I spent much of the last day in synagogue, because it’s Yom Kippur, better known as “The day of atonement,” and known in my house when “the day you spend a lot of time in a big room with people who didn’t brush their teeth that morning.”
Apparently, Emily Veinglory, Mrs. Giggles and Kate Garrabrant think that there’s something I ought to have been atoning for.
The short story is, I am part of a small consulting company called Simple Progress. Simple Progress was originally Mollie Smith’s company, and she’s brilliant at web management, design, and author website administration. Most of the client list she built herself. She’s pretty badass. Recently she invited me to join her company because over our semi-regular breakfast meetings (we are also neighbors) we would discuss social marketing needs for her clients, and I’d pitch ideas that would work for the authors to run for themselves or for Mollie to administer with programming, plugins and other magical things.
We think of it like languages. Mollie is extremely fluent in technology and in author promotion needs, especially since authors need to take on more of their own marketing responsibilities. I’m pretty fluent in social media and in how campaigns might effectively reach readers online in a way that isn’t an aggressive hard sell.
In other words, I speak social media and reader and author interaction; Mollie speaks tech and author, and the two of us work together to come up with social media campaigns that speak as many of those languages as possible, and that an author can run on her own. Most of what we do is web administration, mailing list management, and a small amount of consulting.
Given the accusations about my integrity, I want to make a few corrections:
We did not come up with or administer in any way the recent JD Robb New York to Dallas Facebook scavenger hunt. If we had, I wouldn’t have participated. That campaign was concocted by some really smart marketing folks, including the marketing and publicity team over at Penguin, and run by Nora’s team – and it was pretty freaking spiffy. I think it was brilliant in the way that it involved readers and visited so many diverse web sites.
Another point: it seems that my involvement with Simple Progress has caused festive accusations to fly that I must be being paid by my clients to promote them here.
At no time am I paid to promote authors in reviews here on this site. What appears in this space is my opinion.
In fact, in our proposals and contracts, we state the following:
Promotion on any website owned or operated in whole or in part by Mollie Smith or Sarah Wendell is not included in the scope of this project.
I am not ever paid or compensated for my opinion here. I don’t know how to say that more strongly.
There are authors on the client list whose books I really, really enjoyed, and there’s books by those authors that I haven’t liked as much. But it’s an insult to them and to me that they’d need to pay for mention here or anywhere else.
It hasn’t escaped my notice that the people who have the most interest in my ethics and morals are other bloggers, bloggers with whom I thought I was on good terms. Honestly, that makes me ineffably sad. I wish that if someone had a problem with me, they’d have brought it to me, rather than talk about me online or obliquely on Twitter (hell, Katie is my neighbor, too. She’s been invited into my home and met my family. She could have rung my doorbell to talk to me).
Everything is changing online and off: agents are publishers. Bloggers, like me, are authors. Bloggers are freelancing for publishers and media outlets. Readers and reviewers are in all sorts of different roles, from copyediting to critiquing to beta readers for publishing houses. We all switch places when we ring the bell, I think. The online community is a pretty close and intermixed neighborhood, and we’re all doing new and different and amazing things – sometimes hourly.
If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it. But the good thing is, there are so many amazing romance review blogs now, there’s no shortage of opinions about the novels we love, and I hope you find excellent books to read in every genre you like.
But I also trust that if you personally thought I was up to something funny, that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes and deceive you, you’d call me on it here so damn fast my head would spin.
I presume that’s still true. I hope it is, anyway. If I wrote a review or a comment in favor of a book that you thought was incentivized in any way, I trust entirely you’d call me on it immediately. But I would never do that to you because I value your opinion and your presence here.
There are few things I am more in awe of than the community of readers at this site. You’re as honest with me as you are with each other, and I value that more than I can say.
The whole comment section was tl;dr, but seriously, it’s up to Sarah to do what she wants when she wants how she wants. It’s her website. I’m not charged to view its contents, I’m not charged to comment, I’m not charged to partake in book chats (where she regularly gets the authors to pop in).
Frankly, I’m happy she’s able to make a bit of money off the blog and do her shit. Just think- without Simple/Making Progess/ whatever it’s called, we might not have so many give aways.
Sarah’s welcomed us into her domain and allows us to talk about what we like about books and what we don’t. I’ve never seen her tell off someone for disliking a book. Authors promote their books here all the time, especially in STA/GS posts. No one questions them.
Also, Mrs. G seems like a real bitch. “I DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING I JUST POSTED A LINK.”
Stfu and stop being a bitter bitch.
I remember this issue coming up at Karen Knows Best a few years ago:
http://karenknowsbest.com/2009/01/28/credibility-and-reputation-a-dilemma/
My feelings about reviewing ethics are complicated and I can’t call myself an unbiased observer so I’m reluctant to weigh in. I will say that I like Sarah, and have advertised here, and never thought I could buy positive review.
As far as Mrs. G goes, I agree that she has a total hate-boner (ha!) for DA and SB. But I don’t agree that she had any obligation to research, notify or otherwise fact-check before posting a link. Same goes for Kate G. and others.
Sarah, a few days ago I recommended a Julie James book to you on Twitter. You retweeted my rec and thanked me. That made me feel good. Now that I know she’s a client of SP, my perception of that innocent interaction has changed just slightly. Does that make sense? If I had known about that relationship, I might have tweeted differently. I’m not sure.
In no way am I saying that I think authors are buying positive reviews at this site. I don’t believe that for a second. But, as many have mentioned, disclosure is good.
Anyway, I know from experience that this author-reviewing business can be tricky, and I wish you all the best in finding the right balance for you. Mazel.
This is how I break things down. It’s actually taken me a few hours to think it through, which shows you how much I was procrastinating the other things I have to do.
1. Is there a potential conflict of interest?
Yes. There’s a conflict of interest any time you wear two hats that can come into conflict. Reviewer is one hat. Consultant is another. Reviewing the people you consult for is a conflict of interest—just as taking advertising from the same people can cause problems.
2. Is this the kind of conflict of interest that can be cured by disclosure?
Yes. If you are upfront about the connection, it allows people to judge for themselves the honesty of the reviews.
3. So does this mean that Sarah used to have an uncured conflict of interest?
As of Feb 2, 2011 (the most recent version available), archive.org shows that simpleprogress.com lists Mollie Smith as the sole owner. So I’m guessing that when Sarah says she “recently” started working with Mollie, “recent” means “after 2/2 of this year.”
Sarah has not herself written reviews of any of the clients listed since February 2nd. There are reviews on this site for some of those clients, but they were obtained through the Reader RITA Reviews. Sarah didn’t write those herself and the choice of the books for review was not made by Sarah.
To my mind, that means that Sarah hasn’t actually entered into a situation yet where she would have anything to disclose.
I guess someone might think that there’s an inherent conflict of interest between reviewing authors period, and consulting for them at all, even if you do not review the people you consult for.
But that feels like saying that if you usually represent companies in HR disputes that you can’t take a case where you believe the plaintiff has been wrongfully terminated. So I think that as long as you aren’t wearing two hats as to the same person, there’s no conflict of interest. I don’t see any evidence Sarah has worn two hats as to the same person.
4. And it’s totally cool if agents become publishers, right?
Don’t get me started. That’s the one part of this post that sets my teeth on edge.
@Courtney Milan Can I just say I love you? Just like when I read your blog, you state things so well it clears my head.
For me, this whole thing is a non-issue. I understand why it needed to be addressed and I don’t think situations like this should be ignored, but as long as I find Sarah’s reviews both helpful and entertaining I’ll keep reading. The funny thing about this whole thing to me is that I feel that reviews don’t even make up the majority of the posts here. But I guess as long as there’s even one review here Sarah needs to disclose, disclose, disclose!
And Mrs. Giggles truly did herself no favors by the way she wrote her post. Whatever her motivations really were my first impression was “Hmmmm…someone’s jealous.”
Disclosure: I have met Sarah (and Jane from DA) in person.
I’m just going to state the obvious again. Yes, Sarah should have disclosed this because there is a potential conflict of interest. Even if it hasn’t happened yet.
Also obvious: Sarah hasn’t been “just a blogger” for a very long time. She wears so many hats, only those new to the site would be unaware of it.
The disclosure is primarily for those unfamiliar with SBTB and Sarah. I don’t see this issue as any more conflict of interest-y (not a real word but I like it anyway) than being an author. Or romance advocate. Or keynote speaker. Or moderator for a convention panel or three. Or website owner who collects advertising revenue. Or…
Those who know or know of Sarah shouldn’t need the disclosure because she crossed that line years ago. I think it’s the surprise that irks me, really. If you’re going to question her impartiality, why pick this issue instead of the dozens of other potentially conflicting things she already does?
I’m not saying that ethical considerations shouldn’t be addressed or debated. Just that the ‘surprised’ attitude of so many rings false with me. And that’s what seems ‘mean girl’ about it. Using the opportunity to poke at someone in the guise of something else.
Lastly, I loathe the tendency to equate bloggers with journalists. They’re not, even if some aspire to be. They are under zero obligation to fact check, get comments from parties involved, or any other journalistic expectation other than making sure they aren’t engaging in libel.
@sweeks1980
Unfortunately, I was not so smart as to post here. Instead I posted my response on her blog and got the typical, insulting, lol response (among other insults to my sexuality, etc). I did throw my pillow pet across the room, which luckily did minimal damage, but next time I’ll use this space as my rant space. Geesh.
I’m currently enrolled as a senior in high school. We have a word for Mrs. G’s unsubstantiated accusations and false declarations: gossiping. She has started a RUMOR. That’s petty. That’s low. We also have a word for people like Mrs. G – and it’s not nearly as flattering as bitch. The word for people like Mrs. G is ‘bully’. Bullies attempt to bring other people down and ruin other people’s reputations because of their own regrets, fears, and childish insecurities.
It’s really sad when I encounter adults that act like my peers did – in MIDDLE SCHOOL.
Storm. Teacup. Bleargh to unsubstantiated rumormongering.
@Rose
Today you had the unpleasantness to learn that many adults are as immature as kids. Its an unpleasant lesson as a child and it gets progressively more unpleasant when as an adult working with those types of people. I am glad that you have found acceptance and a community where you feel comfortable with yourself when your own home and community don’t foster that. The good news is that you will soon be an adult and out of the catholic school at which point I believe you will be able to find a real world group of friends who will offer the same acceptance you find here. I salute you for your efforts to have an adult conversation about what could potentially be a very serious topic and allegations. Don’t let those who are glib and insulting affect your attempts to be honest and upfront with your thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
“They are under zero obligation to fact check, get comments from parties involved, or any other journalistic expectation other than making sure they aren’t engaging in libel.”
How about a common decency obligation? It’s rare, but not without precedent.
Hm. If I wrote a blog (which I do) and I felt my visibility was lower than another bloggers, and if said blogger was having a book tour, would I
A) improve my blog
B) worry about my own blog
C) talk shit to get my name all over the place
Luckily, I don’t care about my visibility. If I did, I would accept advertising and stop changing my name, this junior high bullshit is exactly what took me out of reviewing for a few years.
It’s interesting how Sarah and Candy, when breaking open the piñata of Cassie Edwards work, were held to this insane standard of proof. Whereas that insane standard now? Is it only when crap plagiarists are called out that we have to jump through flaming hoops ending in the eye of a needle?
I care not at all about this teapot. I don’t care for the hands on the pot, I don’t care for what they are spewing out of it. I’m not even going to give them the blog hits of looking at whatever side they pony up, because it’s pretty asinine.
Bloggers, review bloggers, profit bloggers, author bloggers are not leaders. There is no purity test. Read them or don’t. I read this one because I like it. I’ve seen this story play out over and over, as Moz once said “We hate it when our friends become successful.”
I haven’t said a word about this on either site. People need to stop using my name. It’s copyrighted. Sort of. Probably not. Pick another one anyway. Like Johanna. Or Joannah. Joyhannie. Or anything with an ‘h’ and that might even get into a BDB book.
Anyway, I didn’t realize all this was going on because
I took the day off from everything and just finished EIKAL. Loved it! (this is not a paid endorsement, more’s the pity)
Okay, so I commented over at mrsgiggles and, for the sake of fairness, thought I should post over here as well.
As I said at the other blog, I don’t really have a bone in this fight. I can see both sides, and think Sarah has adequately addressed the problem. I’m not going to try to defend Sarah simply because I don’t think she *needs* me to defend her.
I will say that, as an on-off (currently off) blogger, I don’t think there was a specific obligation to talk to Sarah first, although I do think they should have – simply because in any blog the author’s first duty is to the reader. Which means, yes, disclosing, but that also means these things: accuracy, transparency, information, entertainment. With as much breadth and depth as one can muster. What they did was not, in my opinion, good blogging (professional or otherwise). You can post conclusions or allusions to conclusion without substance; you *can* do that, but that doesn’t mean you *should.* Again, it doesn’t mean it’s good blogging or good business, or good stewardship for your readers. So there’s that.
There’s also this: if someone challenges you, or questions you, you have a right to respond in any way you please. You can be hostile, defensive, and otherwise trollish, but that won’t get you very far. It won’t communicate your message, it won’t generally build relationships with your readers, and it won’t further your reputation as a blogger in a manner that’s good for you.
I didn’t have a bone in this fight. I would have responded to good, solid information and argument either way, and did. But the info I responded to was from Sarah, because she took the situation seriously and provided as good an explanation as I would expect. I didn’t respond simply because I liked her, I responded because she was fair, considerate, and informative. To put it plainly: mrsgiggles wasn’t. She was hostile, dismissive, and offered no substantive argument whatsoever, despite having put forth a claim. I can’t speak to the other two sites (mostly because I have lost the will to care about this any further), but mrsgiggles’ site was the definitive point for me.
Having said that, I also want to say: this doesn’t have to be a big kerfuffle – we (the readers) make it so. Sarah has responded, and has put the issue to rest as best as it can be. There will be other issues that come up, because this is life and these things do, and I have total faith that Sarah will deal with those too. While I understand why people are upset (I definitely do), there doesn’t have to be more drama than is called for – let’s just move on, if we can.
@Rose
I’m gonna tell you a secret: If you’re gonna troll a troll, you better bring your A game. Whining after you get outplayed is just weak.
I said I wouldn’t comment on the shitstorm, but flame wars speak to my inner moth. 1. What Sarah’s doing is a potential COI 2. That doesn’t mean she’s done anything wrong. 3. That doesn’t mean she won’t do something wrong later. 4. SBTB posts links and snark ALL THE TIME. I find it hard to believe she vets every link, every time. 5. You can’t be a brand and a private person at the same time. SBTB is an entity. People are gonna talk about it without worrying about the author’s hurt feelings (kinda like reviewing books, amirite?) 6. Going to Mrs. Giggles’ site to tell her what a jealous tart she is is trolling. Don’t look surprised when she trolls your fangirl ass right back.
You kids are freaking out over nothing. Sarah should’ve announced this venture in the interest of full disclosure, but not doing so doesn’t mean she’s done anything wrong. Mrs. Giggles et al were just doing what bloggers do every day by posting a link to something interesting and letting people draw their own conclusions. Neither party has done anything wrong. Simmer down already.
Oh, Ridley, you are so right!
Oy. After watching the back and forth over this these past two days, the one thing I’m taking away from it all is that it may be time to retire the word “awesome”. :~) Sorry, it’s just so overused at this point it’s becoming meaningless.
Yep, Sarah should’ve disclosed upfront and early on. It’s not like I think Sarah is giving someone like Nora Roberts a good review for money (like Nora Roberts is going to live or die at this point by Sarah’s review…really…nothing personal, but I don’t think Miz Nora is gonna end up on the welfare line anythime soon regardless of how many crap books she puts out there in the future), but I feel slightly bad that she didn’t trust her readership with the information. These comboxes are full of glowing praise for Sarah’s contributions to the genre and her personal integrity. Would’ve been nice if she’d felt the same about her readership. Just sayin’.
A note to Rose—on the one hand, you troll the mrsgiggles site by claiming you’re more mature than they are at the tender age of 17, and then, when the commenters at mrsgiggles slam your breathless fangirl rebuttal, you whine that they’re mean old ladies picking on a widdle 17 year old girl. Can’t have it both ways, hon. Also, as a devout, practicing Catholic, I find it highly unlikely that a teacher at your Catholic highschool called you a “whore” to your face because he or she discovered you were reading romance novels. That’s a serious allegation and if you’re going to misrepresent Catholic teaching through a specious allegation like that, you’d darned well better be able to substantiate it. Just sayin’.
Anyway, in general, I have to admit that all this social media stuff and these new, grey areas of “friendship” and interaction between authors, readers, bloggers, tweeters, FBers always brings to mind the notion that familiarity breeds contempt. As the industry sorts itself out the next few years, I hope lines of professionalism can be drawn so readers don’t feel cheated, writers aren’t stuck trying to please everybody, and the noisy minority doesn’t end up running the show.
You know how romance reviewers also claim that there are too many stereotypical heroines in books? Stereotypical plots, etc. Well, guess what, this whole topic is sterotypical as well. Meaning that there are many people out there who think women cannot work together, they’re too back stabby, too bitchy, too snarky, they can’t get along without mud slinging. As for the topic on hand, sure, Sarah should have disclosed her assocation with the company, but she didn’t. She’s addressed it and I think she did it in a professional way. What is unprofessional though, is not recognizing that what is happening to her personally (on the personal attacks) is what she at times does to others. Karma and all that. But I’m sure she can take it, after all she is a self proclaimed mean girl and to use the word in the blog, a smart bitch. Just my few centes worth.
“If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it.”
Nope. Not for one single, solitary second.
Actually, I already knew about SP b/c I do my own homework. Plus, I swear you did an announcement post at the time, but perhaps I misremember. Just last week, I was looking at the client list on SP web site and not once did I think COI, b/c it would never occur to me that that could be an issue. Tho I did think “holy shit, that is some list.”
One of the reasons I read SBTB (& Dear Author) every day (and convo on The Twitter) is b/c I know, whether I like and/or agree with your reviews/opinions/etc (and its prob a 65/35 split) they will always be balls out honest and forthright. This has great value to me because, lo, I loathe the bullshit.
This whole business just goes to prove one axiom: high school never ends. Take what’s yours, what you may in fact own, and flush the rest.
spamword: hot64
“If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it.â€
You’re really surprised at this? This is where I have to agree with Mrs. Giggles Hmmmm. You never saw this coming? That perhaps other bloggers or people in romanceland would think there was a huge conflict of interest and something not right? I find that hard to believe, not calling you a liar, perhaps it’s a case of believing your own press, I don’t know. I do believe you feel real bad about people now questioning your integrity and honesty. That is how others feel when you snark them, tweet nasty things about them, blog about them. I don’t think you deserve this, but at the same time, I don’t think others who have been on the receiving end of a flame by you and your followers deserve it either. As I said in my previous post, it really does give women a bad rap that we can’t remain professional.
@Kiersten your comment – “This whole business just goes to prove one axiom: high school never ends. Take what’s yours, what you may in fact own, and flush the rest.”
This is what is making people (many who are talking behind the scenes about this situation) sit back and literally laugh. DA and SMTB sounds high school many many times over. They even brag about being mean girls, a term I think that is used mostly among teens. Everyone needs to step back and see the irony in this whole thing.
@Petra
Hi – Could you please provide specific examples of the personal attacks you believe S has tweeted/blogged?
And the whiff of Schadenfreude becomes a full-on stink.
1. You people (and you know who you are) like to throw around the word “followers” and “leader” in regards to Sarah and the people who read this site. It implies some sort of cult or something, with Sarah (and Jane, if you include DA) as the heads and us as the mindless drones. Clue, this is a website that talks romance and Sarah is very funny and informative. Those of us who like to read the site enjoy the humor and the information. It doesn’t make us followers. It doesn’t make her our leader. It just makes us people with a similar taste in reading material. By phrasing it the way you do, you’re attempting to put negative connotations on something you don’t happen to like, personally. It’s a crappy way to make your point.
2. Granted, I have little Twitter interaction. I think I’ve been there, twice. Perhaps Sarah is insulting people left and right or people in her Twitter feed are or something. Considering that I see her tweets on Facebook, however, and that I’ve been reading this site for years and I’ve never seen her be gratuitously mean, I highly doubt it. Has she called out plagiarists and people who publish and sell books and then don’t pay their authors and the like? Sure, she has. That is a far cry, however, from how you phrased it, Petra.
They don’t brag about being “mean girls”. The only time I’ve seen them refer to themselves as such is when they talk about how other people think they are “mean girls” for pointing out that plagiarism sucks, etc. In other words, “Oh, we’re such mean girls for saying plagiarism sucks.” I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand that—not calling you a liar, perhaps it’s a case of not understanding sarcasm.
Well, I’m certainly seeing some irony.
@Lala One particular situation comes to mind. The Mr. Romance trashing, making fun of him, calling him names. That was a personal attack on a person. There are many others, but listing them will only have this turn into a big flame.
@Tina C. Yes there is irony all around. At least people posting here and other places are talking about it for all to see and form their own opinions. The private lists, chat rooms etc, are being a lot harsher, but that’s their perogative.
I still find it unbelievable that someone as savvy as Sarah is surprised that people are now questioning the whole concept of conflict of interest and integrity.
Don’t let the player haters ruin your game,Sarah. Those who truly know you know the truth and the rest of them can just go off in a corner and share that saucer of mean spirited milk amongst themselves:)
A lot of emotion around this topic, and a desire for people to pick sides rather than principles.
In the world of medicine, drug companies jockey to provide pizza lunches to residents, because they know such a minor favor will alter the prescribing practices of some, though said physicians will absolutely swear that it didn’t. So yes, ads, friendships and income gained through other means will influence a reviewer. Such is human nature. It’s the whole point of social media and networking, after all; that we can influence another’s behavior.
But we’re capable of weighing another’s partiality, so long as it’s disclosed.
I didn’t know anything about Simple Progress until the Jennifer Crusie interview, and I’ve been a reader here for years. I still didn’t understand the conflict of interest bit until this article, and unless I go do an Internet search, I won’t know who those clients are.
Just make it fully transparent and then let the reader decide its important. But please don’t devolve the discussion into loyalites and motivation and who’s being mean. That actually undermines credibility for me. I just want the facts and then I’ll continue to enjoy this blog with an understanding of subtext.
“important”—> “importance”
Wow, we’re all human on this Columbus Day. The American holiday for the guy who didn’t discover America (vote Perry and he’ll put a stop to this sort of nonsense). To think that there won’t be conflicts, that people won’t make mistakes, or believing our best of intentions will somehow trump that tricky little subconscious is absurd and not worth arguing about. If a blog requires too much salt, I simply stop reading it. Blogs are free, the comments are free, and generally there is more to be gained than lost.
On a personal note, I fully sympathize with Sarah on this. I recently found out a former co-worker, a happy puppy of a former co-worker who I thought liked everybody, turns out didn’t like me, not even a little bit, and sent an e-mail to that effect to various individuals, myself included. Bitch-slapped me right through my internet connection. I still become verklempt if I think about it for too long.
@ChrisZ
Yes.
@Rose May
I didn’t stay on mrsgiggles’ site long enough to see your post or the response. However, during the time I was there, I was much struck by the middle school dynamic, and I’m old enough to be your granny.
Thinking about your post made me recall my first job. I was 18 and working in a factory. I got really mad at a coworker, and I said I was going to do something or other to get them fired. I don’t remember who or why or what I was planning to do, but I’ll never forget the response of the older worker who ran the machine where I worked. He was horrified, and, when I asked him why, he said that threatening a person’s job was a terrible thing to do to someone. When I thought about it, I got it. There is something terrible about threatening a person’s ability to make a living and that part of their identity that is bound up with their job. That’s why I can’t quite dismiss this as so much drama. What these three people have done is attack Sarah’s ability to make a living—maybe not very effectively or even with intent—but it still feels horrible to me.
@Pam
I don’t think Sarah’s ability to make a living is being threatened at all. If that were the case, then this site along with other review sites would be accussed of trying to stop an author from making a living when they give a do not read this book review, or have negative reviews that the followers then jump on and start attacking bad covers, editing, writing, etc.
@LadyT funny you should mention play haters, when this blog as well as other such review blogs are labeled as haters when the bad reviews are posted and a lot of people comment and reply.
It’s okay to support your favorite blogger, writer, fan or whatever, but you have to also look at the way the person who is being attacked has behaved as well.
I think there has been mud slinging on all review sites at one time or another, and if someone can dish it out then they need to realize that one day it may be aimed at them as well.
Wow. I’m not sure how to take this exactly. No offense, Sarah, cuz I’ve enjoyed your work here but seriously.
It sounds like you have a wonderful new opportunity with your venture with Mollie Smith so why weren’t you shouting it from the rooftops, especially on this blog via a post and the about us page?
Will it be part of your disclosure with your other online reviews/recommendations? Because, yes, there is a potential conflict of interest here or at the very least an appearance of one.
And no offense but this blog post seems to be more about rallying support than giving a professional presentation of your new venture. Obviously I do not follow the blogs/tweets/etc. of online world but unless the three individuals you mentioned in your post did more than those short mentions then your response seems overly verbose and woe is me to me.
SBTB has handed out much stronger dishing than the links you’ve mentioned (much, much stronger), so is this a case of what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander or rather the bitches?
Perhaps we should simply trust you because of all you’ve done for the romance industry. On the other hand, why no proactive announcement to establish a new Sarah Wendell online personality reviewer/recommender/bitch extraordinaire baseline, online media savvy guru?
After all, Jennifer Crusie disclosed it about a week ago.
@uieow
SBTB has handed out much stronger dishing than the links you’ve mentioned (much, much stronger), so is this a case of what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander or rather the bitches?
That is exactly the point many people are trying to make, but get jumped on.
Just a couple of thoughts:
1. Thank you for your Disclosure, SarahW. (Better a smidge late than never.) I have been a reader of this site for years and have always found it entertaining, even when I haven’t agreed with the reviews.
2. Those who say the bloggers involved have no obligation to notify the person they are in fact questioning? It may not be required, but it is very bad taste. That in itself is not immoral, however I wonder how those bloggers would have reacted in the same circumstance?
May we now move on?
@petra-I find it interesting that once someone like Sarah does well outside of the blogosphere ,folks are quick to call him or her out on what they perceive as the ethics of their achievements and eager to slap them with the “sellout” label.
As for bad reviews,this site is well known as a no-holds-barred arena in that department and it’s one of the main attractions of the place. If you can’t take the well advertised heat,why are you even stepping into this kitchen in the first place?
As for the rest of this dispute,I didn’t know about Sarah’s consulting business before reading this post nor do I care about not being informed of that fact. Some things are none of my business and if you feel that the integrity of the site is now questionable,simply make your choice about whether or not to still read it and abide by that then.
Please keep in mind that being a blog reviewer is not like being an elected official-the man or woman who sets one up should have some boundaries but they are not beholden to the scrutiny of a select few.
@ridley
Outplayed? You think her saying ‘come back when you’re older and wiser’ is me getting outplayed? She acted immature. There was no out-playing by either side. I was simply venting, here, about my frustration for Mrs. Giggles to take anything at all seriously. But did you read her responses? There is no way I was ‘outplayed’ by her. She responded with short, petty, childish insults. I responded with coherent, logical points and arguments. I explained my logic clearly – and my comments, unlike hers, actually had to do with the issue at hand. Her comments were personal attacks based on my sexuality and age. My comments were on her integrity as a blogger.
I brought my A game, and I think Mrs. Giggles brought hers, too. And she failed. Miserably. Maybe you should go back and read my exchange with Mrs. Giggles because in the end she comes out looking petty. Clearly you didn’t spend enough time looking it over. Finally, what Mrs. Giggles did wrong was put down anyone who didn’t agree with her in a fashion that had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I also don’t think trying to protect an innocent person is ‘fan-girling’. If so, I’m totally fan-girling on several death-row inmates right now. How’s this for my fan-girling: “OMG, LETHAL INJECTIONS ARE SO… HAWT.” Yeah. I didn’t think so.
My response was written in irritation of Mrs. Giggles false claims of innocence and immature responses. I was attempting to strongly rebuff her for her idiocy and have a valuable debate with her. She ignored my attempts and responded with immature, personal attacks.
@Sharon
I can actually agree with you, that in part what I said was hypocritical and contradictory. I was more than a little surprised by Mrs. Giggles’ response, which seemed more a personal attack on my sexuality and age then a response to any of the points I made in my original comment. I concede that those two implications are contradictory, however Mrs. Giggles’ response is still childish and immature. I believe that she shouldn’t be picking on anyone – seventeen or otherwise. No matter your age, or the age of the person you’re picking on, it’s still wrong.
As far as the teacher at my school, she did call me a whore. Just because YOU are a devout practicing Catholic (and by the way, so am I) doesn’t mean that every person at my school who teaches is a) devout, or b) Catholic or c) acts like you do in any given situation even if they are also devout and Catholic. If you recall, many Christians participated in the Crusades and were devout practicing Catholics. They believed their attacks were doing the right thing for the religion. However I doubt that you, as a devout practicing Catholic, are going to go out and start killing as many Islamic people as you can tomorrow.
After taking my book away, my teacher led me from the hallway into her classroom, closed the door, and gave me a very strict lecture in which she told me anyone who read those kind of books was a whore. I was reading that book, ergo I was a whore. The teacher also got fired. I understand that it is a very serious allegation, and when I brought it to the dean she treated it as a serious allegation. Nevertheless, it was true. Not all of my teachers are like that, obviously. However the fact remains that the nun that teaches my theology class disapproves mightily and my math teacher got fired. Please don’t insult me by thinking I make up lies on the internet just to be dramatic.
@Rose May—what school is this? Sorry, but the story is beyond unbelievable. Can you substantiate with facts, please?
Your bit about the Crusades kinda proves you’re not really a good history student, especially of Catholic history, nor are you familiar with Catholic teaching.
Sorry, but you’re really just digging yourself in deeper here. ;~D
Also, as a devout and practicing Catholic, can you not understand why a consecrated woman might be concerned about what you’re reading? I personally read romance, but don’t read romance featuring sex-for-sex’s sake, or gay romances. My biggest concern, as a Catholic, is that romance is veering away from the notion of redemptive love to that of sex=love.
For the record, yeah, I do think you’re making this bit of drama up.
Also, when you go there and snipe at her, she’s not “picking on you”, as you claim, by responding as snarkily as she wants. It’s her blog, you were pretty snippy and whiny, actually, and she called you on it. Big deal.
@Sharon
I typed out a long reply that included sentences like “do you even watch the news?” and the like. However then I realized that, since I was not willing to divulge the name of my HIGH SCHOOL to a stranger online, and there would be no other way to prove my story to you, I would simply have to end the conversation.
We aren’t really discussing the issue, here. We’re discussing your ability to believe my story and that’s not what this post on SBTB is about. While getting into an argument with you about this seems like it could be a grand old time, I’d rather not attempt to argue with a woman over the internet about religion, sex, and my high school harassment. Therefore, I respectfully ask that should you wish to continue this (which I can’t imagine why you would care enough to do so, but it’s your prerogative) you contact me via my blog or email. Otherwise, I think we should both call it a night and leave this commenting space for other people to use up with comments pertaining to the actual post on SBTB and this ‘conflict-of-interest’ issue.
I think the one thing we both CAN agree on is that this space is not meant to be used for the discussion of a high schooler’s personal life.
And that Trammel Senior Photo 2012 link is a bit telling…just sayin’. If your photo shoot (obviously not done for a Catholic school) is online at the photographer’s site, and you’ve got the pics uploaded with the protective graphic still on it, well…I don’t know what to say. They’re clearly not done for a Catholic high school, and why wouldn’t you have the originals? Or are you posting proofs you don’t own?
Something’s not adding up. I’m calling BS.
Oh, and the list of Catholic high schools in your area is pretty short…I can call around easily enough. No biggie.
@Sharon – Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are right and Rose May is making everything up. Do you really want to be the person that calls Catholic High Schools looking for information regarding a high school student so you can prove her wrong about a comment she made in a blog post? Start a google hunt to find out her real name, her high school, where she lives, who her teachers are? If that is something she wants to do I suppose that is her perogative, but is that something YOU want to do? Please reconsider this line of action.
Wow! @Jane is the voice of reason!
Jeez, that is a little freaky. I vote for ‘find something better to do’ at this point! Does it really matter?