singer—and kudos to Carey for sharing a more realistic portraiture of where she is now as a singer. Instead of working around her limitations, she wisely leans into them, embracing the occasional hoarseness, flirting with alternate keys, and projecting more from her chest. Arguably, while her voice may not have the bombast that it did in her 90’s heydays, these vocal imperfections have added character and depth to her songs.  

Top Three Tracks:
“My Love”
“Here For It All”
“Confetti & Champagne”


9 - Better Broken
Sarah McLachlan

Released: September 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Resonant

McLachlan, the consummate tugger of heartstrings, returns after almost a decade with a beautifully crafted album that reminds us that she is also one of pop music’s foremost poets. Better Broken finds the three-time Grammy winner confronting global anxieties with a slightly weathered—but unwavering—voice that reflects the experiential insight of an imperfect fellow traveler, a survivor surveying the damage we both suffer and cause in our personal and shared lives. No one does easy listening and melodious ballads better than McLachlan—Better Broken reminds us of that.

Top Three Tracks:
“Better Broken”
“Only Human”
“Gravity”


8 - Flux
Alison Goldfrapp

Released: August 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Ethereal

The vocalist of English electronic music duo Goldfrapp steps forward with her second solo album, a synth-heavy pop effort that finds her awash in shimmery (largely) midtempo grooves. Thematically, much of Flux finds Goldfrapp looking up at the sky, contemplative and speculating. The musical result is a dreamlike collection of muted throbs and shape-shifting ambient elegance set against Goldfrapp’s ethereal vocals. Welcome to the musical comfort zone.

Top Three Tracks:
“UltraSky”
“Reverberotic”
“Play It (Shine Like a Nova Star)”


7 - Closer
Kim Wilde

Released: January 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Consistent

The venerable 80’s pop-rocker started off the year with a compulsively listenable collection of ten tracks that sounds simultaneously fresh and wistfully nostalgic. Fifteen albums in and Wilde sounds confident is both her voice and material she’s offering here—a mixture of pop, rock, ballads, and dancefloor bangers. The synth and new wave influences that marked the earlier hits that defined her—like “Kids in America” and “You Came” and “Another Step (Closer to You)”—are all present and accounted for. This album effortlessly bridges the span of years from Wilde’s beginnings to where she finds herself at the age of 64.

Top Three Tracks:
“Stones and Bones”
“Lighthouse”
“Love Is Love”


6 - Mayhem
Lady Gaga

Released: March 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Propulsive

Lady Gaga gives fans a big ‘ole wink with the oxymoronic title of her seventh studio album, which is decidedly less chaotic cacophony and more calculated euphonious symmetry. Mayhem finds Lady G committing to the sleek, propulsive dance beats and over-the-top excess that made her a star in the first place. Self-referentiality is a key ingredient on most the 14 tracks on display here. Mayhem is a deliciously overstuffed exercise in musical maximalism, with Gaga’s formidable vocals keeping pace (and volume) with the sonic walls of controlled anarchism on each track.

Top Three Tracks:
“LoveDrug”
“Disease”
“Vanish into You”


5 - Ten Crowns
Andy Bell

Released: May 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Contagious

The venerable Erasure frontman steps out on his own for the first time since 2010’s Non-Stop with this Dave Audé co-produced collection of infectious EDM and Eurodisco tracks. The energy is high, the mood buoyant, the lyrics sharp—biting even at times—on this third solo effort. Ten Crowns is a toe-tapping club-centric pop confection with a gospel ribbon threaded through the glitter-infused celebration of survival and queer resilience at the album’s heart. Bell, at 61, is in fine voice and delivers all the danceable drama here.

Top Three Tracks:
“Heart’s a Liar (with Debbie Harry)
“Lies So Deep” (featuring Sarah Potenza)
“Dawn of Heaven’s Gate”


4 - I Barely Know Her
Sombr

Released: August 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Virtuoso

Buoyed by this 20-year-old wunderkind’s rockstar confidence, I Barely Know Her is easily the best debut album of the year. The native New Yorker crafts an infectious, reverb-laden collection of ten songs about yearning that’s musically set against a lo-fi wall of dreamlike melodrama, built on lush harmonies, deep bassline grooves, and percussive stabs of 80’s synths. Sombr (real name Shane Boose) is the real deal, that rare talent whose future longevity is unmistakable the first time you experience his music.

Top Three Tracks:
“12 to 12”
“back to friend”
“canal street”


3 - Everybody Scream
Florence + The Machine

Released: August 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Theatrical

Florence Welch and her Machine returned with their sixth studio album, an enchanting 12-track sonic scream that cements their place as one of the most musically unique bands in rock history. Center stage—wisely and as always—is Welch’s exceptional vocal prowess, which is paired on this effort with feminist themes and lyrics that blend folklore and mysticism. The result is a captivating, theatrical experience with gothic undertones.

Top Three Tracks:
“Everybody Scream”
“The Old Religion”
“You Can Have It All”


2 - Let All That We Imagine Be the Light
Garbage

Released: May 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Bombastic

The venerable rock outfit returned with its eighth studio album following its superb No Gods No Masters set in 2021. This stellar collection of melody-driven grunge-pop finds frontwoman Shirley Manson and company searching for hope and resilience in turbulent times with their characteristic defiance intact. They’re a band that’s come into its own with few fucks to give. The result is a more introspective, relaxed effort that harkens back to its 1995 self-titled debut. Sonic adventurism that’s as raucous as it is fun.

Top Three Tracks:
“Chinese Fire Horse”
“R U Happy Now”
“Sisyphus”


1 - All is Love and Pain in the Mouse Parade
Of Monsters and Men

Released: October 2025
One Adjective to Best Describe: Exquisite

The Icelandic indie-folk rock band made a welcome return this year with its first full-length offering since 2019’s Fever Dream. Opting for more introspective storytelling here, the album is interfused with thought-provoking, poetic metaphors and images drawn from the unspoken weight of the everyday. Musically, the band has fused its earlier signature sweeping choruses and layered harmonies with the subtle electronic texturing of synths and heavier percussion. The result is simply divine—easily one of the most gorgeous collections of songs I’ve ever heard.

Top Three Tracks:
“Television Love”
“The Actor”
“Fruit Bat”

 

Honorable Mentions (in no particular order):

The Life of a Showgirl
Taylor Swift

A Matter of Time
Laufey

Perimenopop
Sophie Ellis-Bextor

Duets Special
Chrissie Hynde

Period
Kesha

All Night Days
Rob Thomas

Once Upon a Time in California
Belinda Carlisle

Man’s Best Friend
Sabrina Carpenter

Monday, March 31, 2025

The Rule of Jenny Pen: A Geri-Horror Masterclass

There is a growing trend within the horror genre in which aging is being employed as a mechanism of terror. Geriatric horror—or, abridged, geri-horror—is taking the inevitably of aging (frightening in its own right) and factors closely associated with growing older (dementia and cognitive decline, physical deterioration, isolation and loneliness, communities for the elderly such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities) and examining them through the context of the horror genre.

Geri-horror is the natural successor to the hagsploitation movement in film of the 1960s and 1970s in which former Hollywood starlets would play deranged old women. The formula was simple: glam it down and camp it up. This subgenre—also known as “hag horror” or “grand dame Guignol"—captured Hollywood's seeming disdain for older women at the time yet, in an ironic, subversive twist, gave some of these actresses the best roles of their later careers. Think Joan Crawford and Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) or Davis (again), Olivia De Haviland, and Agnes Moorehead in Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) or Crawford (again) in Straight-Jacket (1964) or Geraldine Page and Ruth Gordon in What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? (1969) or Shelley Winters in both Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? (1971) and What's the Matter with Helen? (1971).

In geri-horror, expectations that elderly people are kind and harmless are upended. Take Minnie and Roman Castevet in Rosemary’s Baby (1968), for example, who turn out not to be frail elderly neighbors but satanic cultists and master manipulators in the plot to bring the Antichrist into being. Keeping with the satanism theme, there’s the entire community of senior citizens in the film The Brotherhood of Satan (1971) who are turning the children of a small California desert town into Satan worshipers or the eccentric Ulmans, played by Tom Noonan and Mary Woronov, in Ti West’s The House of the Devil (2009) who lure a young babysitter into a sinister trap. In 1988, The Legend of Hell House director John Hough employs silver screen legends Yvonne DeCarlo and Rod Steiger to play the unhinged parents of a weird, murderous family in the slasher American Gothic. Earlier, Lassie actor Arthur Space and television actress Mary Jackson played deranged proprietors of a sham resort where vacationing college girls were lured, fattened up, and then (literally) served up on platters in the lurid Texas Chainsaw Massacre cannibalism precursor, Terror at Red Wolf Inn (1972).

At other times in geri-horror, old age itself is the source of the horror. In the film adaptation of Peter Straub’s novel Ghost Story (1981), a group of elderly men calling themselves the Chowder Society are plagued by guilt-ridden nightmares stemming from an impulsive act in their collective past. In the film Late Phases (2014), werewolves preying upon the residents of a retirement community become a metaphor for struggling to relocate a physically challenged parent against their will into a retirement community. This one is stacked with a fantastic over-60 cast that includes Tina Louise (Gilligan’s Island), Rutanya Alda (Mommie Dearest, Girls Nite Out, Amityville II: The Possession, The Dark Half), Caitlin O’Heaney (Savage Weekend, He Knows You’re Alone), Karen Lynn Gorney (Saturday Night Fever), and Tom Noonan (Wolfen, The Monster Squad). In M. Night Shyamalan’s pandemic-era Old (2021), the acclaimed director adapts the French-language graphic novel Sandcastle written by Pierre Oscar Lévy from France and drawn by Frederik Peeters from Switzerland, taking the body horror route to show aging as grotesque and inescapable—much in the way 2024’s The Substance does. Shyamalan’s other geri-horror contribution—2015’s The Visit—offered up a pair of sinister grandparents whose increasingly bizarre and disquieting behavior is cleverly couched within the Alzheimer’s symptom of “sundown syndrome.” Dementia takes centerstage in Relic (2020), an Australian gem of a cinematic metaphor about how the disease not only wreaks havoc on the victim but also on those closest—often caregivers.

In yet other works, aging is a badge of honor—and a weapon in confronting horror. In She Will (2021), Alice Krige plays an aging actress who goes to a healing retreat after a double mastectomy, where she discovers that the process of such surgery opens up questions about her very existence, leading her to start to question and confront past traumas. Likewise, Jamie Lee Curtis stepped back into her iconic role as terrorized babysitter Laurie Strode for David Gordon Green’s trilogy Halloween (2018), Halloween Kills (2021), and Halloween Ends (2023)—only this time her PTSD has fueled her preparedness, making her an AARP card-carrying survivalist and Final Grandma. This theme of “Don’t Fuck with Old People” is carried out again in Don’t Breathe (2016) and VFW (2019).

Requisite history lesson aside, The Rule of Jenny Pen (2025)—directed by James Ashcroft and written by Ashcroft and Eli Kent, based on the short story of the same name by Owen Marshall—is the latest, and perhaps most fully realized contribution to the geri-horror subgenre to date. This haunting, malicious New Zealand-lensed psychological tale of elder-on-elder abuse features Academy Award winner Geoffrey Rush as Stefan Mortensen, a judge who suffers a stroke, mid-sentencing, from the bench. He finds himself admitted to a nursing home (or “care home” as is the geographic idiom) for rehabilitation. His character, seemingly friendless, is the epitome of an entitled elite—dismissive toward women, caustic, and outright rude at times. The post-stroke wheelchair he finds himself in does little to humble him. Enter multiple Emmy and Tony Award winner and two-time Academy Award nominee John Lithgow as Dave Crealy, a fellow resident who’s as kooky as he is dangerous. Before becoming a resident, Crealy was the longtime handyman at Royale Pine Mews and that familiarity with the facility and its grounds gives him a different type of entitlement. He’s a geriatric bully—commandeering other residents’ food when the well-meaning if inattentive staff isn’t looking, aggressively shoving other residents out of the way during a dance activity, and—worst of all—paying nocturnal visits to his fellow residents’ room in the middle of the night to terrorize them with an eyeless hand puppet he calls Jenny Pen. The scenes in which Lithgow demands a pledge of allegiance to the titular doll that includes “licking its asshole” (thankfully, just the underside of Lithgow’s wrist) are chilling to the bone. Ashcroft wisely uses Lithgow’s towering 6’4” frame to powerfully frame the power dynamic between him and his frail elderly counterparts.

Crealy’s cruelty to the nursing home’s other residents varies from the humiliating (dumping a urinal full of pee onto Mortensen’s crotch while in bed) to the downright sadistic (tugging violently on the newly-inserted catheter of Mortensen’s roommate Tony Garfield (George Henare) or leading a demented woman who spends the majority of her screen time looking for the family about to pick her up and take her home any minute out of the gated grounds where tragedy befalls her). Although Mortensen reports the abuse, the nursing home’s administration does little to investigate, dismissing his concerns as part of his adjustment disorder. As Mortensen’s rehab fails to progress, he gradually loses his voice to the endemic ageism that sees the institutionalized elderly as ignorable. Still, Mortensen is determined to bring Crealy’s reign of terror to an end—using whatever means necessary. The film gradually builds in a tense game of cat-and-mouse before the two geriatric foes finally square off.

Ashcroft and company do a superb job of portraying life in a nursing home—from the near-drowning Mortensen experiences when left unattended in a bathtub when the aide leaves to retrieve towels to the way the center’s staff is portrayed as generally caring more about completing tasks than listening to what their elderly charges try to tell them. There is an intrinsic sadness hanging over Royale Pine Mews even as festive activities take place in the background and the residents’ care needs seem tended to adequately enough. It’s here—in the loneliness and social isolation at the end of one’s life, when autonomy is slowly lost and hope abandoned—that the geri-horror aspects of The Rule of Jenny Pen really kick in. There can be no happy ending because even if the villain is defeated, the audience knows that there is no escape for Mortensen from the decay aging brings.

Circling back to our de facto history lesson at the beginning of this review, The Rule of Jenny Pen is also notable for subverting the rules of the hagsploitation subgenre—here enlisting two Hollywood males of a certain age (Rush, 73 and Lithgow, 79) and placing them in the psycho-biddy cinematic scenario usually reserved for women. Ashcroft ably proves that the horrors of growing old in an ageist society aren't reserved just for women. It’s just another bit of the understated brilliance of this film that will likely go on to have a long shelf life.

Monday, February 24, 2025

Queer Horror Anthologies Make History

From time to time, I’ve been known to share an opinion or two. 

Stop laughing. I’ll wait.

Those opinions usually come from something I feel passionate about and never without factual basis—even if the conclusions drawn are up for debate. Last year around this time, I was publicly lamenting the fact that the Horror Writers Association had once again failed to elevate any queer horror anthologies onto the Bram Stoker Awards® final ballot. Note that when I refer to the Horror Writers Association, I refer to its membership-at-large, not its Board of Trustees, its officers, or the countless volunteers that somehow keep the behemoth venerable writing organization running. Its members—as a whole—failed once again to push through a single queer horror anthology. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

“Neither their jury system (put in place largely to balance the popularity contest aspect of the member vote) nor their membership have put a single LGBTQ+/queer horror anthology on the ballot since 2009. Likewise, not a single queer horror anthology has won since that same year. In fact, only one queer horror anthology has been nominated in the history of the category, which originated in 1998. A single queer horror anthology in 26 years. As a queer anthologist, this depresses me to no end. #StokersSoStraight?”

The single queer horror anthology that was nominated and won for Superior Achievement in an Anthology in 2009 was the first I’d edited (with Chad Helder) in the Unspeakable Horror anthology series—Unspeakable Horror: From the Shadows of the Closet (Dark Scribe Press, 2008). I remember returning to my Burbank hotel room after the awards ceremony and being overwhelmed by the congratulatory words and sentiments from LGBTQ writers from across the globe on social media. I felt as if I’d broken some invisible lavender ceiling that night and that its shattering would open the door to other queer anthologists and their queerly curated collections. Alas, the opposite would happen. It had taken 11 years for a single queer horror anthology to make its mark upon the Stokers anthology category; sadly, it would take 16 additional years after that nomination and win before another queer horror anthology made the final ballot. 

My criticism last year made the rounds—was cheered by some, frowned upon by others. Many stayed silent. Whatever the immediate reaction, I’d like to believe that my rebuke found its way into a few hearts and minds. Whether the HWA membership read a little more widely this year or the anthology jury placed some greater emphasis on diversity in its picks, I was positively thrilled yesterday when the final ballot was announced, and two queer horror anthologies were named finalists in the Superior Achievement in an Anthology category! Both Rob Costello’s We Mostly Come Out at Night: 15 Queer Tales of Monsters, Angels & Other Creatures (Running Press Kids, 2024) and Sofia Ajram’s Bury Your Gays: An Anthology of Tragic Queer Horror (Ghoulish Books, 2024) are in the running for the prestigious award this year. They have now made history as only the second and third, respectively, expressly LGBTQ+ horror anthologies to be nominated in the 27 years since the category originated. And should one of them win on the evening of June 14th, it will become only the second queer horror anthology to ever do so. Even better is the fact that these two queer horror anthologies are spectacularly dissimilar in tone and audience, demonstrating the breadth of queer horror. 

Representation in the genre I’ve loved since I was a kid old enough to watch Karen Black run around her apartment terrorized by that nasty little Zuni fetish doll has been a subject that’s near and dear to my heart for decades. Having once criticized the Horror Writers Association’s membership and jury for not including queer horror anthologies in its Bram Stoker Awards® final ballot, I want to publicly praise both for their inclusiveness in doing so this year—twice! And, lastly, just like I was inspired by fearless queer editors like Michael Rowe and his seminal Queer Fear duo of anthologies in crafting what has become the longest-running anthology series of original queer horror, I hope fledgling anthologists will, too, take inspiration from editors Costello and Ajram and dream up their own collections of queer horror and smash through even higher lavender ceilings. 

Elevating queer voices is more important, more vital than ever before.


Thursday, June 29, 2023

The Case for Anthologists

Discussion has cropped up on the Internet regarding anthologies and the editors who curate them and the writers who contribute stories to them. An open letter to the varies bodies that administer speculative fiction awards has been circulating that calls for Best Anthology awards to be awarded to each contributor of the anthology, as well as the editor(s). The proposal calls for an “equal share of the award” for each contributor. Part of the justification for this is that the editors “have not contributed a single story” to the anthology.

First, and foremost, I appreciate the discussion and the civility that has ensued despite differing opinions. I did not immediately weigh in on the issue, preferring instead to sit back and listen to the opinions of others—of those on both sides of this discussion—for a bit on various social media sites. But in some of the responses, loaded words like “injustice” and “inequity” and “unfair” have been introduced into the discourse.

Speaking specifically from the horror-side of the equation, as a point of clarification, the Shirley Jackson Awards have 6 categories—five are exclusively for writers, one for editors (the Edited Anthology category). The Bram Stoker Awards have 13 categories—eleven are exclusively for writers with one solely for editors (Superior Achievement in an Anthology) and a second (Superior Achievement in Non-Fiction) that could be won by either a writer or an editor. Are 2 to 3 editor-eligible awards out of 19 really an "injustice" or constitute "inequity" as has been characterized elsewhere? Neither one of these award bodies have a "Best Editor" award. So, at least in the cases of these two genre awards, an 85/15 split for writers and editors seems more than equitable.

I have both edited anthologies and contributed original works to others. When the editors of anthologies to which I've contributed have been nominated for an award, I celebrate them. I understand that my role was to write a story (or submit something already finished) and cash the check for said story. On occasion, that may include a few hours of research. Even after this business transaction, I still try to be a good cheerleader for the anthology's success. As a contributor, those were my obligations. As an editor, I'm responsible for developing the concept/theme, developing the pitch that sells the anthology to a publisher or convinces an agent of its potential to sell, negotiating an advance that ensures I can pay contributors at or above the prevailing professional rate (or bankrolling that portion myself in advance), reading through hundreds of slush pile submissions, notifying each author who submits of their story's acceptance or rejection, preparing author contracts/agreements, sending them out, and tracking their return. As the editor, I'm editing each one of the stories and working with the contributors on revisions, deciding on the TOC order, proofreading each story in the manuscript at least twice (usually more), pulling the manuscript together into one document, writing the introduction, working with the publisher on the cover concept and art, and proofreading the manuscript after it's been formatted. As the editor, I'm engaged in the pre-release marketing—email interviews, virtual interviews and podcasts, social media boosts—keeping the contributors updated on reviews and award nominations. For Other Terrors, my co-editor purchased and mailed each contributor a t-shirt with the anthology's cover on it at her own expense in celebration of the anthology and everyone who contributed to it.

So, respectfully, no, I do not believe that an award nomination or win for an edited anthology should be equally shared, as has been proposed. Each one of contributing writers has opportunities to be recognized for their work as a contributor to an anthology in one of several short fiction categories in those same awards. So why the call to dilute the anthologist’s single opportunity to be recognized within either of these awards bodies? Using Other Terrors, as an example, one of our contributors—the magnificent Tananarive Due—was recognized for her contribution to the anthology with a Locus Award nomination for her superb closer “Incident at Bear Creek Lodge” in the Novelette category. The anthology itself was not nominated. Should Rena and I—as editors of that story in our anthology—also been recognized as Locus nominees because (under the proposal’s logic) anthologies are a group effort? Of course not—that’s ludicrous. Likewise, it’s ludicrous to equate the amount of labor, time, and creativity that an anthologist pours into curating a 100k-word collection with the writer’s (inarguably valuable) single story contribution for which they have ample opportunity for awards recognition on their own. Again, with an 85/15 split between writers and editors in terms of awards eligibility in both the Shirley Jackson and Bram Stoker Awards, there is hardly a case that can be made for inequity.

Using an analogy from another art form, let’s take movies to illustrate the point here. Like an anthology, it takes numerous artists of various kinds to create a film. There is the film’s director, the actors, the producers, the screenwriter, the costume and set designers, the cameraman, the publicists, and countless others—many individuals who contribute to the success of a film. When a film is nominated for and wins an Academy Award for Best Picture, the producers win the actual award. The actors and everyone else involved in the film get bragging rights to having been featured in/worked on an Oscar-winning film, but the honor is bestowed upon the producer(s) (i.e., the person(s) who oversees the film’s production, the person(s) who plans and coordinates various aspects of the film’s creation, such as selecting the script, coordinating writing, directing, editing, and arranging financing).

As someone who strives to be a good and professional anthologist, I think the contributors should always be acknowledged and thanked in public forums; when I won the Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in an Anthology in 2009, I named each contributor in my acceptance speech. If OTHER TERRORS was to win the SJA, the same would occur. Throughout the process for OTHER TERRORS and my latest anthology, contributors were repeatedly tagged in each and every social media post highlighting a starred review or notable mention. I even asked the art department at Harper Collins to design a graphic celebrating the anthology's SJA nomination (which they happily did) and I immediately emailed every contributor to thank them for being a part of the anthology and to offer them the graphic to share. I think only 4 out of 20+ contributors actually did.

That all said, while I still hold to the idea that it's the editor(s) who is credited with the nomination or award for an edited anthology, I see absolutely no harm in a certificate being bestowed upon the contributors acknowledging that their story was included in an anthology that was nominated and/or won the <insert award name here> award. As was said elsewhere, contributors still get bragging rights for being included in said anthology, on top of being paid for their work (hopefully at or above the prevailing per word rate, as they should).