Defending the Indefensible

Update: Most of the posts in the thread I linked to have been pulled, including the awesome messages by “romance author” defending grammatical illegibility (and by awesome, I mean “WHAT THE SHIT?”), as well as Emma’s wonderful and articulate response. *cries* But if you want to ogle another train-wreck-in-progress, check out this other a-splosion, in which an author who’s at least brave enough to sign her name writes some more about…how the bad sentences in her book were taken out of context. Oy.

* * * * * *

Via crankyreader, check out this “romance author” who tries to argue that grammar, spelling and, well, general coherency don’t matter. Aieeee. A poster named Emma summarized what I would’ve wanted to say, with much less profanity and a great deal more eloquence.

Man, I wonder who this romance author is. People who don’t bother to at least come up with SOME sort of username and instead resort to “anonymous,” “a reader” or “romance author” and the like strike me as singularly uncreative minds. Look, if you want to be chickenshit, be a CREATIVE chickenshit.

Categorized:

The Link-O-Lator

Comments are Closed

  1. Robin says:

    FYI, LLB pulled the thread including romance author’s now infamous comments and Emma’s incredibly articulate response.  Too bad, but I understand why she did it. 

    Candy:  great post; I really envy your talent for being snarkily funny but astute and articulate at the same time.  As we’ve seen over the past week, that combination is really difficult to achieve such that everyone understands both aspects of it (and the writer clearly communicates both).

  2. Candy says:

    Aw hell! I just noticed that all of the posts by “romance author” seem to have been deleted. Dude, that stinks! Now people clicking on the link will have no effing clue what I’m referring to. Ah well. Off to edit the post.

  3. azteclady says:

    I don’t know but the link from SB Sarah’s post still takes you to part of the original thread…

  4. This whole discussion made me post a want ad in my blog.

    Anyone want to earn piddly-ass dough for lots of work? Head over there.

    (Robin?)

  5. LFL says:

    I just can’t take it at AAR at the moment so I thought I’d come here and bitch.  Smartly, I hope.

    I understand some authors’ impulse to find someone who will kiss their boo boo and make it all better, but not why they don’t turn to fellow authors for that kind of support instead of to their readers.

    Do they or do they not realize that this almost always causes a flame war and puts a big damper on discussing the flaws of books?  Is it their goal to stifle freedom of speech or are they so caught up in their hurt feelings that they can’t see the big picture?

    And why is it that authors of literary fiction resist the temptation to share their wounded feelings with readers, while authors of romance don’t?  They also work out of home with only a chinchilla for company.  Surely they make even less money and also can’t afford a staff to help them hold onto their good judgment, but they still manage to do it.

    Is it because romance is written primarily by women?  I hate to harbor such sexist thoughts about my own gender.  Is it because the genre’s being treated like the dregs of literature by the general public has caused some romance authors to lose perspective?  Or is it because there is a culture within the romance genre that leads some authors to expect nothing but mindless adulation from readers?

    I apologize if I’ve gone too far in this post, but I’m near to losing it myself.  It seems to me that practically every other week some author on the AAR boards acts like readers have trashed her personally because they’ve said something critical about her book.  Reading the explosive threads that result over there can be exhausting for me.  It’s hard not to feel that there is a big war within the genre going on between authors and some of their readers, a war over how books can be viewed and discussed publicly.

  6. celeste says:

    Why would LLB pull the “romance author” posts and not the whole thread? And did she post an explanation anywhere?

    Hmm. Maybe she tracked down who “romance author” was? The message board doesn’t show much identifying info on the client side, but I’m sure there’s stuff on the server side that’d reveal a lot more.

  7. celeste says:

    Oh, bizarre. The admin on the AAR message board posted this:

    For reasons I am not at liberty to divulge, but having to do with the guidelines that govern this board, the sub-thread was cut. There can be no further discussion on that point. Regardless, it’s time to move on.

    WTF? If they deleted the thread just cuz they felt it got ugly (although it was certainly no more vitriolic than any number of other discussions I’ve seen over there), then why make it sound so frickin’ ominous?

  8. azteclady says:

    If the thread was pulled because it violated in some way the forum guidelines, how can she not be at liberty to explain the matter? Are the guidelines top secret material?

    *scratching my head in amazement*

  9. LFL says:

    I wonder if it has something to do with private emails from people who wished to remain anonymous, or with the identity of the author who posted anonymously.

  10. Candy says:

    DYING FOR SCUTTLEBUTT. DYING.

    Nonetheless, I’m going to guess both options presented by LFL are correct—or are connected. I have my suspicions, now, as to who “romance author” might be.

    *ominous trombone*

    Well, dammit, if we can’t talk about it on AAR, let’s talk it up over here, then. Not that we weren’t already, but still.

  11. Kate says:

    Trombones? Ominious? Hmmm. Can’t hear that I’ll have to get the trombonist in the house to try for that.

    My lastest message on AAR was cut too. I think LLB’s getting pickier about what can go on that board. Granted it was a want ad for a proofer—no, actually it was just a LINK—but it wasn’t a promo thing in any sense. (Who wants to announce to the world that she has no eye for detail?)

    I’ve noticed more cut conversations on that board lately.

    Candy? Why do you think you know who the anonymous romance writer is?

  12. Kate R says:

    *snort*
    now even “the thread was cut” thread has been slightly pruned.

    AAR boards show even hotter passions and then sillier with comment cutting than some political boards I haunt.

    Back to the real world today.

  13. Robin says:

    check out Rebecca’s post on the Potpourri Board—although she doesn’t name the book (yet), she indicates that another Avon she’s currently reading contains numerous and assorted errors and instances of awkwardness.  Boy, some people just don’t know when to leave it alone, do they? 😉

    And Kate, I think your post got cut because it referred directly to the messages that were previously deleted and because, of course, it had my name in it (I love the idea of being in charge of a ‘New World Order’, though—do you think I could have Callebaut as my official chocolatier?).

  14. LLB says:

    I make it a practice not to post on other sites about goings-on at AAR, but this has gotten so ridiculous that I am going to, if for no other reason than to help put an end to the seemingly unending discussion about it. 

    There is and always has been a link at the top of the Reviews MB listing our policies and guidelines as regards MB useage, and on each message board rules as pertaining to that specific board are given.  The Reviews MB’s specific rule is this, and I’ve copied and pasted directly from the Reviews MB:

    Please post on this message board only about books reviewed by AAR or in Pandora’s Box

    If your post does not belong on this board, it will be deleted

    As for not giving more detail about which guideline pertained to the sub-thread that was deleted, seven guidelines are listed quite openly…one of them was involved.  Please, people, I’m asking that you move on to something else…why not just jump into the flames developing nicely as a result of our new ATBF?

  15. Jane says:

    Maybe, LLB, you could start deleting posts here too?  I think it’s entirely appropriate for you to run AAR however you want, but to come to another blog and try to limit the discussion which was invited by the owners in a manner in which you view as best?  Controlling much?

  16. Kate R says:

    I dunno, LLB, it’s a fascinating subject because it’s about people and emotions. Now if there were actual pain on this thread (people getting feelings hurt, serious huffing and whatnot) I could see why you or the bitches would want to put a stop to it. Otherwise, pfah. It’ll fade away on its own.

    Since you’ve stopped by…do you think that the AAR threads are more acrimonious than they used to be? Maybe there really should be a writer workshop at some RWA conference on interacting with readers online. Do’s and Don’ts (with gruesome examples. bwhahahahaha. Whoops, immaturity hiccup)

    I think a regular AAR poster should give it—along with a writer who’s been burned or, better, one who has jumped out of a fire unharmed. Or hey—you post it at the back fence.

  17. LLB says:

    I wasn’t aware saying “please” was controlling…had I said “I demand that you cease and desist…” I would say you had a point. It was simply a request because I’d much prefer all romance novel sites and blogs spent more time actually devoted to books, and because yesterday was a hellish day for me not only because of the message board issue, but because of hosting issues and the four hours spent trying to fix a problem so that all pages at AAR would properly load after getting screwed up somehow online.

    As for allowing any sort of post that doesn’t “hurt feelings,” AAR’s posting guidelines are shared by many online publications.  Each year as I pay hundreds of dollars in liability insurance to protect us from legal action I’m reminded of that.  I never want it to get that far, so whenever something comes up that does violate one of those seven listed guidelines, it’s deleted as soon as discovered.

    Finally, Blythe was asked by RWA to participate in a workshop some years ago on authors and interaction with romance websites.  She was afraid tomatoes would get tossed her way.

  18. Candy says:

    Candy? Why do you think you know who the anonymous romance writer is?

    I’ve just deduced certain things, is all, Kate. However, it’s pure speculation, so I’d never post it in a public messageboard. E-mail it to Sarah and snicker over it, sure.

    And LLB: your messageboards, therefore yours to do as you see fit. However, deleting the sub-thread may have only increased the amount of speculation and gossip, even as it dampened the discussion—and I can certainly understand why you’d want to nip some of what was being said in the bud. However, it didn’t seem any worse than some of the catfights I’d seen break out back when I was an AAR regular in the late 90s—I mean, I had my PARENTS’ abilities called in question in one of the more memorable threads—so I do wonder why this particular thread was trimmed.

    (When it comes down to it, I wish I’d had a chance to read the whole thing before it was cut, pout pout pout.)

  19. celeste says:

    The most valued possession a review site has is its reputation for openness and objectivity. This is not something that’s earned overnight, but it can be lost very easily. Mysteriously deleting threads, particularly ones that were not even close to being the harshest I’ve seen on AAR, makes it look like Adele Ashworth is getting special treatment, or that she or other unnamed individuals have made threats to AAR. If deleting the messages were simply a matter of enforcing posting guidelines, why the secrecy? How can posters learn what not to do if they aren’t told why a post was deleted? And why on earth would the owner of the board post on another review site to attempt to quell discussion there?

    Like Candy said, LLB owns AAR and can do anything she wants with it. But in my opinion,  handling a tempest in a teapot in this manner is an easy way to damage the site’s reputation for fair dealing and honesty.

  20. LLB says:

    If you read through the seven guidelines, you will see that they exist not only to protect AAR against liability, but to protect users of our Message Board.  The individual who post(s) led to the removal of the sub-thread was informed of their violation of guidelines.  As to the idea that any author gets special treatment, all you need do is look at the remaining thread(s) and you can see we’ve done nothing of the kind.  There are currently at least 70 posts on Duke of Scandal on the Reviews MB, and most are not at all complimentary of the book or its author.

  21. Candy says:

    LLB, one of the seven guidelines may have been involved, but surely you must’ve known that we’d all be dying of curiosity as to WHY you can’t divulge, and why you tried to make it a point to say so. If you weren’t at liberty to divulge, why even say anything? It makes speculation that much more rampant. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but romance readers who’re having a slow day at work abhor it even more. I’m just sayin’.

    I’m also curious about why the threads were deleted outright instead of moved to, say, Reader to Reader or Potpourri, because I’ve seen some OT topics shifted around that way.

    At any rate, this has been elevated in my mind from “silly flame war started by anonymous chickenshit” to “OMG INTRIGUE WOO HOO.”

  22. Robin says:

    Hmm.  I vote for the category encompassing “fraudulent” information.

  23. azteclady says:

    Sure fire way of having people talk about something for a good long while: tell people not to talk about it.

  24. Candy says:

    Robin: I’m willing to bet that an IP address for a certain series of posts turned out to be the same IP address for another series of posts, if you know what I mean, nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

  25. LLB says:

    This’ll be my last post.  After contacting the individual responsible and deleting the sub-thread, I made no mention of it at all, because as far as I was concerned, I’d fulfilled my responsibilites as site owner.  It’s only when a reader started a new thread to ask why I deleted it that I responded at all.  I answered without getting into specifics because other than the fact that yes, the sub-thread was deleted as an administrative action, nothing else was or is anybody’s concern. 

    We try to maintain as much sunshine on our actions as we can, but I refuse to second-guess myself in trying to determine which reader will be upset about this or that…if I did, there would be no AAR.  I realize that not every decision I make is one everyone agrees with, but my actions were taken in order to protect AAR’s readers and the integrity of the board, and find it ironic that that very action leads people to believe I’ve done the opposite.

    I’m not in the habit of lying: a post or posts in that sub-thread violated one of our guidelines, the person who made the violation was contacted, and the sub-thread removed.  I’ve spent ten years online building a reputation for myself and AAR, and I don’t do anything that will affect it negatively.  I can’t help it if others believe something sneaky is going on, but there isn’t. Either you accept that, or you don’t.

  26. CindyS says:

    I know I’m late but I just need to bow and scrape before some seriously worthy bitches.

    I, personally, violate grammatical rules like a viking in a new village if it serves my voice.

    Lani – thank you for making me laugh and letting me know that knowing your grammar rules is not some magical power people are born with 😉

    Tisty – you go girl!!  I’m all misty eyed at your courage and determination but I’m blaming it on PMS.  I know all about looking into the face of fear and I’m proud of you for sticking your tongue out at it 😉  I know it’s not much for not knowing me and such, but, man, teary eyed 😉

    CindyS (shutup, it’s PMS)

  27. Robin says:

    Robin: I’m willing to bet that an IP address for a certain series of posts turned out to be the same IP address for another series of posts, if you know what I mean, nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

    If we’re speaking of the same person (on however many levels that description applies), at first I thought it could never be, but it would ‘splain some things I’ve had a hard time understanding.

  28. azteclady says:

    In response to the “the author can break any and all grammatical rules as part of his/her voice” argument (aka “readers coming across as college professors”), I really like what a poster named Mark had to say here: http://www.hwforums.com/2035/messages/31148.html

  29. Robin says:

    In response to the “the author can break any and all grammatical rules as part of his/her voice” argument (aka “readers coming across as college professors”), I really like what a poster named Mark had to say here: http://www.hwforums.com/2035/messages/31148.html

    Yeah, it’s similar to the point Lanie Diane Rich was making.

    I am always in awe of writers who can take something with so few words—a haiku or a sonnet, for example,—and create something new and wonderful.  Poetry in and of itself is somewhat of a miracle to me, especially when it works for me.

    Like how about Ezra Pound’s famous little ditty, “In A Station of the Metro”:

    The apparition of these faces in the
          crowd;
    Petals, on a wet black bough.
    ___

    Or how about Wallace Stevens’s “The Snow Man”?  Not one “big” or superfluous word in the whole thing, yet so expansive itself:

    One must have a mind of winter
    To regard the frost and the boughs
    Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

    And have been cold a long time
    To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
    The spruces rough in the distant glitter

    Of the January sun; and not to think
    Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
    In the sound of a few leaves,

    Which is the sound of the land
    Full of the same wind
    That is blowing in the same bare place

    For the listener, who listens in the
    snow,
    And, nothing himself, beholds
    Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.
    _____
    It’s not about grammar for grammar’s sake (even to the college English professor)—it’s about the simple beauty and utility of clear writing.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top