1. This first point taps into my central concern: is the award committee being thoughtful regarding how best to promote this literary award? I’ll leave it to OL readers to decide based on your description of the promotion’s genesis. (On a related point, my ability to take a joke is wholly unrelated to my comments. Seriousness does not = an inability to take a joke. Also: what under discussion here do you consider to be a joke?)

2. I did not write, “expensive artifact.” I wrote, “a more interesting artifact.” Did you pay a printer to make the Haringa books? If so, I suggest that money–wherever it came from–could have been better used. If not, I stand corrected, but would have to assume that someone then donated printing services, and I would ask again, could that donation have been better used by the award committee?

Actual money aside, time was spent. Is that worth nothing?

Consider this: A lark on your blog is one thing; linking said lark to The Shirley Jackson Awards is another. You changed the context of the Haringa posts, which means they can and should be criticized in relation to the Award.

3. There were a number of fundraising efforts I didn’t mention. Selling used books at Boskone (I bought some), for instance. I also said nothing about the ceremony or the nominees and winners–by far the most important element of the Award. This was not an act of journalistic dishonesty. My post was not about The Shirley Jackson Awards and all the ways its committee raises funds. My post was a response to specific comments made by David Kearny and Brian Keene regarding two specific promotional efforts.

4. Anyone who read my post knows there is no “Brian Keene Is Dead” book. I quoted Keene who states there is no book. I purposefully included Keene’s own words and I called his comment thoughtful, which was not meant in any way other than sincerely.

Brett (whom I also know and enjoyed a bowl of soup with recently): Thank you for your careful reply. Let me emphasize this: my post was not about Shirley Jackson’s reputation–I don’t think you or I or the committee could do much to change that. No, my post is concerned with the Award’s reputation.

RN Lee (whom I do not know): thank you for your added perspective.

Because they’re Doing It All Wrong and it’s a big horror genre daisy chain like the Stokers, and never likely to be anything else.

Which is sad, especially as the awards were started primarily to create an award anybody outside Horror Land would care about, one that would matter on a book cover exactly the way a Stoker doesn’t.

I won’t get deep into my personal history with the SJ Awards, as I still have friends involved, but…I’m a designer and marketer of some years standing, and was asked to design the award and corporate identity and etc. My girlfriend is also a designer and…we were going to do it for free, which we never do, not for groups like that, really. But…I thought the goal worthy and she actually knew who Shirley Jackson was, so she was into it, too. We got started and bought books and reference materials and…

Suffice it to say we did not design anything for them, free or otherwise, and I didn’t encounter anything in my brief dealings with the organization that indicated they had any more rational notions about design or promotion or marketing or how to run something like an award than the HWA does. And I stomped out of that organization over the same issues (and way worse) a few years ago.

They do pick better books that either nobody’s going to pay any more attention to or everybody’s already read, though. That’s cool. I guess.

I generally just kind of skim a feew the “kill this guy” entries each year, the ones my friends wrote, and don’t find much reason to stop and read any in full.

I appreciate your concern and find some of the viewpoints expressed to be valid. However, you’re presenting more than a few inaccuracies.

–One, and as stated in the intro of Jack Haringa Must Die, the blog day started off as a complete lark with no association to the award. Something with which to have fun. That’s it. You know, a blog post with which a bunch of folks interested in participating get a chance to take themselves a little less serious for a change? The blog day happened, we surprised Jack, people had *gasp* fun. The blogosphere response at the time was overwhelmingly positive, so much so, someone presented the idea of collecting them into a chapbook, and selling them to raise proceeds for the new award. Greatest idea ever? Probably not, but it helped raised our first chunk of funds.

–Two: We weren’t interested in creating a more expensive artifact. The Shirley Jackson Award didn’t spend a dime on publishing the book. We didn’t pay the contributors, we didn’t pay the editor, we didn’t pay the designer. No. Funds. Were. Spent. You could’ve found out about that first, but it’s easier to make assumptions instead. A few people stepped up to personally purchase hard copies to sell at conventions. Again, no award funds were used. Heck, we didn’t have award funds to use at the time.

–Three: How convenient that you don’t mention our other two, much larger (larger in terms of scope, in terms of funds raise, in terms of publicity and coverage the events received), fund raising endeavors: the KGB reading of works of Shirley Jackson in July of ‘08 to celebrate the anniversary of “The Lottery,” and February of 09’s “lottery.” You present your case, as it were, as if we’re solely crapping out Haringa books to raise funds. It is very much incorrect when you state that we are ignoring Shirley Jackson. I find that claim to be the most ludicrous and insulting of all.

–Four: There is no Brian Keen Must Die book. The blog day was again, created to have some fun in the blogosphere. Brian knew about the blog day before it was going to happen and he (of his own volition) requested that participants include the tag about donating to support the award.

You’re welcome to your opinion of whether or not the two very small fund raising attempts are worthy of the award or Shirley Jackson’s name. Who am I to say you’re wrong there? I am of the opinion, however, that Jackson’s works are often quite funny; that she was an author of astounding talent with a sense of humor. You know, someone who can take a joke.