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.
@rayvyn2k I’d like to see Jane admit that she’s a hypocrite. I’d like to see her admit that she has spent years castigating and rebuking any author she thought was behaving badly. That she held Twitter parties about it. That she is the one who repeatedly talked about how bias matters and how there should be full transparency and full disclosure. AND THEN SHE WAS EVERY BIT AS BAD IN HER OWN LIFE. Even if she didn’t initially intend to be a hypocrite, she became one. I’d like to see her own her mistakes instead of glossing over them as if they’re simply no big deal and acting like she truly did nothing wrong.
I’d like to see Sarah do the same, as she is also downplaying her involvement and the things she did wrong.
I mean, I understand. It’s human nature. We want to rationalize, justify and explain away our bad behavior because we don’t want to be perceived in a certain light. Problem is, both Jane and Sarah have years and years worth of posts regarding their own personal beliefs of just how wrong the very thing they did is! Authors should stay out of readers’ spaces, right Jane?
I do think Jane should either step down from DA or it should be re-branded as some reviewers and an author who will use the site to get sales.
All the backdoor dealings in this situation are just so shady.
So I’d like to see them admit to all their wrongdoings, not just gloss over them, admit to their hypocrisy and then, honestly, I don’t really care where they go from there because both are now ruined for me as reviewers.
P.S. – I also think Jane should be kicked out of every private author group she’s a member of, especially if she is (as others have claimed) offering those authors promo on her blog as a means of appeasing/bribing them.
@Christine. You just wrote what so many are saying right now, but not wanting to put it out on a public forum. Good for you!
This >>>>>>>> SO THIS >>>>>>>>> “I’d like to see Jane admit that she’s a hypocrite. I’d like to see her admit that she has spent years castigating and rebuking any author she thought was behaving badly. That she held Twitter parties about it. That she is the one who repeatedly talked about how bias matters and how there should be full transparency and full disclosure. AND THEN SHE WAS EVERY BIT AS BAD IN HER OWN LIFE. Even if she didn’t initially intend to be a hypocrite, she became one. I’d like to see her own her mistakes instead of glossing over them as if they’re simply no big deal and acting like she truly did nothing wrong.
I’d like to see Sarah do the same, as she is also downplaying her involvement and the things she did wrong.”
Do I think this will happen? No. However, it’s the right thing to do.
I think the blogger holding power time is coming to an end, and the double standard as well. One can at least hope.
@hapax #195
And — again as *I* understand it, I’m certainly not in her confidence, nor privy to her private behavior — the ethics that Jane / Jen was subscribing to was not “absolute transparency in all circumstances” but “absolute boundaries between author and blogger personas.”
Not according to her own yellow box at the top of this review by an author: http://dearauthor.com/book-reviews/review-slave-to-sensation/
So, yes, people are pointing out and measuring her actions against the very yardstick (line in the sand) she herself made.
My disclosure: I’m a reader who reviews, mostly incoherently and mostly to a small audience if any, on GoodReads. The only other place my reviews have been are here for the RITA review challenge. (And sorry, RWA, I have no idea where to find the little R symbol. Forgive me.) I’ve received a few ARCs over the years. I’ve been a daily reader of DA and SBTB but an infrequent commenter. I Am Not An Author. Also I have no illusions that my tl;dr will be read, let alone make a difference in this conversation, but writing it helped me figure out my thoughts, so.
I was disappointed with SBTB when there was the lack of disclosure about Simple Progress. I still enjoy the site, appreciate the people (and the sponsors) who make it happen, and appreciate the community here, and in particular I have respect for Sarah as an advocate for the genre. My taste in books overlaps with a couple reviewers here, so the site has value for me as a source of recommendations. But damn if I don’t have the same relationship with SBTB that I did before that was revealed. I can’t think of it as a cozy readerly enclave where everyone interacts as equals. It may still be a blanket fort of fun and genuine love for the reading & critiquing of romance novels, but it’s still smack dab in an industry where people have multiple roles and functions and interests.
I’m disappointed by Jane’s lack of disclosure. I’ve been disappointed with DA before: I understood where the comment policy change came from and also the site’s right to enact it, though I disagreed with it; the AJH situation, however, made me lose any semblance of the idea of the site as protecting and promoting the voices of those without direct commercial interests. (I’m struggling with how to word this. Obviously, readers/authors are not separate Venn Diagram bubbles, and I want to recognize that readers/buyers of books do have commercial interests in the industry, too, even if they’re not making money.) I still appreciated (and do appreciate) its coverage of genre, technological, and legal issues. I owe so much of my genre literacy and tech literacy to DA. But I haven’t thought of it as a bastion of transparency or as some protective reader utopia. It still had value to me otherwise. But.
I’m disappointed that Jane didn’t think enough of the DA community to disclose her status. That her work as an author wasn’t relevant to how others would interact with the site–that wasn’t relevant to how SHE interacted with the site and its community. I mean, I still valued Robin’s work on the site, even though she’s edited books within the genre. I still valued Janine’s reviews knowing who her critique partners were (and still hope to read a book of hers in the future, knowing how thoughtful she is about the genre). If anything, this knowledge helped to contextualize (thank you, commenter somewhere above me who brought up this term and its use on DA) their contributions.
I am absolutely supportive of her right to write and publish her own novels, and to write and publish under a pseudonym. I am absolutely supportive of her right to review, and to review negatively, even within the subgenre she writes in. I am absolutely supportive of her in EC’s lawsuit, and I am absolutely supportive of her keeping her private life private in the wake of this (it’s a terrible doxxy world out here, especially for women who speak up for themselves and for others who are being exploited).
But I’m not supportive of her decision to not disclose that network of industry ties that were created when she made the decision to publish. I’m not supportive of her choice to use the term “full disclosure” on posts at DA where, we now know, there was NOT full disclosure. The insincerity in retrospect just gobsmacks me.
DA (and SBTB) was where I learned to be a savvier reader, to be a savvier part of the industry that produces books I love. And as a savvier reader and a savvier consumer, I know that I deserved better than someone hiding their industry ties.
As to what people who are disappointed or upset by Jane’s actions want, I can’t speak for other people, but I’d appreciate DA establishing a clear and consistent policy on COI disclosure. I’d appreciate multiple conversations across the romance community–not just at DA please no–about these issues (and I think that’s happening right now–thank you to the brave ones participating, hosting, and moderating). I don’t care for groveling in novels or in real life; people can say whatever they want, but its their actions that hold more weight. My primary goal is a healthy community of critics throughout the romance community, because I think the genre can do better (and always do better). Part of that probably entails giving up the illusion of anyone being purely a reader. We’re a community, and our ties to people with commercial ties may be hard to articulate but are present. But I am unwilling to give up the idea that transparency and disclosure are things to strive for, are part of what can make the community healthy–even if it’s uncomfortable.
I have read through all of the reactions here, on the Dear Author post, most of the ones on the Passive Voice blog and on other smaller blogs in reaction to this. I have posted here and on Dear Author. My point of view is as a reader and a consumer.
I try to behave in an ethical way in my life, and what I have read has disappointed me. I do not shop at WalMart and I do not watch Tom Cruise movies. Your mileage may vary, but these are some of the choices I have made in my life as a consumer. I am now trying to decide what to do about my consumption of SBTB and DA. I really like these blogs, and do not want to give them up, but my practical side is telling me that the only way my feelings on this matter are going to have an impact is if I remove my financial support of these sites. So, for the time being, I am not going to click on any links on the blogs to make a purchase. I realize that this will not probably have a great financial impact, but it is really all I can do to make my displeasure known. I have probably bought hundreds of books that way, mainly through deal listings, so granted it may not amount to much. I am going to see if there are any changes on SBTB and DA going forward. If none are visible, then I will probably stop reading the sites as well. I do follow a couple of other blogs, but nothing with the impact that SBTB and DA have had on my reading choices. I do hope that positive changes can be made, but it may just be that what I value is no longer valued here, so may I need to move on. This makes me feel very sad, probably sadder than it should, but these blogs nourished me when I was going through a tough part of my life, and it is sad to me that I may have to walk away.
“(About DA) We aren’t writers nor are we associated with the publishing industry in any way. We don’t work in a bookstore. We don’t belong to RWA. We don’t know any authors personally. There might be one or two authors that we don’t particularly like given their online persona, but we don’t blog about those authors’ books because of that. We do try for impartiality as best we can. Most importantly, we try for honesty.” – Jane Litte
“If an author offers up an opinion, she should be open to comment and criticism of that opinion (even if she herself chooses to abstain from discussion). I am sure that we can have disagreement without it spiraling downward and being labeled a catfight. If we cannot, what does that say about us as women? Nothing good.” – Jane Litte
“I ran into a problem when I participated heavily with authors through chats and message boards. Those authors I followed closely and interacted with often began to have a distinct voices to the extent that I could not separate their voice with the characters in the book. The characters all started sound exactly like the author which ruined my ability to suspend my disbelief. It was either stop interacting with the authors or stop reading their books. I choose to unsubscribe from listservs and message boards.” – Jane Litte
“… regarding your accusation that the individuals who disagree with you are children (ad hominem attack, btw), you should know that the hallmark of a child’s actions are that they believe that they can do things without regard for the consequences. ” – Jane Litte
“To authors and publishers, I say, mess with your promises at your own peril. You can’t know that it will have a positive outcome.” – Jane Litte
As a woman, and a feminist, I’d like to ask that people consider cooling it with accusations of others “being emotional”, or blanket claims that their arguments are insufficiently logical to be taken seriously.
These are classic moves used to silence female dissent and shut women down. Can we not do it to each other?
Simon Ralls wrote: 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.
I donated close to $3000.00 to Jane’s Legal Defense Fund and I would do so again in a heartbeat. I don’t care how much money she has in her pocket (I knew she was a lawyer.) I also know the costs of defending yourself against a lawsuit and the money in the Defense Fund is a drop in the bucket for legal fees in that situation.
I know the Defense Fund was a community effort to make it crystal clear to Tina Engler that we are all quite aware of the fact that Engler is revoltingly unethical and deserves to be slapped down good and hard for bringing this frivolous lawsuit in the first place.
I don’t like that Jane felt she had to be secretive about her writing effort. However, I agree with the many people who’ve said she would’ve been slammed by certain bitter people whether she’d been secretive or entirely up front about it.
That she chose to NOT use her fame and influence to boost her career as a writer I find commendable. It would have been easy enough for her to do that. I don’t have a problem with bloggers who do, but if an aspiring writer wants to make it purely on talent alone, I feel a certain admiration for her. In that instance, I can understand what led her to secrecy (though I also have to say I wish she had been up front from the start and had turned it into a series on her blog, something along the lines of what it’s like to go from well-known blogger to published writer. I would have really enjoyed reading about her experiences along the way, even if the disclosure meant a change of tone in the DA blog. Change is often a good thing, though, and I think her personal changes would have added a new and intriguing element to the whole reader blog thing.)
Still, I respect her desire to seek out success as an “unknown.” I also respect Sarah’s desire to leave the disclosure to Jane. I don’t know how much Sarah may have encouraged Jane to disclosure things, but I empathise with the desire to protect a friend. That, to me, is what friendship is about. Loyalty is the strength of friendship, even if sometimes it gets you into trouble.
If Jane expresses regret over misleading friends on Twitter and over being sometimes too harsh toward other writers who’ve let emotion overrule good sense and later expressed remorse, I would forgive the mistakes she’s made. (As for the author loops business, I agree with Hapax. It’s cliquey whining. I don’t believe Jane, as an aspiring writer, joined author loops in order to find out the big secrets NA authors are so desperately guarding. Just because you already know a lot about publishing doesn’t meant that, as a newbie writer, you don’t still have things to learn or don’t think you’d benefit from talking to other writers in your genre.)
This is going to blow over the same way everything blows over in Romland and even those people so vehemently swearing off DA/SB will be wandering back soon enough to participate once again. That’s how it always works, no matter the “scandal.” The good that Jane’s done in the romance community vastly, VASTLY outweighs this misjudgment, as far as I’m concerned. I’m giving her credit for that and I’m taking the regret she’s already expressed to heart. I have a feeling enough people will do the same and this will blow over pretty quickly.
Look, there’s a reason I haven’t said much. I’m still untangling things. There are a lot of things that I need to untangle. I’m sorry that’s not convenient–I conveniently wish I could untangle this easily, too.
But here is one thread of about 45 tangled threads that I think I’m finally clear on: There is an intersection between Jane being on author loops and the lawsuit.
Everything that crosses Jane’s eye about Ellora’s Cave is discoverable by Tina Engler–someone who has allegedly inflated the 1099s of former editors who testified in the suit in retaliation for their testimony, an action that will cost them time and money to correct. A lot of authors–and I mean a LOT–are being very cautious about what they say because they don’t want to be retaliated against. I understand that worry and I’m not going to tell people to put their careers on the line when they’ve got a living to make.
Now we come to those private author loops. Because that’s where we do a lot of processing behind the scenes, including processing of the questions regarding the EC suit. On private author loops, authors have asked each other questions like this: Do I say something in public? Is it worth the risk? They still have six of my books, and they’re still paying me and I need that money to pay rent. Or, maybe the calculus goes, They haven’t paid me yet but I think they will and I can’t afford not to get it. I can’t speak up.
Ellora’s Cave is going to ask for discovery of any and all communications received by Jane in any form regarding Ellora’s Cave. If Jane was on any of those loops? That stuff is discoverable. Even if Jane as Jen didn’t respond or instigate the discussion. Even if she never used the information.
It is a huge risk to speak frankly in front of someone who may be compelled by court order to report your speech to the person you are talking about. There’s even the risk that, as a result of that speech, you may be compelled by subpoena to testify in court. These are risks that are vastly different in kind than the risks authors normally assume–and Jane spent six months on authors’ loops not disclosing that a court could compel her to put everything said in front of her about Ellora’s Cave in front of Tina Engler.
@208 CP
“As a woman, and a feminist, I’d like to ask that people consider cooling it with accusations of others “being emotional”, or blanket claims that their arguments are insufficiently logical to be taken seriously.
These are classic moves used to silence female dissent and shut women down. Can we not do it to each other?”
So much YES!! I have been a bit dismayed by this sort of policing and efforts to dismiss people’s reactions to this situation. Thanks for your comment.
@CP – considering that most of us are very opinionated women, who are still discussing this, I don’t think there’s an issue. We don’t need policing *thankyouverymuch* and bless your heart for thinking of us!
Erin, you don’t speak for me, or for anyone else. You’re welcome to your opinion: you are not welcome to be rude to me. You crossed a politeness limit there, and I’m letting you know about it. Please stop, it isn’t okay with me.
@Courtney Milan – ok… you do have a point there. that’s been the only argument against Jane/JF being in the author groups that makes sense other than “she shouldn’t have been there”.
@Kelli @ Hapax – ” I also sadly accept that this was not the ethic that many other people (other authors, readers of the blog, perhaps her personal friends) understood to be in effect, and that this mis-match of expectations has caused great harm.” I think that you both make very valid points here and this is probably what’s causing the knee jerk “bad Jane” vs. “so what” camps.
@212 erinf1
Oftentimes, when women are accused of being emotional or irrational, that *is* policing, and those comments have the effect of diminishing conversation. Yes, you are still “discussing” this, but how many others have left the conversation or decided not to participate at all because they wanted to express an emotional response? Oh wait, then they should just grow a thicker skin, right?
@CP – you address it to all of us, so I don’t know why you had the expectation of being able to throw that out without a response. Or is your response to my response a non classic way to “silence female dissent and shut women down”?
@Deljah – but how is your “stop doing this” better or worse than my “stop doing this”? Same apples, different orchids. Stop being so loud and opinionated is just as silencing as stop being emotional. You’re hurting someone’s feelings by expressing your own, is another female shaming tactic too.
So, I’m not a fan of DA and never liked Jane much. When this news came out I thought “Of course” rolled my eyes at the people congratulating her but didn’t think it was a huge deal. It’s shady but bloggers and publishing have been up each other’s asses for so long, and bloggers always make exceptions to their sacred rules when it’s convenient to them so whatevs. What she did to Bree and likely others is foul and an indication of shitty person, though.
But I don’t really want to talk about that exactly. I just think that the attitude of people defending her is, well, dumb. I mean, if you just think it’s not a big deal at all, that’s cool, that’s a valid opinion to have. But assuming Jen had nothing but good intentions is just silly. She’s obviously an incredibly smart and ambitious woman who knows this “community” very well. People like that don’t make these types of mistakes. Look at how many people are coming out about knowing the truth all along. Jen has been building up these relationships for years, including people in her secret identity precisely for this moment, so when she came out she knew she’d just have to weather the yelling for a few days and then she’d be golden. Even the people who have opened their eyes and aren’t as happy as they were are still talking about how of course she didn’t have bad intentions and people who’ve been mad from the beginning are just jealous haters. I don’t think intentions even enter into it. Jane was neither out to get anyone or innocently building up a writing career without using her blog (snort)–she just did what she always does, build herself up via her blog and then her books in whatever way was most lucrative. If people are going to have any type of relationship with her, they need to understand that. Emotions have nothing to do with it. This is business for her, and her relationships with authors and readers and blogger serve no other purpose to her than that.
As a reader, my initial reaction was shock and awe. I congratulated JF/Jane. I’ve read JF’s books and while I wasn’t a fan of the Hitman series, I loved The Woodlands. I’ve recommended that series to many readers.
But since then, my thoughts have shifted a lot.
I feel a little squicked out that I’ve corresponded with JF, not knowing she was Jane, whom I’ve both respected and feared (a little). I know that many authors have pen names, I just didn’t expect Jen’s to be someone whom I also occasionally talk to online. I’m mostly okay with that, but now I’m very skeptical of who I talk with.
As a former blogger, I’m a little disappointed in the whole fiasco bc I tried to hold myself up to standards set by both DA and SBTB. I didn’t always succeed, but I did try. I haven’t seen any actions on the blogs that I feel crossed major lines, but then again, I think of both sites as blogs and not journalism, no matter how seriously both sites have taken themselves. The issue for me is, how I’ve seen both DA and SBTB hold authors up to impossible standards, and shred those authors for not living up to a standard THEY set. Hell, I’ve even seen Jane rip my friend (not an author) to shreds on Twitter, for having a difference on a social opinion. I happened to have agreed with Jane, but it was not a pretty sight to see a friend be bombarded with tweets for having a different opinion.
My point is, I think many of us can agree that if this were any other author/blogger, DA would have blasted them, and that’s not a thought many of us can simply accept.
I feel bad for authors who’ve been subjected to the standard JF hasn’t held up to herself. I feel bad for authors who feel foolish for befriending JF. I feel sad for myself bc I will never enjoy thinking about reading her books, or reading future books, without this huge, shitty cloud hanging over the experience.
As a reader of both DA and SBTB and listener of the DBSA podcast, I feel sad about the whole clusterf*ck. I know these are just sites and I don’t know either one of you, but there it is.
@Courtney Milan
That is horrifying.
@erinf1 – I followed this story all over net and read majority of blog posts and opinions. You felt obligated to comment on every one of them and say the same thing: that you don’t understand why are people overreacting and that those who said something are being dramatic.
I wanted to comment earlier but I felt I can’t because of comments like yours.
I feel hurt as a regular reader and follower of both blogs- please, don’t shame me for it.
Thank you.
Holy shit, Courtney. I had a hunch something like that might be possible but wasn’t sure. How far back is it discoverable? For the entire length of time she was on those loops?
Unsubbing the instant she got sued would’ve kept Engler’s eyes off the last however many months of behind-the-scenes discussion, presumably, but what about the rest?
@Courtney Milan
Wow. Talk about a can of worms. And how ironic is it that the very people she tried to befriend, she’s inadvertently put at even more risk? Just wow.
@ Anon: (March 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm)
What is your point? EVERYONE of those comments you quoted were all written in 2006, years before she become an author. They are utterly irrelevant and you know it.
You are a troll INTENTIONALLY trying to muddy the waters here just to discredit Jane for reasons that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
@Disheartened – I’m sorry you feel that way but I can’t control how you feel or what makes you feel that way. I’m expressing my opinion on the different blogs that I follow. I don’t know you, so you can rest assured that absolutely nothing I say is directed at you. I know that I come across more bluntly than some but that is my nature and I’m not going to let others shame me for expressing how I feel. That’s me taking control of *my* feelings. Everyone is free to interpret what I write, but your response to it is strictly your own.
My read on this after perusing all the comments is there are three groups: Those who think what Jane did was wrong and unethical and hypocritical, those who aren’t sure or who are unwilling to go as far as saying it was, and those who think it was fine, and that anyone expecting what many view as Jane behaving in the way she laid out as the standard for authors, was foolish.
There are also tangents, like those who would blame the outpouring of condemnation for Jane/Jen’s behavior on an EC conspiracy, or those who claim that DA, which is infamous in some circles for having harshly damaged some authors’ careers, is no such thing, and is all unicorns and rainbows.
What is clear is that those advancing the view that it’s much ado about nothing are friends of Jane/Jen or business associates or both. What’s also clear is that some of her friends and associates are coming forth and condemning what they view as hypocrisy and poor behavior.
I don’t know what to make of all this other than that to some, especially those for whom Jane is an ally, selective application of her moral position is mandatory. I also have no dog in this fight, but for crying out loud, is it really that hard to see that the woman who held everyone to a high standard of transparency violated her own principles repeatedly, roped her friends and associates into the deception, and generally behaved with disregard, if not contempt, for the readers and authors she claimed a higher moral ground for?
In a month this will all be forgotten. The sad part is that human nature is for power to corrupt and for the powerful to feel as though their own rules shouldn’t apply to them. I view the backlash as those rules being applied evenly and I believe most view it the same way. I have plenty of friends who sometimes behave in less than wonderful ways. I accept that nobody’s perfect and we all make mistakes. But why does it seem that these kinds of mistakes usually involve the person making them winding up with buckets of money? Could it be as simple as someone with questionable morals seeing an opportunity and doing whatever it takes to capitalize on it, even if that meant violating her own code?
That seems the simplest answer to me, and explains everything I’ve heard so far. Sure, we can describe our reactions as troubled or unsure, but what we actually mean is we condemn the behavior.
@ravyn2K: Good question. What do we expect her to do? For starters she can admit she violated her own standards, and did so for financial gain. She can admit she used dishonest tactics to gain access to loops she wasn’t welcome in as Jane. She can acknowledge she was less than forthright in her portrayal of herself as a beleaguered blogger in her funding appeal and admit that she was also a publisher, with a competitive product, who was writing about a competitor (I have no opinion about EC other than what I’ve read on DA recently due to all this, but I read it in a different light with the benefit of this new information). She can acknowledge that what she did was wrong, that she knew it was wrong, and did it anyway, because there was money involved, and we’re all human and subject to temptation.
None of which she’s done. And none of which her friends have done, that I’ve seen. And that’s part of the problem. A damage control approach that has me thinking politician caught in a scandal, not genuinely contrite person seeking forgiveness or redemption, or at least, understanding.
If you want respect you have to earn it. If you want forgiveness you have to earn it, too, not expect it because of a spin doctored pseudo apology released to get ahead of someone else breaking it first. To me the handling of this has been careful, and entirely without any genuine remorse I can detect, which would be in keeping with the actions we’re condemning. It’s just more of the same and assumes we’re stupid, or at least gullible, and I believe that’s a big part of the problem: the person who felt the rules didn’t apply to her and that she was superior to her readers/authors still does and is trying to manage the reaction so it does as little damage as possible.
So for starters she could stop spin doctoring what she did, admit it, and go on a long vacation, because I don’t see her response or those of her friends doing her many favors right now, and the more they talk, the worse it looks.
[…] to the rest at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books and thanks to Phoenix and several others for the […]
@Anoninfinity #218 I may be “silly” but I usually try very hard consciously to give the benefit of the doubt and assume good intentions because I am naturally very suspicious and untrusting.
BUT
@CourtneyMilan HOLY COW that is really really bad. That is a very specific charge of a very tangible harm that cannot possibly be understood by “mismatched expectations”.
I appreciate your courage in sharing this information.
Off to go re-think everything. Again.
I think you either see the clear ethical boundaries all this crossed, the obvious conflicts of interest and disregard for others, or you don’t. If you don’t, I…well, I don’t know. Seems clear to me.
And I think Jane/Jen should have seen them, considering how quick and merciless she has always been in calling others out for crossing them.
For the record: she’s never officially reviewed any of my books. I did contribute to the fund. I don’t regret that, as I think the issue was important. I did it in SPITE of some of what I’d seen from her, on the basis of the principle at stake. But, yes, I’m seriously disappointed. I don’t have as much skin in this game as some others as I don’t write NA or anything close, and I’m not in many author groups so didn’t have to confront that. All the same, I’ve seen what it’s done to the climate of trust even in secret author spaces, and that’s a sad thing. Authors have few enough places where we can talk openly. To worm your way in when you KNOW you would be unwelcome if people knew who you really were, to befriend authors whom you’ve damaged–it’s beyond the pale.
@Courtneymilan: What are the odds that as an attorney she didn’t know she was subjecting all those private conversations to discovery?
I’ll understand if you don’t answer. I think I know the answer.
Good luck untangling.
@courtney milan
“I’m still untangling things. There are a lot of things that I need to untangle”
Then why don’t you do that instead of scaremongering with your lawyer hat on? Why don’t you talk to Jane about these very sensitive issues instead of shitting on her and damaging her legal case in public? You’ve been grandstanding on the EC case for months to boost your own reputation (and using DA for years to promote your work), but now that the connection might do your wonderful rep some harm, you’re shedding Jane like an used condom?
I find your comments – given that you have specialised knowledge, and indeed, specialised access – disturbing and unethical. I’m so glad you’re no friend of mine. How toxic of you. I am utterly disgusted at your comments and lack of loyalty.
Reader, no desire/aspiration to write fiction, occasional blog reader. Apart from Jane’s hypocrisy and already established clear ethical violations, two things are bothering me that were mentioned and then ignored:
1. “she told the group she’d gladly pimp their new releases on her blog.” So is that where Jane aims to take her blog? Quid pro quo fodder?
2. Promoting the work of writers with whom she has had an undisclosed professional relationship. As someone previously mentioned, she bought Elyssa Patrick’s books because they were heavily promoted on the blog and this as well as the Meljean Brook promo and book club selection are just two examples. Isn’t this also a violation of the blogs ethical guidelines? This may explain why the horrifically toxic Ann is given so much leeway but that is pure speculation.
@Ann
Ha!! Yeah, because Jane has always taken the high road, amirite?
That Jane “I will shush comments that I consider uncivil” allows Ann free reign in the comments in return for her services as an attack dog says it all, doesn’t it.
@Courtney: Yes, as Ann says, all her friends should rally around and let the cone of silence drop, insisting no wrong was done, because that’s the party line. How dare you outline the very specific harm in public?
What’s that old saying about sunlight being the ultimate antiseptic?
@Ann Somerville
I’m sure she doesn’t need me to, but I’d willingly stand in front Of Courtney Milan to shield her from your attack. It’s not necessary. And you are not doing Jane any favors.
Sadly, from my experience, every time Ann Sommervile comments it’s the end of discussion since her mo is to attack and insult everyone who disagrees with her.
@Ann Somerville
I don’t know you and I don’t know Courtney. I have been following her on twitter and reading her blog since the whole EC thing has come about. I have always found her to go out of her way to present unbiased reporting of the legal issues. I believe she stated once that she had been a professor of law before her writing career. Bringing up that Jane/Jen has exposed a lot of people to being dragged into the EC lawsuit seems pretty relevant to the discussion going on.
I’m afraid you’re having, what we in the computer world refer to as a ‘cranial-rectal inversion’ moment.
I don’t see what anything Courtney said is toxic or a betrayal or hurts Jane’s court case. What she said is either accurate or not. If it is accurate, well EC has lawyers too, they presumably know the law, so it’s hard to see how Courtney has made anything worse by pointing this out.
@Sara #237
Ironic, isn’t it, since she says she does it because she can’t stand bullying?
Add me to the list of people who donated to the legal fund and now regret it. I also believe that starting this fund and not disclosing Jane’s status as a bestselling author was improper. Never again will I support DA financially.