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.
Speaking as someone who reads this blog daily but rarely, if ever, actually reads the books Sarah recommends (sorry dude, we have different tastes but I love ya like a sister from a different mister) I really only have on thing to add and that is that whether you believe Sarah behaved unethically or couldn’t give a frack, posting disparaging personal attacks at either Sarah or (GOOD GOD!) other posters does not in any way, shape or form bolster your argument.
I’ve never read mrs. giggles before, nor had I ever heard of her, but just one 1/2 hour of perusing her comments on this topic and it is abundantly clear I never will. The disdain she shows for her readers (whether fans of hers or not) is bloody awful. Methinks Mrs. Giggles has less of a beef with the ethical/conflict ramifications of Sarah’s “side-job” but was sly enough to conclude that making such implications would get her more hits than she’s ever seen before.
As for Sharon, just because you don’t believe something does not make it untrue, see e.g. evolution. Rose May does not have to prove anything to you, she does not have to give you the name of her school or her teacher or even her g-damn state! Just because you are a good catholic lady does not mean that all catholic ladies are good. Rose May submitted a comment to a website that specifically solicited her comment on a particular subject, mrs. giggles specifically states that she reviews ALL comments before they are posted meaning that she could have ignored Rose’s comment and simply not posted it. But no, she chose to post it and unabashedly insult the very post she approved for posting.
Whatever your opinion re: Sarah Wendell as a person/blogger/businesswoman, she has never shown such douchey behavior towards a poster on her site.
@Sharon – Whether she’s making it up or not, just the small amount of internet stalking you’ve already done and posted here isn’t making you look like the mature, rational one in this dispute.
Not particularly. But it can be done. I just hate it when silly little girls like that get up in everyone’s face, act like they’re soooo superior to all of us “old ladies”, make crazy claims that can be investigated, and then play the victim when people call them on it.
If a teacher got fired for calling a student a whore in a Catholic school these past few years, we’d all know about it. It would make the news even here. As it is, there’s no record of it ever happening. 17 year old girls shouldn’t be posting suggestive photos of themselves on their blogs, especially with the photographer’s name still on them. Really—how stupid is that?
And if I did choose to call, it’s to verify a pretty salacious and nasty allegation made against another person. Fair game.
Sorry, just read the updated comments since I started writing my last post.
I would like to withdraw my plea for online-commenting civility because, frankly, Sharon, you’re kinda loco-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs brand of cray cray. Just sayin’.
Ya, whatevs. Funny how freaked out everyone’s getting now, though…especially Jane from DA.
Yeah, we get that (you’ve made that abundantly clear), but whatever she’s said, whatever she’s posted somewhere else, whatever she has or hasn’t made up, you need to let it go. She hasn’t done a single thing to you, personally.
I haven’t seen her do that with her posts, here, nor has she used the term “old ladies”. If she did it somewhere else, post on it there. Following and/or attacking her here makes you look like some sort of a crazy stalker—an impression that isn’t helped by the information that you posted above.
“Crazy”. You might want to reconsider that particular word choice for now. As for the “playing the victim” accusation, again, I only saw her ask you to drop it or take it off this comment thread. If you really are the “good Catholic woman” you profess to be, take a deep breath and turn the other cheek and let it go. Your blood pressure will thank you.
Hmmmm, having just seen your most recent post:
maybe you’re just trolling. In which case, nevermind.
Mmm, yes. Well. Of course the comment my last one was in response to isn’t trolling at all…
Right.
@Jane and the others.
Thank you.
@Sharon
I’d much rather be called a liar than continue this conversation, here or really anywhere. I don’t need to convince anyone of who I am. We all know that isn’t the point. I appreciate your time and consideration in responding to my comments. I wish you the best of luck in all future endeavors, seriously.
Ah, Jane. Something tells me if she were on the other side of the stick and Rose was attacking her BFF instead of defending her, she’d be doing the detective work. Frankly, I thought it overkill when Rose said she threw her pillow pet across the room. I don’t believe for a minute she is a high school student, but if she wants to pretend, knock yourself out hun.
The only thing I wanted to say is in response to comments about bloggers. I really have no problems or qualms about writing a negative review of someone I am friends with on Twitter. I don’t think it blurs the lines or makes a situation murky. Integrity most of us HAZ it. And those ‘free ARCs’ they are just as much a pain in the ass as they are awesome things to have. You still have to read it, even if you don’t like it, and write about and spend hours vested in one book.
Well, her whole spiel over at mrsgiggles was about bandying about false allegations and slandering people, etc., so I figured she’d want to substantiate her own allegations. Oh well. Guess not.
The garbage about how she goes to an all girls Catholic school and how Sarah saved her from all that nonsense about being condemned to an eternity burning in hell, and never marrying and dying “cursed” being drummed into her head by those evil Cat’liks was just such an over-the-top caricature of what non-Catholics (heck, it practically reads like a Jack Chick tract) think Catholics believe, it’s clear she’s making it up. Oh, and I like how the same people who are teaching her that her romance novels will leave her a cursed, condemned, old spinster who’s going to hell in a handbasket also hired a photographer to take some pretty questionable glam shots of underage girls for the yearbook. C’mon!
I’m also thinkin’ anyone who thinks Catholics are shy about what they write about hasn’t read a lot of Catholic authors. She might want to start with Flannery O’Connor. Or Graham Greene. Or Evelyn Waugh. Or Sigrid Undset.
Who knows. Maybe “Rose May” is another Sarah Wendell production. /eyeroll.
Tried to read all of the comments here and at Mrs. G’s, but I have a bunch of stuff to clear off my desk, so I didn’t make it. Maybe later.
Regarding the potential for conflict of interest, of course it exists. That’s why DA and SBTB have the mandated disclaimers at the top of their site that we should never assume they actually went out and bought a book for review on their own dime. Did I think that mandating that was pretty stupid? Yeah. But the bureaucrats saw a potential for conflict of interest and wanted us poor readers warned about it. Okay, so we’re warned.
Sarah has a financial relationship with some of my favorite authors. And? I consider myself notified that there is a potential COI. Really, as far as I can tell, all Sarah owes us is a head’s up. Now we have it.
Sheesh, the bureaucrats think that if I’m given a handful of free pens that say Vi*agra on them, I’m gonna start writing scripts for the drug to underage teenaged girls, for crying in the beer. While it’s annoying I now have to buy my own cheap pens, so what? There was a potential for COI and the bureaucrats shut down my supply of note pads too. I have to buy my own post-its now, dagnabbit.
Anybody hitting Mrs. G’s site for sweetness and light is likely to be sadly disappointed. Mrs. G has never had a (dare I say) Rose-y disposition. As for Rose May’s over the top defense of Sarah (but remember Sarah, you asked for folks to defend you, so you got what you asked for), I have a daughter close to your age, and I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine her talking, er typing, anything like that.
I went to Catholic school in MA in the 80s and 90s and once had a priest tell 12 year old me I was going to grow up to be a prostitute. My crime? Saying the word “boobs” in a social mixer game at a CYO meeting.
Rose is totally a drama queen, but I’d buy that story, no problem.
And, that’s an ad hominem attack on the girl anyways. It no more debunks her position than saying what a lovely person Sarah is has anything to do with her actions. Good people can do bad things and head case drama queens can have a valid argument.
I mean, she doesn’t here, but going after her story doesn’t mean you’re proving her defense of Sarah is unfounded. Ad hominem attacks weaken your own argument, not your opponents.
I don’t care if a blogger and authors are having wild sex parities for pay on alternate Sunday’s. I just don’t. I read the blog, decide if it has value to me, and continue or do not. The rest is personal destruction games, and I don’t get off on that.
I don’t care who or what Rose May is, although I am dead certain she’s not Sarah. I find that accusation more telling of the accuser than anything else.
A grown adult suggesting cyberstalking someone who might or might not be underage is a high level of cray cray and reminds me why I stay far away from certain cray cray blogging circles. Axes are obviously being ground here.
I will be laughing the rest of the night over the assertion that ‘we would all know’ if a Catholic school teacher got fired for calling a student a whore. I think I will still be laughing about that next week, some stuff is never not funny.
The Sarah Wendell comment was sarcasm, in light of the thread. Sheesh.
I’m hardly “cyberstalking” her. She linked her name to her blog, I thought her posts were bizarre and odd, I clicked the link, saw the pics, and then saw the photographer’s page where the pics are displayed. That’s not “cyberstalking”.
She’s making bizarre claims, her very, very odd posts at mrsgiggles, and her strange response here are just weird and creepy, IMO.
If an adult is posing as an underage girl in order to direct underage girls to her site, then that’s a real problem, but apparently me clicking on the information SHE linked is what bothers y’all. Really? Seriously?
SHE (he, it, whatever) implied it was a big news story, and if it was, it would certainly have been on one of the 24/7 cable channels because they LOVE those stories. As it is, the story, which “Rose May” mocked me for not knowing about because, OMG, “do I even watch the news?”, doesn’t show up on a LexisNexis search, so it’s total BS.
There’s something glaringly off about her posts, her site, the claims she’s making, and the pictures she’s posting. If you can’t see that, and if she (or he, for all anyone knows) develops a relationship with an underage girl as a result, are you still going to be so very deeply freaked out that I clicked on HER (his?) link?
As for the hearsay stories about what priests and nuns have said or done, I’ve heard them all.
I went to convent school in the early seventies, a very small, very conservative, all-girls, in-an-actual-convent, convent school. We got caught with Rosemary Rogers, et al., and, while the books were confiscated and we were chided for reading junk or trash, no one was condemned or damned or called names. I was educated by nuns all my life, I’ve worked with them, I’m around them all the time, and I have never met a single religious woman who was anything but amazing and nurturing and kind and loving regardless of the circumstances.
If you want to think I’m “cray cray” (what are you, 12…??), fine. Look at yourselves sometime—you’re mean and snotty and cruel and unkind and and snide and dirty mouthed and generally unattractive. Go ahead and laugh for weeks and weeks if you find me so amusing. That says way more about you than it does me.
Considering that it had absolutely nothing to do with me and I just didn’t care, one way or the other, whether she was lying, delusional, or voted most honest of all honest people ever, I never clicked her links. As I said before, she’s done nothing to you personally. You appear to be taking it all very personally, however, and that is what bothered me – your almost histrionic tone, your inability to just let it go, the fact that you gloat about this fact you checked and that one (very stalker-sounding, yes), and that you sounded like you’re trying to physically locate her (even more stalker-y). Frankly, all of THAT creeped me out a heck of a lot more than whether or not she is who she says she is or whether or not what she says is true. Even now, you’re trying to justify doing all this to someone who did nothing more than post something that you didn’t like to someone you do. Don’t you see how over the top all of this is?
I suppose I could let that blanket condemnation hurt my feelings and go all “I’m rubber and you’re glue” about it, touching off yet another wave of “neener neener nuh uh” posts—especially since I don’t think I’ve been particularly cruel or unkind or dirty-mouthed (though you could probably tag me with snide in a couple of places). But that would mean that I really care about what you, a complete and total stranger, think of me or anyone here (including Sarah). I would point out that this no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and/or interact with anyone here, but given your previous posts, I’m afraid that is too rational of an observation to make must of a dent. (Of course, if someone is actually holding a gun to your head and forcing you to come to SBTB and participate, much against your desire and will, I take it all back. (Oh, dear. I think I hit snide again.)
So, Sharon’s known lots of awesome nuns.
Some people have different stories.
One story does not invalidate the truth of the other.
The Catholic Church, like nearly all institutions, has been part of some truly great evils. It has also contributed great good to the world. And its servants, like those of all institutions, are human and prone to human error and human evil. Not sure why Sharon seems so threatened by these truths.
“Generally unattractive”??? Everything I needed to know about you, kind gentle lady, has been revealed in that one comment. I will have you know I am devastatingly beautiful, with long raven tresses and violet eyes, even. No really.
This conversation is getting ridiculous and I am embarrassed that I’m still writing, but Sharon, you have an axe to grind like nobody’s business. And the person you have chosen to grind it against has done nothing (NOTHING!) to you personally, to anyone you know, nor even to catholics or nuns in general. You also have absolutely no reason to suspect that this person is lying apart from your own paranoid delusions. I just need to point out a couple things and then I am done, PROMISE!
You must realize that your evidence re: nuns is completely anecdotal. Just because you know good nuns does not mean that they are all good, loving, generous, non subject to severe lapses in judgment. I went to catholic school, too. And I was shown “A silent scream” when I was 8 years old!!!! Look it up, this movie should not have been shown to anyone, much less little girls. But it happened, due to a severe lapse in judgment by my NUN (Ursuline order) teacher. Just because you had good experiences with catholics is not a valid reason for concluding someone with a bad experience is lying
My law school dean was arrested for child porn. SOMEHOW, in our 24 hour news cycle, CNN failed to report it! GOD, WHY???? Because its only news to the law school and university community. Just because a teacher at a catholic school was fired does not mean its news. This is not valid reason to believe our precocious little poster is lying.
Your posts have been quite incindiary and I am actually worried that you are going to Sherlock your way to this person’s school and literally try to get her into trouble, because, GOD FORBID, you don’t seem to like her very much. ONLINE.
Good God.
I cannot believe that an SBTB comments section has degenerated to a flame war about the CATHOLIC CHURCH! I never, ever thought that I would see a flame war on this site. I’m not a writer or a publisher, or a blogger. I come here to read information on one of my favorite genres and some kick-ass reviews of books I might not otherwise pick up. It’s a BLOG in which the word “mantitty” is used frequently, not a frakking Supreme Court decision. Can Sarah, Red-Headed Girl, Nonnie, or Candy post a review of an actual book….please? Preferably one that does not involve nuns.
Holy crap on a crapcracker…
@bounababe
YES. PLEASE.
Finally, @everyone else. This should end it. Should you actually give a … you know… about this stupid stuff that’s going on, take a look at my blog. There is a post entitled “You Caught Me”. It’s pretty self-explanatory, I think. And I’m pretty sure, @Sharon, that it’s near-irrefutable proof. Not completely, mind you. But I think it should suffice – and prove my age, gender, and that those picture you decided to claim I stole from someone – are mine. Exhibit D at the end of the post is the most important, but I encourage you to read it all.
I in know way meant to claim that the entirety of the Catholic Church condemns romance novels. However my school has an abstinence only policy and has, at least twice, hosted anti-sex talks where a speaker (Jason Evert i think was his name) came into our school and talked to us about why we should save sex until after marriage. My school is pretty uptight is all I’m saying, and I don’t get a lot of warm and fuzzies for reading romance. That’s not to say the Catholic Church is bad or uptight just that, in my particular situation, I have experienced some discrimination based on my genre of choice.
So, THIS SHOULD WRAP IT UP, Sharon. I think I’ve provided you with what you need.
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.
FWIW, Sarah, not for one moment have I ever doubted your honesty or believed you’ve been paid to say anything on this website. It’s always felt like a labour of love to me, something you do because you love romance novels. I didn’t know about your link to SP before now, and even if I had, it still wouldn’t have crossed my mind to think you were being underhanded about anything. You’ve had this site a lot longer than you’ve been working for SP – I know I’ve been reading along for several years now, so AFAIC, there’s no conflict.
I will continue to read along and enjoy your posts. This is one of my favourite websites and will continue to be so.
Wait, I thought SB Sarah was one of the Mean Girls. Now she’s selling good reviews? Hmm. Anyway, she wouldn’t be selling good reviews. For maximum effect, she’d have to sell F reviews and authors don’t like those.
Seriously, though. Shill reviews aren’t usually that hard to spot, and if an established blogger suddenly started turning them out there’d be a noticeable shift in the authorial voice of the reviews. In my mind there’s a lot of ground between “online administration and consulting” and giving an “awesome review everywhere even if it sucks” which is lying, basically.
When I first saw references to this, I thought somebody had uncovered a reviews-for-sale scandal then it turns out to be that a blogger is a social media consultant. Okay. So why the allegation about lying? Why talk about selling reviews as if it’s a fact?
I bet SB Sarah is a great media consultant. I wish JAK would hire Simple Progress so they could tell her to put the reading order for her many series on her website.
Affordable Kindle Books, Please visit site below
https://sites.google.com/site/kindlebooksale/
yikes.
Sarah…I adore your website. I do wish you had somehow “disclosed” your new venture. It doesn’t bother me, but it would have been nice to know about.
I am disappointed that you posted your neighbor’s full name on this post when she has not done so. Her Facebook, her Twitter are under aliases. She writes under a pen name, for crying out loud and you have basically “outed” her. I also use an alias to protect my family and my privacy and think that out of everything, that was poor form. PLEASE remove that.
See you tomorrow.
Wow… just… wow.
Delurking to just throw some perspective on the fire since I’m not emotionally charged about this…
I’ve been a regular visitor to this site for a couple of years now and I am neither a blogger, author, hotdog stand peddler, publisher, window cleaner, PR whatsit, or shoe shiner. I’m actually in the medical field. I come here for the book reviews, the snark, and the humor. I’m a reader and that’s exactly what I do… I read. I don’t care if Sarah is married to the mob or is in witness protection b/c she took money for a crooked politician. She writes/provides reviews of books. I read books, therefore, I enjoy this site. I also *choose* to visit this site. I don’t always agree w/ the reviews and I do sometimes think it can get a bit too snarky but that’s also a draw. To be honest, I don’t even really look at the advertisements. I kinda find them annoying. I have nothing to do w/ her business, I don’t care about her business (in so many ways). I appreciate that she believes in disclosure, but since it doesn’t pertain to me or to my books,I just skim and go on to the book reviews.
As to the big blow out, let it simmer down. I read the other blogs out of nosy curiosity and the back and forth that people are doing is just gasoline on the fire. No one is benefiting, the feelings are hurt, the milk is spilled and damage done. It’s getting a bit out of hand and waaaaaay too personal. The comments are doing more damage than good. Sarah wrote a thoughtful, thorough and pointed post addressing the situation. It’s being devalued by the comments.
It’s ok to disagree, it’s ok to defend, but sometimes it’s better to just not reply. and reply. and reply. People are getting a wee bit scary now and it’s spun so far off topic as to be ridiculous. Let the trolls be. They are settling in now b/c people are responding and they will not go away unless they are ignored.
OK. That’s my opinion. Thanks for reading. If anyone is as obsessive as I am and reads all the posts, peace be with you.
@Cakes – Um, no. I remember Kate Garrabrant’s name from back when I used to read her conference reports. I googled her to double check my memory. She regularly “outs” herself.
I meant “reads all the comments” not posts. sorry.
and I’m not calling anyone a troll. Just to be clear and so I don’t get the pitchforks. I got a flat butt and the ends are way too pointy. Just whoever you might perceive as trolling and feel compelled to argue with. Go pet your puppy/kitty or whatever furred (or scaled) creature gives you happy thoughts. Remember, this is not real, it’s the internet and whatever indignities that are experienced here can be dissolved with the blue pill. or the red one. Whichever one that didn’t make Keanu Reeves turn into the silver surfer.
ahhh..see, I’m not a part of the industry, so I don’t know any conference stuff. I just know my experience of what she has out there for general readers. I figured if she wanted her full name out there it would be on those sites.
Yes, you can figure out what my real name is (it isn’t hard if you know me professionally.) but, I just like to keep it as quiet as possible. I noticed on the other blog she commented on her full name being used, I guess I’m personally sensitive to this.
@cakes – I saw her comment. It’s what prompted me to check. I’m not part of the industry. I just bounce around the Internet reading about books. And even I know her name so I thought it was odd. She has a LinkedIn profile listing both names for pete’s sake. And she’s given blog interviews and stated her real and pen names.
@Sharon
Well, Sharon, you obviously didn’t attend the same Irish Catholic school I did. A couple of the nuns were nice, but the majority were vicious bitches. The priest who came in to give us religious lessons showed us animal porn. His reasoning? To show us what he meant by the words “bestiality” and “buggery”. We were 12 at the time. And, no, that didn’t make it into the news. The priest was quietly removed and put out to pasture.
Bullcrap. Giggles is nothing but an attention seeking shit disturber, and Emily Veinglory will happily stab anyone in the back if it suits her purposes. Both of them are perfectly happy to aid and abet appallingly unethical behaviour if they can get away with it, and Giggles does it purely for fun. Talk about someone not being accountable.
I wouldn’t hang a dog based on their accusations.
Jesus H Christ on a bicycle. Are you aware that the vast majority of snark is either bad (or unethical) writing, ridiculous covers, or really, really lousy publishers and assorted businesses? These are all legitimate targets for attack. It’s not karma when a couple of obnoxious gossipmongers decide to take a pop at a successful and popular blogger because they’re jealous, and throw mud in the hope it will stick.
You sound stupid. Go away.
Yup. The ones I had who weren’t mentally deranged, were just plain psychopaths. I can’t believe someone couldn’t believe that a nun would call a girl a ‘whore’. Trust me, there were nuns at my highschool who treated girls with a certain reputation much worse than that.
Kate Garrabrant is on facebook and uses her author’s pen name on that page. The two names are linked up on the same page. I knew the woman’s real name and I am *really* not her friend, nor was I looking for her real identity. It’s on Goodreader and so on too. It’s not how you hide your real name if you’re seriously worried about doing so.
This kind of thing can be very hurtful, and I’m sorry you are having to go through it. I love this website and think you do an amazing job. I will always be reading!!
Ok, I don’t know how this conversation went from Sarah’s business venture to nuns, but I will stand FIRMLY behind anyone who says the nuns were bitter b*tches because I was taught by SEVERAL of them in grade school. They ruined my school years and took a lot of my self-esteem right along with that. *shudder*
This made me snort water up my nose. OW. But thank you.
I don’t either, and I’ve read the thread a few times. I’m more than happy to leave the thread open to new comments, but can we move off the Catholic debate, please? That’s a big sticky difficult and painful topic for a lot of people.
Unless you know of nuns with violet eyes and raven tresses – and I’m going to stop now.
Only in Anne Shirley’s imagination!!
My Catholic headmistress was called Sister Mary Mark and when I was four I thought she was a man. Or you know, something that wasn’t either man or woman. Nuns: the third gender.
Geesh! Pretty sure I agree with Wendy’s blog on jealousy.
Number one, you are totally entitled to participate in any business that you wish to, and in this horrid economy if you get a chance to do something you love and get paid for it? Yay you!!
Number two, I couldn’t care less even if you were getting paid for endorsements (though I believe you completely when you say you aren’t). It would just mean I wouldn’t read your reviews. There are plenty of other fantastic posts over here to enjoy. And/or plenty of other review blogs to read (which, let’s face it, we all read other blogs, too).
Number three, I’ll repeat. Geesh!! I think some people have way too much time on their hands and think way too much about what other people are doing. In the spirit of Yom Kippur (which you started out by discussing), petty jealousies and envy are what need to be atoned for – not participating in a business that is in a genre and medium you love.
@Ann Somerville said it all. And very well.
I say go you!
Meh. Ridiculous drama aside, the issue of review “neutrality” is really a stalking horse for more broad and structural changes to the online community’ orientation. I’ve been an obsessive reader of AAR and later the blogs since 04 and there certainly has been a shift in content/orientation in much of this media. Much of the by the reader, for the reader, all for one, one for all vibe that used to exist in many of these places is gone, or migrated to an increasingly fragmented set of niche blogs/communities. Fangirls have always been an issue, and a marginal one at best. What I am talking about is the orientation of the blogs/sites themselves, how they position themselves vis a vis authors, publishers, and readers, and who they define as the readership itself.
It’s not to say that the evolution of these spaces has been wholly bad, or should not have happened. But I certainly read and process online reviews much differently than I used to, and I increasingly find my romanceland google reader queue, with some awesome exceptions, to be a collection of industry news/gossip/buzz/trends and product placement. Some of that rough DIY vibe is gone. Indie bands are a good comparison- even if the band doesn’t jump shark it looses some of that homey, unwashed feel just by making good!
Reviews by definition are not neutral- they are the public expression of an opinion. So that one files out the window. And given the foten myriad conflicts of interest held by people who write for blogs, publications, ect in romanceland, this kerfluffle is incredibly marginal. But I will say as a general rule of thumb, many fun rebel corners of romanceland have accquired an unmistakable industry feel. Neither good nor bad, but different, and it changes the way I as a pure reader interact with the spaces and the amount of time/thought I put into posting, linking, ect. C’est la vie.