Oh god. This one was miserable. I read the entries in the packet and went to a couple of the websites.
I read part of Laura Mixon's report on the Requires Hate/Thai writer conundrum. I don't entirely understand the situation, but I think that's because the person involved (not Ms. Mixon) is, as we say in the south "not right". I've never heard of any of the people involved, I can't understand why she was willing to spend this much time on it*, but she was. I have read arguments and counter arguments on whether this piece "deserved" to be nominated. Oy!
David Freer's submitted material was not appealing, but the bio on his website was. He addressed the fact that he is also a professional writer. I skimmed the first two posts from the submitted blog. Okay, the third was a re-post from another nominee. I was unable to finish it. This nominee I am dithering on. Oy!
Next - I didn't finish the sample.
Next - Ditto.
Jeffro Johnson submitted three samples, all book reviews of older books. One and three were fine. Two, two was dodgy.**. However, he is a fan, he is writing, and some of his writing is interesting/helpful. Even the squicky review was helpful, I'm not going to read the book.
Next year, I hope there are better choices.
*I initially meant why Ms. Mixon was willing to write about it, realized it was ambiguous, realized I meant it in both senses. I don't understand why the blogger in the report spent so much time being awful to people. What's the point?
**I have to say that Mr. Johnson's second review evoked certain stereotypes for me. I'm not going to say anymore because I don't want to be hateful.
No comments:
Post a Comment