“Jane, You Ignorant Slut.”

Candy: I debated with myself long and hard about writing this. On one hand, I’m not sure what went on deserves to be dignified with a response. On the other hand, remaining silent might be interpreted as indifference, cowardice, turning a blind eye, or, worst of all, tacit approval of the shit we’ve seen being slung around in recent days. I finally decided I couldn’t keep my yap shut any longer, and the reason why I’m allowing the floodgates to open is this: ultimately, it’s not just about a specific blog, or a commenter, or a group commenters. Don’t get me wrong: I’m going to pick on one blog in particular, and pick on it hard because it exemplifies much that I find distasteful. But I want to also address an issue that I’ve seen over and over in many blogs—and I’m not just talking about romance blogs, either, though that’s what I’m going to talk about here, given the focus of this site. Essentially, there’s a type of discourse that goes along the lines of “You’re really mean, so you really need to watch your mouth, you ugly whore.” Most of the time, I shrug my shoulders and go “Eh,” or I tell myself not to let it bug me, because it’s the Internet tubes, man; sometimes, they do end up resembling dump trucks. But all that shrugging and sliding isn’t working any more.

So yeah, don’t know what brought on this rant? It exploded all over the place with what I thought was a pretty innocuous post about the presence of bloggers and author costumes at the RWA Nationals this year, but it really kind of started with this (now-deleted; praise Jah for Google caching) post at Cindy Cruciger’s (also known as FerfeLabat) about reviewers/bloggers. I’ve made jokes about how rack-obsessed that bunch is, and I’m still amused that these people found my breasteses even remotely squawkworthy, but in my opinion, the most hostile comments were directed towards Jane of Dear Author

As the discussion about costumes got bigger and bigger over here at Smart Bitches—and let me tell you, I’m astonished this tempest in a teacup became the category 5 hurricane that it did—Cruciger and her commenters became increasingly prune-mouthed and disapproving, giving birth to two posts: one that pulled many comments, several of them out of context; and another to REALLY drive home what a buncha animals, animals we are over here.

Taking the high road is a tricky, tricky thing. If nothing else, if you indulge in the behaviors you condemn, you’re going to look like a huge, honking hypocrite. (Alliteration is always awesome.)

For example: check out this bit of commentary by Cruciger in response to Nora Roberts’ criticism of Kenyon’s ginormous swan hat: “There is such a thing as tact. It runs part and parcel with the ellusive [sic] “Professionalism” thing … I’ve heard. How is bashing an author on a public blog better than the BASH (Big-assed-swan-hat)?”

And then check out this bit of commentary by Cruciger about Jane of Dear Author: “It’s comments like that that made me think she was a 40 yo WASP. Classic disdain. You can’t buy that. You have to be born with it and it takes years to perfect.”

The double standard here is pretty staggering, especially since Nora Roberts was commenting on a) an author’s attire, and not the author herself, and b) an issue that was directly related to media perception of the romance genre and what it means to be a professional writer. I have yet to discern any sort of non-personal reason for Cruciger to post the pictures of us reviewers/commentators. She’s fond of talking about how on-line reviewers are free to snipe with impunity at authors on blogs, but I haven’t yet seen any of the review and commentary blogs—especially those with a decently large readership, like Dear Author—post photos of authors solely for personal commentary.

See what I mean? “Watch that mouth of yours, you whore.”

Keep in mind, I’m not saying I can’t understand why, say, Mancusi and Maverick felt personally attacked—because it’s natural for people to interpret these sorts of discussions as comments on their worth as persons as opposed to a debate on the viability of their choices—but I saw the thread as largely civil, while somewhat puzzling to me in its length and intensity. (I’m definitely still suffering from “Why are we so worked up about two hot chicks in tame miniskirts and stockings?” syndrome.)

The irony of Cruciger’s response becomes especially delicious when I review the comments Cruciger and some of her regulars made about our appearance for, near as I can tell, shits ‘n giggles, because that somehow gets a free pass, and then see how they howl and rage so very hard over what was said about Kenyon, Mancusi and Maverick over here at Smart Bitches. Look, I’m not denying that the discussion here was very loud and brusque in tone—but it centered on questions regarding professionalism, marketing in romance, conformity and the image of romance. I’m also not saying that people didn’t go over the line (*koff*DebSmith*koffkof*) in the 600+ comments we logged over the course of a week. But it’s important to note that NOT all of the comments were against costumes, nor were all of them critical of Mancusi, Maverick and Kenyon, as Cruciger implied when she characterized that particular thread as “taking 600 comments to to demoralize three writers.” I think the tone of the discussion here at Smart Bitches, while often hard-hitting and blunt, remained largely free of malice.

These differences in perception interest me. Certain types of people love to claim that we reviewers get to say whatever the hell we like about authors without having to face any consequences, but the people who make these claims the loudest seem to also be the ones who snipe frequently, snipe often and snipe messily at their targets. In fact, these are often people who actually HAVE targets, usually bloggers who set them off. There seems to be little awareness that what they’re doing is in any way inconsistent. What they do is a little bit of fun against thick-skinned people who know how to take it; what we reviewers/commentators/bloggers do? Is ENTIRELY different, and our victims are unsuspecting, sensitive little lambs.

Jane: I thought the debate on costumes was illuminating because not only was it a stand-in for the greater resentment felt towards the mainstream media for marginalizing romance, but also how important the issue of respect is to those careers are defined by the genre itself.  It was an issue that was fraught with emotion but for the most part was spirited but not unkind.  It is obvious that the two of the authors in question felt these were personal attacks and as Robin said, that would be natural.  Yet, the discussion wasn’t about the person, but the idea of marketing and the time and place of appropriateness.

What grew out of this debate on Cindy Cruciger’s blog was demeaning to us all in the way that it turned a legitimate discussion into a mockery.  In the rush to trample down everyone in their paths who did not hold similar beliefs, Cindy Cruciger and a group of e-published authors such as Selah March and Eva Gale engaged in the very acts that they purportedly despise: name calling, condescension, discussing personal appearance as if it had anything to do with ability or content.  Cruciger engaged in a wholesale deletion of posts and comments.

I did not respond before because I felt, as I commented in the monstrous thread about costumes and bloggers, that these types of comments deserved no response merely because I felt that the point of posting it was to gain a response.

I believe that personal attacks are not appropriate and try very hard on the blog, particularly in a review, to not make it personal.  If I say that the author is doing something with her books or her characters that I find objectionable, I don’t perceive that to be a personal attack.  A personal attack to me would be posting a picture of an author and saying, “I can’t believe she could write a sex scene like that.  She certainly doesn’t look like she could.” Which was, in essence, the gleeful statements that were made about the four bloggers on Cindy Crcuiger’s blog (which she has since deleted).

Cruciger’s blog has long been a haven for nasty comments like March’s in April when she stated “I’ve been publicly humiliated by award-winning authors in front of entire classrooms full of my peers because my stories dared to incorporate PLOT” and “Can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if you try, you might just be writing middle-of-the-road crap that alienates the people who write ME fan letters about my “gritty, realistic” characterization.” Which are as off putting to me as some believed that the verbiage from the “rebels of romance” page was.  Other comments existed (until they were recently deleted) such as “Where did Karen Scott say she went on vacation again? I think someone saw her …” and then quoting the passage from a news article “Weird-Looking ‘Lake Snake’ Sought by Illinois Authorities”.

So yes, when I came across a post on Keishon’s blog and Selah March wanted to engage in a debate, I refused because I knew that I would only be subject to sarcasm and viputeration.  When Cindy Cruciger posted our pictures or would make a comment about the state of DearAuthor, there was no point in responding.  It seemed to me that either these people wanted the traffic from linking or that they were simply determined to be mean, neither of which deserved a response.  But I suppose by remaining silent, I subjected others to this and perhaps I should have objected sooner.  For that I would apologize.  But, I don’t apologize for not wanting to support their careers or give them attention for which they don’t deserve.

Sarah: My reaction to both debates – the costumes and Candy’s rack – has been mostly to observe, but then, it takes a lot to set me off in general.

But my reaction to the discussion and what it turned into moved rapidly from “Holy cow” to, “Are you kidding me?” My perspective as someone who isn’t regularly called upon to defend romance, but does it anyway, is certainly different from those who posted in that thread. It’s not as if my career is based upon the genre, but for other authors, I can totally see their point. Ignoring the trolls, as is my habit, reading over Crusie, Roberts and other writer’s comments was certainly illuminating as to the other side of the debate: do costumes detract? Where is the line between fun and frippery that decreases respectability? Are costumes and dressing up in character for marketing purposes something that will be seen more frequently? Or is it reserved for other venues and not so much RWA?

But really, as Candy so rightly contrasted in her rant, how come it’s not ok for us to discuss or even question the presence of costumes, but it IS ok for others to not only discuss the presence of bloggers but comment upon our appearances and the way we look? WTF?

The amount of vitriol and cruelty was astonishing at the sites Candy linked to, and I have no patience for anyone who wants to throw mud when they don’t have anything of quality to add to the discussion – hence my decision to close comments on the original behemoth when it turned into a pile-on instead of anything meaningful.

No matter how much or how little I read on the sites Candy linked to, or in Google caches of the same, the more I’m thunderstruck. What really, really pissed me off is watching our site held up as the source of what’s wrong with the romance community online, when neither Candy, Jane, or I would ever dare criticize an author’s appearance as part of examining his or her books. There’s a line for us that we wouldn’t cross, no matter how much we didn’t like a novel. But to be accused of being the source of all that is crapful by those who cross that line blithely at our own expense is infuriating and disgusting.

That said, trolls aside, I am as usual exceptionally proud of how most of the time, folks on this site can debate and discuss topics wherein there is great disagreement operating within an environment of respect and consideration. Pity that a noxious few attempted to spoil it, but at this point, I’m happy to ignore them again.


Candy, Jane, and I debated about opening this thread to comments, because the last thing we want is a pile-on of hateration, or soothing pats on the head. However, we all agreed it was past time to respond. So in the comments, some ground rules:

1. This isn’t open season to attack us, or Cruciger, or anyone else. If you disagree with us, we trust you know how to do so respectfully. If you don’t, and post anyway, we’ll get crazy with the delete feature.

2. What we’re trying to address here is: What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?

3. Please keep the discussion focused on generalities and behaviors. This isn’t an opportunity to re-hash. And please, if you reference a specific instance on another site to underscore your point, please link. If your HTML breaks, no worries – we’ll fix it.

4. Everyone: take a deep breath. Have some chocolate. Then post.

 

Categorized:

General Bitching...

Comments are Closed

  1. Jane says:

    I guess I disagree with Liv.  I don’t even think that a majority of legal jurisdictions recognize the false light tort and even in the ones that do, the publicity must be false in order to give rise to the tort itself. 

    In a review where the reviewer says that sales are flagging, if she bases that on two bookscan reports or differences on a bestseller list or something akin to that but the real truth (ie., royalty statements) show differently, I doubt that would be viewed as defamatory because the standard is quite high (reckless disregard for the truth).  I think it is arguable that a jury could find that the basis of a reviewer’s statement on bookscan or even bestseller lists could be defensible.  Even then, the person claiming defamation has to show that the defamatory statement has a causal connection to the lost sales.  I.e., in the law there truly is a sense of NO HARM = NO FOUL.

    I recall that there was a really interesting defamation suit filed by a woman’s college basketball coach against a newspaper that defined the coach as a loser.  The coach lost the defamation suit because the coach did have a losing record.  I think it was more detailed than that but that is the best I can remember off the top of my head.

    I think, personally, false light torts are very dangerous and moves too far over the line in protecting people v. free speech but then I am a free speech nut.

  2. Liv says:

    Nope.  False light is a privacy tort, not a defamation tort.  Included in false light is the publication of true information that gives a false implication.

    Many jurisdictions don’t recognize false light, but many do.

    I don’t really agree with it either, but it does exist.

  3. I_Beez_Writer says:

    “And I also question whether LKH, for example, is wise to go mano a mano with some of the crazies who stalk her on line. What do you guys think? Does this kind of direct contact just encourage the crazies and their vicious attacks or is it a mostly effective marketing tool?”

    LKH has had people waiting in line to cuss her out, has had books and even BLOOD thrown at her. One cannot blame her for going into defense mode and having people around to watch her back with loonies like that about.

    But for all that, her online diatribes against the Blue Meanies are not wise or professional.  It pulls her down to their level and just gives them more ammo.  They poke until they get a reaction, which validates them, so they poke some more. 

    Marketing tool?  Hardly.  I’m sure her publishers wish she’d belt up and ignore the hecklers.  She’s a very nice person at heart and should be above that kind of schoolyard scrapping.

    Rice’s infamous Amazon rant against the very fans who made her freakin’ wealthy did her no good, either.  Seasoned pros in my circle still shudder over that one.

    If a fan gives wank, it’s best to ignore it.

    Some fans, on the other hand, seem to forget that if you don’t like the writing, DON’T BUY the book.  Borrow from the library if you’re that curious.

    When I interact with my fans I say THANK YOU.  A lot.  They don’t have to buy my books.  Danged straight I’m grateful!

    I keep a blog.  I don’t discuss my personal life, but focus on my books and the craft of writing.  Sometimes I will do an Erma Bombeck-style piece if something amusing has happened.

    No politics, no religion, I post when there’s something of interest to share, never “just because.”  There’s no fun in listing what’s on my desk, how many words I wrote that day or the nature and intensity of my last hotflash.

    A good rule of thumb for blogs?

    Be cheerfully professional and NEVER post ANYTHING you’d want a crazed stalker or serial-killer to know about you.

  4. Nora Roberts says:

    ~The idea that we shouldn’t talk about their clothes—because that wouldn’t happen at other conferences or because it plays into stereotypes about catty women—is flatly wrong. And it misses the whole freaking point.

    Arguing the merits of a marketing strategy is not being catty or petty or being a big meanie. It’s business.~

    Thank you.

  5. Jane says:

    Yes, false light is a privacy tort but even courts have a difficult time parsing the difference between defamation and false light (different restatements of course, but still the same idea with a lower standard. In essence, a lower bar for defamation claims). 

    * * * Skip for re hash.  Sorry Candy and Sarah * * * *

    Nora, I have a question for you.  Let’s assume for the sake of argument that romance had the same degree of respectability that mystery or science fiction has and you were no longer questioned about the validity of romance as a literary sub genre.  Would costumes (regardless of the type of costume – just any costume) be an issue for you?  The reason that I ask is I am trying to get a sense of whether it is the existence of costumes because it erodes movement toward respectability or whether it is an issue of raising one’s self above others in a group charity setting.

    The problem that I have with the argument regarding “existence of costumes eroding movement toward respectability” is that it seems inconsistent to be for the right to wear them on an individual signing basis or for their to be entire COSTUME BALLS at RT (along with naked men, but I guess that is another story altogether) but not to be for the right to wear them at the RWA Literacy Signing because doesn’t a romance author stand as a romance author all of the time regardless of time, place, location?

  6. Nora Roberts says:

    Imo, it’s not the point either, to say she looked so cute. The same as it wouldn’t be to say, she didn’t have to legs to pull that off, or she was a little too old for it.

    That, imo, IS personal.

    Discussing the appropriateness or various opinions on the wearing of costumes, is entirely different than saying she looked good, but her? Not so much.

  7. Nora Roberts says:

    For me, it’s costumes outside an event where costumes would be called for. Or where their use—a launch for a line, a workshop or seminar for that specific line would make that marketing ploy specific.

    I can’t say how I’d feel if the perception of the genre were different, because one of the reasons I think it’s not (and maybe small potatoes, but still potatoes) is due to issues like this perpetuating the impression we’re flighty or silly.

    I don’t participate in RT. Nothing against it, or those who do, but there are reasons I don’t. Still, the costumes balls held there are billed as such, and it’s much more a party for readers.

    Some of it goes back to what I just posted. If we open to costumes, is it just the cute ones, or the funny ones? The pretty ones, or the ones that suit the wearer—and in whose viewpoint? If we open it for the literacy signing, wouldn’t it then be okay to wear one at any time during the conference?

    And maybe it would be, in some opinions. Just not in mine.

    But again, this particular event is RWA’s biggest public event, and involves hundreds of authors—and the media.

    If an individual author elects to wear a costume to her own signing, it’s just none of my business. I might certainly hold the opinion, jeez, that’s goofy, but it’s her signing, her media, her presentation. I’d shrug that off the same way I have to shrug off those authors who giggle for reporters and talk about how much WORK they put into RESEARCHING their sex scenes with their husbands.

  8. Stacey says:

    As has been mentioned before, whether the outfits are cute is not the point. And I think the original thread went off the rails because people tried to make it about that. After all, if you’re defending these ladies on a personal level, I think it implies that the original comments were attacking them on a personal level—which is simply not true.

    I didn’t see the costumes, but it’s totally possible that I would have thought they were fun and that the ladies looked super hawt. That wouldn’t affect my opinion of the clothes professionalism or lack thereof, nor should it.

    (As an aside, I also think defenses like this are where the whole “are we judging women through a male lens” questioning comes in. There seems to be a sense of, if you didn’t approve of these costumes at the signing, then you don’t think women can look pretty and be professional, you think they should be de-sexed and manly…which, also, isn’t what this was about.)

    work77…exactly what I’m not doing.

  9. Jeri says:

    In a review where the reviewer says that sales are flagging, if she bases that on two bookscan reports

    Jane, do many reviewers have access to Bookscan?  I was under the impression it was fabulously expensive.  I don’t mean the NY Times or PW, but the average blogger who makes a comment in the spirit of, ‘This isn’t selling well, so I’m not the only one who didn’t like it,’ with no evidence to back up this claim.

    When I’ve seen cases like that, I assumed the reviewers either had a secret source at the publisher or agency, or were just plain making it up.  But if there’s some reliable, inexpensive source of book sale #s (for non-bestsellers), I know a lot of authors would love to hear about it.  We never get enough numbers in a timely fashion.

    Whether it’s legally libelous for a reviewer to make such comments is hard to prove (and rightfully so), but IMO it crosses an ethical line between offering an opinion and spreading a lie.

  10. R. says:

    This may seem OT, but Ai dun thin so, Lucy.  So much comes down to one’s personal definition of ‘respect’,… 

    Romance authors are expected to endure bad press, bad covers, misleading blurbs, lack/absence of promotional effort, etc.  So, now I’m scratching my head over this: 

    The RWA appears to have the power to decide [and enforce?] what is a romance genre novel, and with equal precision what it isn’t,…

    If that’s the case, why doesn’t the RWA exert similar influence over the publishing industry itself [forex: respecting author’s input on cover art and back blurbs, as well as retail sales promotion and a pay scale equal to what male writers receive], if the romance genre does indeed generate so a large a share of revenue for said industry?

    [Bracing myself for cries of “Can – open! Worms – everywhere!”]

  11. Livia Drusa says:

    I really wish people would just let this issue die.  It’s tedious and, I believe, at this late date, no concessions will made on either side (feelings running as high as they are).

  12. But I wish I could have grabbed hold of her shoulders, sat her down and made her read, oh, I dunno, Northern Lights by LaNora or Fredericka by Georgette Heyer, one of the greats of the genre

    Sorry, I know this is totally off-topic, but I got the complete shivers when I saw Northern Lights mentioned… that was my first Nora experience.  An unabridged audio CD on the long drives to Durham across the icy Pennines one winter.

    Such a perfect, gorgeous story.  *curtsies in NR’s general direction*  I’m ashamed to say it’s still my only Nora – I’m actually scared to read another one in case it’s not as good.

    And I am now officially stunned by how shallow that is.

    Gah.  Must.  Do.  Better.

  13. Jane says:

    Jane, do many reviewers have access to Bookscan?

    For an RWA member, it’s 50 for the romance top 100 but for the entirety of bookscan? Yeah, fabulously expensive like you said.

    Whether it’s legally libelous for a reviewer to make such comments is hard to prove (and rightfully so), but IMO it crosses an ethical line between offering an opinion and spreading a lie.

    A lie is defamatory so your conflating (to use Robin’s favorite term) opinion and fact together.  If the reviewer says, “looking at the past two bookscan numbers, it appears sales are flagging”, this isn’t really “in reckless disregard for the truth” unless the reviewer knows that it is untruthful but if this is her only source of information it is not likely to be considered “reckless disregard for the truth” and would not be considered a “lie”.  If the reviewer says, “looking at the besteller lists where the author was No.5 but now is on the extended list, sales must be flagging”, again, I think that is at best, an opinion (and thus not a lie as opinions can’t be lies) or at worst, a factual statement supported by a reasonable inquiry into the facts.

    If the reviewer says “sales are flagging” and doesn’t support it but when questioned says that she based it on facts known to her such as the bookscan or bestseller list or something else that is “reasonable”, then again, I don’t think it is a “lie.”

    Is it unethical?  That’s everyone’s personal judgment.

    Again, though, I would have to question the causal connection.  How does an author prove that one reviewer’s statement that “sales are flagging” impacted overall sales for the book? I.e., “but for” the reviewer’s statements, I would have sold x more copies of said book.

    Pretty tough.

  14. Chrissy says:

    I’m way late to this but simply can’t resist.

    Thing is… it’s not fair to get pissy over what people post in the comments section of a blog.  So a lot of the comments in this discussion/debate took place in a moot environment.  Some dweeb named LytYerFyre can post anything he wants on my blog.  If I delete his stupidity I’m employing censorship, which I would not do.  If I ignore them, I can be seen as endorsing them, but that’s faulty logic.

    Of course, the fact that it’s faulty doesn’t stop it from spreading like a bird flu.

    As far as what is and is not appropriate for RWA, I am of two minds.

    1.  The RWA has become very little beyond a massive pissy catfight club tied up together by elitist bullshit excusing the last cat fight.  It loses respectibility steadily with every rising of the sun.  So getting shirty about its professional face, at this point, is just senseless.  RWA doesn’t have a professional face any longer.

    2.  The above is precisely why romance authors should be wary of acting like asshats in swanhats or coquettes in costumes.  I like at least two of the people who got bitch-slapped around in this quite a bit.  Mancusi and Kenyon have books within arms’ reach of me RIGHT NOW.  It seems to me that they got caught up in the moment, and made errors in professional judgment.

    Know what?  RWA needs to lead the way before it will ever have anyone follow wisely.

    Never gonna happen.  It’s nothing more than a big ole mean-girls-uptight-society masquerading under a banner of professionalism.  This garbage happens every year.  If it’s not this nonsense it’s “one man/one woman” or “e-publishers are no legit” or “we voted FOR these publishers before we voted AGAINST them, Senator!”

    Which is why I stopped giving them my money.  I can get all the juicy fallout on the net for free.

    Just as a side note: I really, really wish it weren’t the case.

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