Answering Questions: Jane Litte/Jen Frederick

Since Jane Litte announced that she’s a published author under the pseudonym Jen Frederick, I know there’s been a lot of talk and questions and processing and discussion, and to be honest, I haven’t known exactly what to say. Then Dabney emailed me some questions which helped me articulate a lot of things I’ve been thinking about, and helped me organize my brain. So forgive the obvious and kinda pretentious format, but being asked helped me explain logically all the things I want to say.

Did you know that Jane Litte was Jen Frederick?

Yes. I’ve known since March 2013.

Did you know she was keeping her pen name a secret?

Yes. I don’t know when I found out that it was a secret – my email archive searches are not helping me here. I learned that she’d written a book in March 2013, and found out about the pen name and the separation of it from DearAuthor sometime afterward.

Learning that she was writing under a pen name wasn’t a problem. The longer it went on, the more difficult it became for me. It’s been really hard to keep it a secret, and I didn’t know what to say or what to do about it.

Didn’t you mention the Jen Frederick pen name during a podcast?

During an interview, Jessica Clare/Jill Myles mentioned that she was self publishing with Jen Frederick:

Sarah:  Why not self publish?

Jess:  And that’s one reason why Jen Frederick and I decided to self publish Last Hit was because – we never really entertained the thought of going to a publisher because, you know, it was a hitman hero, and it was also very New Adult, written in, you know, dueling first person point of view, and we were like, you know – this is fairly timely at the moment.

When I was editing, I removed a lot of that conversation. It was originally longer and mentioned more of their joint projects. To have removed all mentions would have been confusing in the larger context of the discussion. I left as little as I could without making the dialogue unclear and disconnected.

Also, a separate mention: Jane Litte/Jen Frederick sponsored the 2nd place prize in the 2013 DABWAHA Second Chance Tournament.

Didn’t you feature their book in a podcast?

Yes – Penguin is the sponsor of the podcast and they sent Last Hit as one of the books to be mentioned during the podcast.

(The way that works, if you’re curious, is that once a month, Penguin’s marketing and publicity folks send me a list of three or four books for that month, and those are the books featured during the different episodes.)

Why didn’t you refuse?

That’s not really something I can do. I can’t tell an advertiser what books they can and cannot advertise, but I made sure that the book was mentioned on an episode that Jane wasn’t in.

Basically, I was trying to keep a confidence for a friend. I was doing what I thought was the right choice.

Why’d you keep it a secret?

Because my friend asked me to, and it wasn’t mine to share, really. When I was part of Simple Progress in 2011 and didn’t talk about it openly, that was bonehead stupid of me. I made a really dumb mistake, one I learned from because, geez, was that dumb. I haven’t been associated with Simple Progress since 2012, when the partnership was dissolved simply (hur) because we didn’t have time to take on new clients. Not talking about that openly was my own dumb mistake.

In this case, I was trying to be a good friend, and trying to keep separation from her business and mine as best I could.

I’m really proud of Jane’s success, and am amazed at what she’s accomplished. It is not easy to write books, and self publish them, and then to hit a bestseller list and keep going from there – that is extraordinary. I also work with Jane on a lot of projects – the podcast, the DABWAHA, the book blogger conference before RT, to name a few. We work closely and because of that, keeping her pseudonym a secret was sometimes difficult and sometimes uncomfortable for me, and, as I said, the longer it went on, the more unsure I was about what what to do. Or say. Hence my not saying anything until now.

The revelation has also created a lot of anger and confusion and hurt and mistrust in the online romance community, and that makes me the most sad. I also know that there are questions about the Legal Fund I ran on Jane’s behalf, and I want to address those as best I can.

The legal fund is not for Jane’s personal benefit. She’s told me she plans to donate any unused portions (if there are any – discovery, as I understand from all those romance-writing lawyers out there, is very expensive, let alone a trial) to the Society of Professional Journalists Legal Defense Fund. If the funds were not needed, she planned to refund them to the donors. When we started working on it, Jane stated that she initially began with $20,000.00 of her own money. This fund was not and is not for Jane’s personal gain.

I understand if feelings or perceptions of Jane have changed, but the legal fund has nothing to do with her writing career. The lawsuit suit is still going on, and it’s still pretty awful.

Moreover, I understand that people are upset, and I understand not knowing what to do or say about it. I do know Jane, though, and that is a privilege on my part. I don’t believe that it was her intention to mock or betray anyone’s trust, or to make anyone feel gullible or stupid. And I think that judging the whole of her website or of her writing or of her activity in the romance community on this one revelation is a mistake. In addition to her fiction writing, she did stand up for authors who stated they weren’t being paid by Ellora’s Cave. She did get sued for that, and is still defending herself. Jane is my friend, and I know that over the years she’s done a lot to change the conversation about romance online, that she’s championed books and authors and difficult issues, and she’s taken stands on controversies that have divided us.

It’s really easy online, I think, to reduce a person to just one thing. That person is evil. This person is mean. All of those people are horrible.

But no one is just one thing. We are all complex humans who are making decisions based on what we know and think is best at the time.

If you’re angry at me, or at Jane, or at bloggers in general, I understand and empathize with your feelings. I’m not going to say that you’re wrong to be angry. I would never say that.

If my actions have caused you to rethink the way you see me, or this site, I understand that, too. If you have any questions, I’m happy to answer them.

Categorized:

General Bitching...

Comments are Closed

  1. Marie says:

    I am honestly not sure why people are so upset about regarding this news. Especially in the romance book industry using pen names is not at all unusual, and a lot of writers choose to remain anonymous. She has to my knowledge never given herself a review on her blog. What would be the alternative, using the blog to promote herself outright? Not sure that this would have been more ethical.

  2. Karlyn says:

    Thanks for posting you side of this story. I do think it is mostly authors and some bloggers who feel hurt by this, but in general the reading community doesn’t care. I’ve been all over Goodreads looking for discussions of this, and there very few. And what I have read doesn’t have the same venomous tone that I saw on the TPV article, which appears to be filled with the pro-EC croud. The issue of disclosure has been mentioned, but when put in perspective it is pretty minor offense. Three small mentions of her books over a three year period, and no reviews at all.

  3. Just have to say kudos Sarah for speaking up. *big hugs*

  4. Author says:

    You have horrible taste in friends. Jane has been a bully for years. Nice to see people finally realizing it!

  5. Simon Ralls says:

    How many who contributed to the legal fund would have if they’d known they weren’t helping defend a blogger from a publisher, but rather a bestselling author with a movie and book deal who was also a competitor of that publisher, via self-publishing? The fact is that failing to disclose material facts that would have influenced peoples’ decisions (also known as telling the whole truth, or for short, just, the truth) is a pretty big part of being one of the white hats vs. a black hat.

    I’ve seen nobody do anything but ignore that one in the pro Jane/Jen camp. But I do know plenty of people who contributed who are furious at the deception, and wouldn’t have, so the motivation is highly questionable.

    There’s always a story after someone’s caught (or forced to come clean due to discovery). Every defendant has their version of the truth. I don’t think what Jane/Jen did is worthy of burning her at the virtual stake but it also sickens me to keep hearing these half-truth rationalizations that ignore the uncomfortable parts of what she did. That doesn’t say much good about those mounting the defense.

  6. Anon says:

    The issues people take with Jane/Jen’s deception are far more complex than a simple matter of a pen name. Jen Frederick befriended, socialized, networked with people who had made a personal choice to block/not associate with Jane Litte and Dear Author. That’s not much different from Jane’s vilification of Katherine Hale, who developed a personal in order to catfish a reviewer. Jane/Jen’s play of double standard is just…astounding. I understand readers who aren’t involved in the romance community as anything but readers WON’T understand, but hope you/they can try to see from an author perspective of feeling violated by a liar and an imposter.

  7. Marie says:

    @Simon: I understand your point regrading full disclosure and that people might not have contributed to her fund if they had known. Fair enough. But I don’t think her comments regarding Ellora’s Cave had anything to do with her role as an author. Jane is known to write about industry related topics on her blogs, so I think she would have written about this regardless.

  8. Meoskop says:

    Sarah – you brought me back into public reviewing and I still thank you for that. It’s disingenuous to suggest people are judging this based on one action or one mistake. The tagline of DA is about readers. the message of DA was consistently about transparency and fair dealing. At a certain point, the tone of the blog shifted. Historical romance was declared dead. NA was king. Objecting to racism in certain NA scenes or not being on board for the return of the rape fantasy in mainstream romance was strongly discouraged. The new comment policy hit. The place had fundamentally changed and when READERS asked why there was no transparent and honest answer.

    Yesterday I said you had to know and it made me sad. It still does. I understand staying out of a friends business and I understand something not being your secret to reveal. I also understand that SBTB and DA had a business partnership that was valuable to you and you chose that over keeping your post 2011 transparency model in place.

    I am disappointed.

    This isn’t about bad people or witch hunts – this is about a community soured by lies of omission reevaluating how they fell about those communities. I personally feel better because I never understood what happened with me (and so many others) and DA until this revelation. It all makes sense now. I don’t know how I feel about SBTB/ I’m holding at disappointment indefinitely and looking for what DA & SBTB were supposed to be – an honest place for readers to build a community.

    This is long. TL:DR – it’s okay to disagree about what a community should look like and that’s why sometimes the best thing is to leave them. Honesty is key for me. I appreciate you making this post.

  9. azteclady says:

    Sarah, I respect that you were put in a difficult position because it was not your secret to tell. Something was told to you in confidence and you honored that trust.

    You say above,

    I think that judging the whole of her website or of her writing or of her activity in the romance community on this one revelation is a mistake.

    I hope you agree that re-evaluating how we–or, since I speak for no one else, I–feel about not so much the revelation as what has transpired during the past two and a half years is quite understandable.

    You also say,

    she did stand up for authors who stated they weren’t being paid by Ellora’s Cave. She did get sued for that, and is still defending herself. Jane is my friend, and I know that over the years she’s done a lot to change the conversation about romance online, that she’s championed books and authors and difficult issues, and she’s taken stands on controversies that have divided us.

    I strongly believe Jane is in the right with regards to Ellora’s Cave. I hope she prevails in the lawsuit–and I hope that that result brings about some disclosures from Ellora’s Cave to the authors and other contractors who are still waiting for clear and verifiable royalty statements and full payment for services rendered.

    Finally, I believe that Dear Author as a whole, and Jane Litte particularly, were unreserved, honorable, and fierce advocates for readers–until Jane Litte failed to disclose her blogger identity while interacting with other authors in authors-only spaces, and when she allowed/didn’t object/whatever to having her books and her co-authors books promoted.

    The first is dishonest, and it bothers me greatly that Jane has not so far admitted that doing so was wrong of her, frankly.

    The second is a clear conflict of interest, and Jane should have known better–if for no other reason, because of the hue and cry when your own involvement with Simple Progress came to light.

  10. Simon Ralls says:

    @Marie: I understand that your belief is that her competitive role as a publisher of her material never entered into her decision to skewer EC, who it seems from my brief read, had it coming, but as with all beliefs, it assumes the best, not the worst, of your friend and associate, just as all parents assume their kid didn’t do the bad thing they’re accused of. The fact remains that she’s known for snarky reviews of authors who she is a competitor to in the same genre she writes in, without revealing that she is also an author in the same genre. She did in fact push her books on the blog, again without disclosure. And she participated in a campaign I believe few would have contributed to had they known all the facts.

    We can go round for weeks on this, but the truth is that what she did stinks, most get that instantly once they know all facts, and the only ones who are pretending it doesn’t are her friends, business associates, and authors trying to curry favor as she offers promotional spots on the groups she’s a part of in damage control efforts. Everyone else gets it, seems to think it stinks but isn’t the end of the world, and moves on. As to Jane/Jen, she has to live with the fallout of her deception. Assuming that’s the only one she’s pulled. We have no way of knowing what others, if there are any, she’s gotten away with so far, but my experience has been that these things tend to cluster, because it takes a certain mindset to embark on the deception in the first place and most lack that moral elasticity.

  11. May says:

    When I first learned about this news, I saw nothing wrong about it. I am quite amaze at how Jane can accomplish all that and still have a life. I actually already read her books and love them so for me it was a nice surprise until I read TPV. Now I am not sure.

    As a reader I am still OK with everything. I do not feel betrayed or deceived. I still believe in DA integrity. The only problem I have is the aspect that Jane join an author’s private group wihout full disclosure. On this matter I can understand the uncomfortable feeling of the other authors in that group.

  12. Lostshadows says:

    *blinks* When I saw her revelation on DA, it never even occurred to me that it would be controversial.

    I didn’t recognize the name, so it seemed to me she wasn’t using DA or SBTB to underhandedly increase book sales, so I didn’t, and still don’t, see a problem.

    People use pen names all the time, for many different reasons. Its not really a big deal.

  13. Anon says:

    Jane a.k.a. Jen Frederick infiltrated many private author loops and groups under false pretenses. If people had known she was Jane, they might not have welcomed her into those groups.

    In addition, she purposely befriended authors who she mocked and/or criticized openly on Twitter, utilizing her Jen Frederick persona, to use them to advance her career. (Because getting information about the latest trends, promo opportunities, etc. is what authors do to advance their career.)

    She also never apologized to the authors she has deceived. She also never acknowledged that she was wrong to mislead them or go into those loops under another identity without disclosing the fact that she is Jane Litte. Given that she was already banned from a few groups/loops already, I guess she knew what the answer would be if she’d been honest.

    Furthermore, she also tried to sort of buy her way out of the sticky situation by offering to consider books for promo and features to another group if its members email her with information. I don’t know how this can ever look kosher to anybody. And no, she never said sorry to that group either.

    Here’s the thing — you reap what you sow. If you make authors feel uncomfortable and/or unsafe around you, that’s what you get. Unfortunately she has created a very author-unfriendly persona for herself, and her deception is unacceptable to many.

    Also if Jen Frederick had been anybody but Jane Litte, DA would be all over this by now, publishing another Authors Behaving Badly post with screencaps, if any.

  14. Kim says:

    I’m not an author, so I personally have no problems with it. However, that said, I still see two areas of concern. TPV blog mentions that some authors unfriended Jane on FB, but she then approached them as Jen. This wasn’t done to regain access for DA, but to learn about writing. So while I understand Jane’s reasoning, this could have been better handled. The other problem is that Jane is a fan of NA & discussed it many times, but didn’t mention she wrote it. She has a monetary interest in NA doing well, so should she have added that caveat in any discussion? I don’t read NA, so it didn’t influence me, but I’m talking about transparency.

  15. library addict says:

    I think Jane was right to keep her writing a secret so her books could (as they should) sink or swim on their own.

    The ads and such (here and at DA) should have been disclosed IMO, but that’s 20/20 hindsight. In the grand scheme of things, one Daily Deals mention at DA with one of the co-authored books and one mention in Kati’s Best of 2014 were the only two I personally had issue with simply because I believe Jane has always been so upfront about disclosure in the past. So that’s the standard she set.

    As a long time reader of both of your blogs I fail to see the whole conspiracy thing. I know you guys have joked about killing off historical, etc, but even if you weren’t joking (which it was obvious you were), it’s not like you really have the power to do that. Then again, I don’t believe either of you are mean girls out to destroy authors either. Both blogs are about celebrating romance books, but that doesn’t mean blindly ignoring their problems. I have never understood the “Jane and Sarah hate romance authors” stuff anyway. Both of you obviously love reading romance and that comes through in the blogs and the podcast.

    As for the defense fund, to my mind that was never about Jane directly, but about standing up for free speech. And I would donate again. Because even if Jane has the money, she shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden alone. The lawsuit is a frivolous one and it’s impact is to the romance community.

    Thanks for answering these questions.

  16. Anon says:

    Sarah,

    This is a question I’ve seen floating around different places, with nobody willing to come out with a solid source for their information, so I’m going to ask you since you invited questions –

    Does Jane have other romance fiction author pen names? And maybe if you can’t answer, you wouldn’t mind passing the question along to Jane, who seems unwilling to have an honest discussion about this.

  17. Lammie says:

    Thank you for addressing this. I have enjoyed your blog and Dear Author for many years now. I am happy for Jane’s success, and told her so in the comments on her blog when she made her announcement, but I do have concerns. I appreciate the reviews here (and the podcasts) because I have viewed them as honest. I think that part of honesty is being clear about where any potential biases may be, and I am disappointed that has not been made clear in the past. I understand many writers do reviews and I do not have a problem with that. I can recall in the New York Times Books Review Stephen King reviewing one of the Harry Potter books, and Margaret Atwood recently reviewed a Stephen King book. This is fine. But if someone wants to be considered an impartial reviewer yet has fingers in so many pies, these potential biases need to be declared. This was not done and it has negatively affected my views of these websites. Everyone has a right to make a living, and you have created wonderful websites, but I do feel disappointed in the deception. I remember Jane saying in a podcast how hated she was, and I never really understood that until now. She is obviously a polarizing figure in the romance world, and I can understand why she wanted to get her first books out there anonymously, but it seems that her success has created an ethical stain that has touched a lot of other people. I don’t hate either of you, but I have lost some respect for your websites. In going forward, will you be making any changes or adding any information about possible biases to reviews or the podcasts?

  18. Amber M says:

    I have to say, I’m not surprised. I am disappointed. I’m also confused as to why you think those of us who are troubled by this think of Jane (or you) as one thing? I never saw Jane as mean. Or evil. I’ve met you both at RTs. You were never anything but nice. But I am still upset.

    The podcast thing seems unavoidable. The sponsorship of a DABWAHA prize seems less so. I’m bothered that you allowed it. The whole purpose of sponsoring a prize is to raise an author’s profile. There is a financial benefit in it, but there was no disclosure.

    We all make mistakes, none of us are perfect. Especially when friendships are involved. But this one… My trust in this site, in DA, in pretty much everything involving our online romance community is irrevocably broken.

    In response to Karlyn: The mentions on her blog are NOT a small matter. Not for me. Because she has been a leader in the blogging/author/reader ethics debates. She has been…extremely outspoken on the need for disclosure. There may be only 3 mentions on her site, but one is too many. Reviews aren’t the only thing that sell books. You can’t make an informed choice if a site you normally trust recommends a book in a Best Of post without telling you that the author is the owner of the site.

    Anyway, I wish you the best, Sarah, but I’m saying goodbye.

  19. Bronte says:

    @Meoskop. I was one who was happy when the commenting policy changed at DA. There was so much bullying by certain commenters it was unbelievable. I enjoy rape fantasy and I should not have to apologise for it just like you shouldnt have to apologise for not enjoying it. If I wanted to read a social justice blog I would – not a romance review blog.

    For me I don’t care. I didn’t contribute to the fund. People have crowdsourced for stupider things. I also don’t think that because you are an author it precludes you from reviewing.

  20. Also if Jen Frederick had been anybody but Jane Litte, DA would be all over this by now, publishing another Authors Behaving Badly post with screencaps, if any.

    Of everything that has been said, this is the most troublesome.

    We’re in a brave new world and so many things are changing. Do I hate JL/JF/DA? No, not at all. Am I disappointed that there was no full disclosure from the beginning? Yes. Because Jane would not have given a pass to anyone who did what she did.

    Kudos to you, Sarah, for hanging your novel out there as a target for anyone who wanted payback for perceived ill treatment from SBTB. I wish Jane had done the same.

    And I hope DA and Jane get past this and continue to have a place in publishing.

  21. Meoskop says:

    @ bronte – Well, while I agree that you should be allowed to enjoy what you do, I disagree that the comments were a cesspool of bullying. The intent seemed to be to censure one side of the conversation and that happened. Objectors left.

    I also have no problem with authors reviewing. If you sponsor a book club for your cover designer and start the post “full disclosure” then give readers that information. DA will be fine, I’m glad it suits you. World turns.

  22. I’m glad I donated to the DA Defense Fund because I still believe that’s an important issue worth defending. What troubles me in these revelations is the claim that Jane/Jen was in author groups where they didn’t know she was DA’s Jane. That should have been disclosed, so the authors would know who they were talking to.

    For the record, I too write under a pen name. It’s a simple matter of marketing–if I ever write a SF novel, I’ll want to write it under my own name. There’s nothing necessarily wrong or nefarious about pen names, sometimes they’re just about the product and sales.

  23. hapax says:

    “the only ones who are pretending it doesn’t are her friends, business associates, and authors trying to curry favor as she offers promotional spots on the groups she’s a part of in damage control efforts. Everyone else gets it, seems to think it stinks but isn’t the end of the world, and moves on.”

    For the record, I am neither a friend, associate or author of Jane Litte (or any other blogger or romance author).

    I did think that what Jane / Jen did was problematic, but after investigating what both the “pro” and “anti” (for want of better words) camps had to say, I can’t say that I think that it “stinks.” The only potentially unethical matter was the supposed “infiltration” of “author groups”, and I certainly understand that certain members feel hurt; but since I find the whole idea of Super Sekrit Kewl Kidz Klubs (*on the Internet* of all places!) both naive and kind of distasteful in themselves, I am *personally* not terribly distressed to find that people were somehow “tricked” into associating (under one pseudonym) with someone they disliked (under another pseudonym). But that is definitely a YMMV issue, and I don’t discount that others feel differently.

    As for the fund — yep, I contributed to it, and I certainly wasn’t under the impression at the time that Jane was reduced to begging on the streets; I was pretty sure in fact that her income was higher than mine. I contributed to it in order to take a stand against using the legal system to stifle critical journalism — by a blogger, an author, an independent publisher, or heckopete, by a KKK member, I don’t care, so long as the charges were true. I’d do it again.

    As for DA, it’s bigger than Jane. To be honest, I mostly discount her reviews anyways, since her tastes and mine don’t match up at all.

    tl, dr: I don’t think it smells like fresh roses, but I don’t think it “stinks” either, and it hasn’t affected my views of DA as a source of reviews or industry news one bit.

  24. Jenn @ Lost in a Great Book says:

    @May I tend to agree with you. I don’t see that there has been a conflict with DA, and I don’t think that the EC lawsuit has any relevance to this disclosure, except that it may have pushed the timing forward. I continue to find DA to be a credible review site, and I do believe that Jane has acted above-board with her business dealings as a representative of DA.
    I can’t speak about the feelings of authors who found out they were in a private author loop with her; I do think that, had that been me, I would have wanted to know that JF was known to me under another name as a blogger — even if the name of that blog and blogger was not revealed. That, to me, is a separate issue from her work as a member of DA.

  25. SB Sarah says:

    @Lammie:

    In going forward, will you be making any changes or adding any information about possible biases to reviews or the podcasts?

    We do already, and if warranted, absolutely. But I can’t make a blanket statement that in every case of X we will do Y because there’s so many variables, I can’t account for them all. The way we interact changes, and the way we talk about books changes, but that said, if there’s a reason my opinion or someone else’s opinion is affected by personal interaction of connection, we’ll own it.

    @Anon at 2:06 pm:

    Does Jane have other romance fiction author pen names? And maybe if you can’t answer, you wouldn’t mind passing the question along to Jane, who seems unwilling to have an honest discussion about this.

    To my knowledge, no. I know of no other pen names.

  26. T.S says:

    The funny thing is that I read the post yesterday and just sort of went “huh”. Then I read TPV and went “Huh” again. To be honest I’m not really seeing the problem. These are romance review blogs. No where does it say anyone running these sites owe readers anything. This is an opinion piece. Reviewers read what come to them or what interests them, to say otherwise seems a tad silly.

    Do I think Jane or Sarah reviewed certain books because of an authorship? Maybe. Does it change the quality of those books? Not to me it doesn’t. Regardless of why someone reviews a book hardly matters to me. I want to know what they thought. Glowing reviews do not always mean sales just as bad reviews do not always equal no sales.

    I won a prize sponsored by Jen Frederick. I did not read the book yet. I still have the same feelings about reading as I did before the reveal. I’ll get to it when I get to it.

    Am I going to view it differently when I read it? No. Why would I? I can read a television exec producer’s vision online and still see things in the show they claim aren’t there. I can still maintain my views even when the creator has said they are false. Are we going to stop watching television because the executive producer is the son of a business man whose company is being advertised during their show? I don’t think so.

    These two sites have told readers time and time again how little we owe authors. We can choose to read and love/hate anything. We don’t owe them a thing. I think it stands true to blogs. They owe us their opinions whether they are biased or not. We have to make the decision if that review being biased matters to us or whether that makes the work less than it is.

    At the end of the day, I’m here to read romance books. I could care less what pseudonym they use to do it.

  27. Authors with pen names often compartmentalize their personas, and I can understand why Jane did so. (And why the secret was kept, as well.)

    I can also see how some things could have been done more graciously (such as disclosure for author groups). But I can’t get myself worked up over it, nor feel sorry for donating to the DA Defense Fun. Separate issues, after all. I donated to the fund for a reason, and that hasn’t changed. DA has spoken out when things needed to be said.

    As someone who reads this blog and DA as an observer rather than a participant, what strikes me most is that responses of such emotional depth arise when people care so sincerely about a community. Opinions and natter don’t cancel that hurt regardless of who’s “right” or “wrong,” and I hope both communities can find a way to heal.

  28. Ilsa D. says:

    I have followed both SBTB and DA for years. I’ve watched with interest (and yes, morbid fascination) while they exposed the bad behavior and plagiarism of many authors. As such, I think some poetic justice is in order here. The only thing that will set this to rights (in my mind) is if Jane Litte does a full-blown expose on Jen Frederic and drags her through the mud for unethical behavior, which is what she would do to any other author who’d been caught out like this. Using her author pseudonym to sign on to loops and groups that had nothing but disdain for Jane the blogger was what put it over the top, imo. What was she thinking?

  29. Simon Ralls says:

    @hapax – How can you possibly say that not revealing you’re a bestselling author in a popular/lucrative genre with a book and movie deal to boot doesn’t change the perception of potential donors to the fund?

    I’ve counted plenty of donors on TPV who say they wouldn’t have donated had they known. Those are actual donors not those speculating what would or wouldn’t influence them.

    This is a tempest in a teacup, but the deceptive behavior is clear, from the pretending not to be Jane in order to gain access to discussion groups she wouldn’t have been approved for as such to omitting significant facts about who was getting the money.

    I’d also like to hear the answer to the question of whether she has other aliases she uses, either for writing, or for joining groups.

  30. Corina says:

    I’m a reader. I’d like to be a writer some day but I’m REALLY lazy so I don’t think that will ever happen, but … just in case someone wants to discount my opinion and/or thoughts on that … there you go. I’ve been following both of your blogs for years. I think the last time I commented on this site though was on your disclosure post about Simple Progress (which I thought was overdue and it did make me uncomfortable). Jane’s lack of disclosure also makes me uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. Quite aside from anything she may have done on author loops and/or social media as Jen with other authors … I can’t help but think of her actions as JANE in a different light. I’d listened to your behind the scenes of DABWAHA podcast the day before she made her disclosure and the New Adult category debate between you two now sounds completely different to me. “OH! Jane didn’t want to overrule you on a category dispute that involves a category she WRITES in. She was trying to minimize the damage she was doing every day that this conflict of interest continued to go undisclosed! I get it now!”

    I don’t regret donating to Jane’s defense fund because she was doing something important that I support. I understand the decisions that both of you made and that there were good reasons for them. I don’t ascribe malicious intent to either of you. You were both (but you especially) were in a very difficult position. I don’t think Jane was wrong to *want* to write in a genre she loves, or to *want* that work to have a chance to stand independently of her blogging brand. I don’t think either of you owed me anything. I am not, personally, hurt or betrayed. But I think you both made the wrong choice and you’ve caused a lot of damage to a community that you built, and that I love being even tangentially a part of. And seeing the hurt of others in this community sucks.

  31. rebyj says:

    As a romance reader and a visitor at Dearauthor and Smartbitches I did have conflicting feelings about Jane’s disclosure.
    First was I’m so happy Jane’s writing and is having some success. I was”meh” that it’s NA but I’m 50 years old.

    2nd once I got a wee bit more informed I understood why authors on the author loops would feel the way some are feeling. I’m not an author so I can’t speak to that.

    3rd after sleeping on it my only personal issue with it is that I read dearauthor and smartbitches to stay informed along with everyone in the community. Unintentionally it is changing the dynamics of the community. So my squicky feeling is it puts me (the reader) in my place as just a consumer being sold what you guys want to sell and not a fellow reader discussing books.

    I’m still cheering Jane in in the lawsuit and in her writing career. In no way does this chase me away from the websites or the community because it’s been around for years and has had growing pains here and there and this too shall pass.

  32. Diane says:

    This movie deal seems to be a huge sticking point for some people, as if Jen Fredericks is E.L. James.

    I think people need to understand that books are optioned for movies all the time. Most of the time, the film is never made and the author is usually paid very little. So, no, the fact that her book has been optioned for a film would not change my mind in the least. I doubt she was paid millions for the film rights. Probably not even 6 figures. I’ll believe she’s making that kind of bank when the film is actually in production.

    I don’t think anybody thought Jane couldn’t afford her legal defense. Even without knowing she was a bestselling author, it was pretty common knowledge that she was a successful attorney. Most of us donated because we felt the lawsuit was an attack on free speech, so we all came together to make a statement. A large portion of the donations were small amounts and it was done as a show of solidarity.

    I think huge majority of the people who donated would do it again, even having all the facts. Heck, there were people who actually disliked Jane that donated. It wasn’t about money. It was about a community coming together against a publisher attempting to use the judicial system to stifle free speech.

    I may have some misgivings about some of Jane’s behavior (particularly joining author’s loops), but in the case of my donation and the suit against DA, I am still 100% behind Jane.

  33. Maeve says:

    I’m the Grand High Priestess of Lurkers, but I need to make this point: you refer to Jane/Jen as your friend, but no true friend would have ever put you in the position she put you in.

    I’m going back to lurkdom now.

  34. azteclady says:

    @Corina: This:

    I don’t regret donating to Jane’s defense fund because she was doing something important that I support. I understand the decisions that both of you made and that there were good reasons for them. I don’t ascribe malicious intent to either of you. You were both (but you especially) were in a very difficult position. I don’t think Jane was wrong to *want* to write in a genre she loves, or to *want* that work to have a chance to stand independently of her blogging brand. I don’t think either of you owed me anything. I am not, personally, hurt or betrayed. But I think you both made the wrong choice and you’ve caused a lot of damage to a community that you built, and that I love being even tangentially a part of. And seeing the hurt of others in this community sucks.

    Except I do feel hurt.

  35. Kelli says:

    T.S. (Comment #26) said (in explanation of why this issue doesn’t matter to him/her: “These are romance review blogs. Nowhere does it say anyone running these sites owe readers anything. This is an opinion piece….they owe us their opinions whether they are biased or not. We have to make the decision if that review being biased matters to us or whether that makes the work less than it is.”

    I think if DA took the stance that, hey, we don’t claim to have any intellectual integrity because we’re “just” a romance review blog, then the above comment might be true. If DA said, we have all kinds of biases and/or business interests in the romance industry that you don’t know about, but who cares because we’re “just” a romance review blog, then people might be viewing this situation differently.

    But this is not, in fact, the case. DA does lay claim to intellectual integrity. They have stated many times and in many ways that bias matters, that contextualizing comments matters, that disclosure and transparency matter a whole lot. I have plenty of places to go online where those things don’t matter. I went to DA because I thought it was a place where they did.

    Robin/Janet put it well in one DA comment thread: “There’s nothing wrong with having a vested commercial interest in self-publishing, but people deserve to know how that’s contextualizing yor comments.”

    And in the same thread, Jane also staunchly defended that level of intellectual integrity: “The fact that he doesn’t disclose is the problem. He has a vested interest in selfpublishing as a business. That’s how he makes money. Bias matters.”

    Let me paraphrase those noble sentiments: “Jane, there’s nothing wrong with having a vested commercial interest in publishing/the NA genre/Berkely/Amazon/Montlake, but people deserve to know how that’s contextualizing your comments.”

    And: “the fact that you didn’t disclose is the problem. You have a vested interest in publishing/the NA genre as a business. That’s one way you make money. Bias matters.”

    Either it does, or it doesn’t. I’d just like to know which.

  36. Renee says:

    When you are going to be incredibly vocal and judge people, you can’t expect not to be judged yourself. She set herself up for this sort of close inspection.

    As for saying that we shouldn’t judge her on this one thing alone…please, authors are judged, destroyed and blackballed all the time for one little mistake/comment, and in many instances Jane, herself, has been the most vocal about these mishaps, leading the charge against these authors. Again, she can’t expect to judge others and not have it come back to bite her on the ass.

    As for those who don’t understand what the big deal is…
    Jane has every right to advertise her book on her own site, but to have had her own book listed as a sort of must read by her own beta reader on Jane’s site, it starts to look fishy.

    Also, as has been said on other sites, Jane has joined author communities in which authors thought they had a safe place to vent. She’s also edited books for a big NY publisher, and in many cases, in these communities, you’re not allowed if you’re a publisher or editor. I mean come on, Jane’s a lawyer and supposedly a smart person. At no point did she think that maybe what she was doing wasn’t exactly ethical?

    As I said, if you’re going to be known for judging people, and for outing authors/editors you think are behaving badly, then you sure as hell can’t be surprised when people say, “hey, wait a minute,” when you come off as behaving badly yourself.

  37. Rebyj’s comment that:

    I read dearauthor and smartbitches to stay informed along with everyone in the community. Unintentionally it is changing the dynamics of the community. So my squicky feeling is it puts me (the reader) in my place as just a consumer being sold what you guys want to sell and not a fellow reader discussing books.

    really resonates with me, because I think it points to the way these revelations (and the ones about SB Sarah’s involvement with Simple Progress) made some readers step back and think about the business and other links which shape the context in which DA and SBTB’s news and views are produced.

    My impressions of trends in the market have been shaped by reading DA and SBTB’s impressions. I knew you both had contacts I didn’t have, and I trusted them to be accurate. That was probably a bit naive of me, but I saw you primarily as “readers” rather than as part of the industry.

    That’s not to say that you’re consciously trying to promote your friends or your own interests. It’s that, inevitably, a person’s impressions about things are shaped by the conversations they have with the people closest to them. That’s true in politics and it’s true here.

    So, I suppose, the revelations peel back the curtain, and show a more closely connected circle of bloggers, authors and publishing professionals than some of us might have thought existed. It’s a bit like thinking that journalists are reporting impartially and then learning that their networks of friends and family include some of the people they report on. Whether they mean to or not, it’s bound to have some effect on their reporting, perhaps in terms of which stories they think matter and who they can get quotes from.

    In the case of DA and SBTB, some of the points raised during this discussion raise questions about the way NA and some steampunk romance was discussed.

    [For anyone who’s interested, I’m thinking in particular of the very close relationships between people in the media in Scotland and the Scottish Labour Party, as discussed in this rather old article, from the Scotsman, which of course has its own biases.]

  38. T.S. says:

    I actually never meant to imply this was ‘just’ a romance review blog. Rather I was trying to clarify how the purpose of a romance review blog is to review romance.

    I just don’t really understand what this is about unbiased reviews. There is no such thing as unbiased reviews. Period. Every single person no matter how impartial they wish to be has bias and is, after all subject to their environment, values, knowledge, etc. We can try to hide those and keep them separate but it is virtually impossible to separate oneself completely from their views.

  39. marjorie says:

    I think Jane did something misguided and put Sarah in an untenable position. But you can’t FORCE a friend to come out. What was Sarah’s course of action here? SBTB did not review Jane’s books (and I’m glad since I am SO not a fan of NA, no way no how, so the fewer the better as far as I’m concerned), and since Jane was FROM THE START clear that donations to her defense fund would go to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Legal Defense Fund, I was and still am fine with donating. And I think Dear Author is a huge and valuable resource. The thornier issue is, I think, the social one — people interacting with Jane and saying things they might not have said if they’d known of her many hats and feeling betrayed by her hiding important information. That’s fair. She should have been more forthcoming, and she shouldn’t have put a friend in the position she did you. I’m honestly not sure what you should have done, though.

  40. hapax says:

    @Simon Ralls #29: ” How can you possibly say that not revealing you’re a bestselling author in a popular/lucrative genre with a book and movie deal to boot doesn’t change the perception of potential donors to the fund?”

    Umm, because I DIDN’T say that?

    You contended that “everyone” who wasn’t a friend, business partner or suck-up author felt that Jane / Jen’s behavior “stinks”, specifically with regard to donating to the fund.

    I said that I fit in none of those categories, didn’t think her behavior “stinks”, and that it was entirely unrelated to the fund.

    Several others on this thread have said so as well.

    Obviously, others say differently. Apparently, despite all rumors, the internet is not a hive-mind. Isn’t it wonderful?

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