Comments on: More on Acknowledgments and a Poll

By: Tom Whitmore

Tom Whitmore — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:17:25 +0000

Since you didn’t fall into any of the excesses which Emily rails against, I prefer 2. It takes someone Really Good to manage humor in an acknowledgements page, like Sol Weinstein in the Oy Oy Seven books (over-the-top sexist humorous Jewish parodies of James Bond from the 60s/early 70s).

By: Justine Larbalestier » And No. 2 Wins

Justine Larbalestier » And No. 2 Wins — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:54:02 +0000

[...] 038; Publishing, Reading, Whingeing — Justine @ 7:53 am There were many responses—thanks everyone—to my which-form-of-acknowledgments-should-I-go-with qu [...]

By: lewis

lewis — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:37:33 +0000

I don’t like acks but if you must have one then let it be funny and
obnoxious:
I’d like to thank my father and mother: the latter for giving birth to
me after the former had his way with her, when both were drunk, on a
dark and stormy night. I’d also like to thank my first grade teacher,
Miss Campbell, for reading stories to me. If not for her, I would never
have become a professional scribbler.

By: parker

parker — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:48:49 +0000

number 2. no question. and i’m all for an eggers style imprint page too.

By: Kathryn Cramer

Kathryn Cramer — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:00:07 +0000

I feel so naive. I thought acknowledgments were for finding out who really wrote ghost-written books.

By: John Scalzi

John Scalzi — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:05:14 +0000

Number 2. Sentences complete good are.

By: shelly rae

shelly rae — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:48:12 +0000

Definitely option two. It’s more personal–a real thank you as opposed to a list of credits.
Anon,

By: Jenny D

Jenny D — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:40:56 +0000

In itself, I also actually like the first one better. But there’s much to be said for sticking with the usual format–it risks being a bit cutesy otherwise, I think. (But I wish everyone would switch to a credits-type listing…)

By: Janni

Janni — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:34:36 +0000

Either works for me, too. The first wasn’t a turnoff at all, at any rate.

By: Lauren McLaughlin

Lauren McLaughlin — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:08:56 +0000

I’m taking the minority opinion and going with option #1. Short, to the point, no extraneous linking words.

By: David Moles

David Moles — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:27:46 +0000

If you do go with #1, you have to make up some obscure literary jobs with wacky names — you know, the equivalent of “key grip,” “gaffer,” and “best boy.”

I also like Patrick’s tell-all memoir idea.

By: the eagle-eyed and amazing micole

the eagle-eyed and amazing micole — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:34:46 +0000

I do not feel that the first option properly conveys the magnificence of the people being thanked.

By: Stephanie Burgis

Stephanie Burgis — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:18:14 +0000

I definitely vote for #2 — it’s personable, fun, and sucks me into the book right away. (Jennifer Crusie does that really well with her acknowledgements pages–they’re friendly, likable and fun to read even if you don’t know any of the people she’s talking about.)

By: jonathan

jonathan — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:15:29 +0000

you’re way better than me. i’m just struggling to be sure that i don’t forget anyone. i don’t know how much they care, but i want to acknowledge people. i’ve not written a novel, but there are a bugger of a lot of people who help with an anthology.

By: Richard B.

Richard B. — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:54:24 +0000

Option Number Two is the clear winner. It’s elementary, my dear, as we used to say back on Multiplication Rock.

By: marrije

marrije — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:04:44 +0000

Second option, definitely. But you’re sane and funny, not the um, slightly insane person emily g refers to. On second thought, even in that case i’d like an acknowledgements page in the second, wordy style. makes the insanity shine much more beautifully.

By: Ray Davis

Ray Davis — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:52:49 +0000

But no one will ever beat Kyle Baker’s “This book is dedicated to whoever I’m going out with now.”

By: Ray Davis

Ray Davis — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:44:38 +0000

Whatever the author feels like is OK with me.

By: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick Nielsen Hayden — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:22:41 +0000

Neither. Publish the book. Include a gnomic dedication if you must.

Late in life, publish a tell-all memoir of such flamboyant magnificence that it eclipses all your work thus far.

By: gwenda

gwenda — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:29:55 +0000

Yeah, I like two too. What I loved best about Emily G’s column was the idea of critiquing acknowledgements and I must, sort of shamefully, admit that it was one of my favorite catty reviews ever. I’d far rather read catty reviews of acknowledgements than books.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:32:17 +0000

Number two, hands down! I guess I can see Emily G.’s point on the one hand, but to me it just feels petty. Actors get millions of opportunities to spout off their gratitude to any and all influnces; most authors never get another opportunity beyond their acknowledgements page. And you know, no one’s making anyone read it in the first place. Personally, I love the “insider” feel the ack page gives me.

By: claire

claire — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:29:11 +0000

i never read acks unless i have a crush on the writer, in which case i want as much personal information as possible. so i guess i’d vote for #2. of course, i’ve already received an offer of marriage from you, so i feel i’m already in the in crowd. so if you went with #1, i’d expect you to list me under “offers of marriage conditionally refused during editing process.”

By: Justine

Justine — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:27:38 +0000

One of my editors just weighed in for number two as well.

By: JeremyT

JeremyT — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:22:02 +0000

I’d prefer the second also. If there’s one place where I don’t mind reading, it’s inside a book, and there’s a more personal touch to number 2.

By: scott

scott — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:06:21 +0000

I’m for door number 2. Call me old fashioned, but I like complete sentences. Plus, more information in the second one, so it tends to read less cryptic/insider jokey.