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).
