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. Christina R. says:

    It makes me sad that someone like Courtney Milan who stuck her neck out again and again for Jane has been betrayed by this. There is just an ickyness, a bad smell about all of this and yet I think despite how everyone is feeling Jane still probably doesn’t think she’s done anything wrong. It’s all a bit of a sorry situation. Jane has hurt people- that is not disputable.

    Ann Somerville, there is an expression in my country ‘a few roos loose in the top paddock’ I think this applies to you.

  2. As far as I can recall, I’ve never asked Jane to promote my books by including them in on Daily Deals or ever asking a favor to get a review. I believe I’ve been reviewed four times there and have received mixed reviews. Having a book included on a Daily Deal or being reviewed has not bolstered my sales or increased my visibility. I’ve never asked my author friends to give away my books just like they have never asked me to give away their books. I’ve never asked them to talk about my books on Facebook or blogs. I’ve given books away because I’ve wanted to. I’ve talked about books because I’ve wanted to–because I genuinely like those books, because I like talking about books with other people and know what to read next.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Count me in as someone who only visits DA and SBTB when stories this big hit, having been viciously attacked by Ann and her buddies in comments and on other social media. I’ve often wondered why she’s allowed to keep spewing her vitriol while others are moderated.

  4. Ann Aguirre says:

    +1 on volunteering to stand as Courtney’s shield. She is one of the smartest women I know, not an ounce of malice in her. Her assessments are factual, not damaging, unless the truth troubles you in some way.

  5. CP says:

    (To press pause for a moment, @ChristinaR, re: “there is an expression in my country ‘a few roos loose in the top paddock’”, I think I speak for all of us when I say that that is the best.)

  6. cara says:

    @242 elyssa: okay I’m calling bullshit on the Daily Deals not bolstering your visibility. A lot – and I am confident in emphasis in A LOT – of readers discover books and authors via DA’s daily deals post.

  7. Anon Romance Author says:

    (disclaimer: I write romance. I have interacted with both Sarah and Jane, but not Jen.)

    Romance as a genre is based on accepting a woman’s agency and ability to consent. We support, we encourage, we discuss—all from a basis that all parties have willfully entered into the conversation, just like our heroines enter in a relationship. For many of us, this is our safe space, where our thoughts, feelings and desires are respected instead of summarily dismissed. We came to romance because this is where we matter. What we want matters here.

    Engaging with people who withdrew from the conversation—people who said No, Stop, I no longer wish to talk with you—via a pseudonym undermines their right to make choices about who they talk to and what they say. If a character presented himself as a prince with a fortune but turned out to be a conman with a wife and a girlfriend? In a romance novel, that would make him the villain.

    So for Jane/Jen to so casually cross those boundaries, to so casually disregard other people’s wishes to withdraw from the conversation or to never start a conversation, to put other people in a position where they have to choose between friendship and respecting others’ boundaries?

    That’s why people are hurt. Because they thought they were dealing with someone who understood them, who respected them. And suddenly, they find out their wishes didn’t matter.

    Jane/Jen’s actions have undermined people’s agency. She has misused their consent. She has exposed people’s (semi) private thoughts to legal actions, intentional or not.

    People said stop. And she didn’t.

  8. Anon-the-Billionth says:

    The claim that Jane didn’t use the blog, her influence or her network to boost her success as an author is laughable. She may not have glowingly reviewed herself (or told the truth about what she was doing behind the scenes), but she definitely accessed the hell out of her network. She got to take advantage of all the GOOD parts of her Romancelandia relationships — the friendships, the talented authors willing to help her, vouch for her, beta read for her, create covers, the promo on blogs of people in the know, the knowledge of who to approach for reviews and assistance, everything an actual newbie author doesn’t HAVE — but she got to avoid all the blowback.

    The change to the blog as it adjusted to Jane’s authorship happened REGARDLESS, and it happened to her benefit as an author, as it shifted to focus on NA and edgy romance — basically her market. The frequent reviews, the exposure, and the opinion pieces did a lot to legitimize the genre she wanted to make the big bucks in. You can shrug it off as, “Well, she was just INTERESTED in those genres,” but focusing on them, judging them, assessing them, without telling anyone she was making her money off them? No.

    None of this was accidental. She’s not some newbie klutz, fumbling her way to success. She’s business savvy, she has tons of connections, she knows her blog’s influence, not to mention the SBTB blog, and she knows how much $$$ there is to be made publishing, what, 10 NA books in 2-3 years?

    She worked the shit out of this.

    If she had really wanted to see if she could “succeed on her own” she wouldn’t have told ANYONE what she was doing or used them as stepping stones. Once she saw it was truly working free of help, she would have disclosed like the ethical person she apparently isn’t.

    For the record: I’m an author and always have thought DA, SBTB et al are a positive addition to the diversity in Romancelandia, not “mean girls”. Been here since the beginning for both blogs, wandered away without malice when DA started focusing on NA. At least now I know why it changed, eh?

    One reason I’m responding anonymously is to avoid obvious backlash. Another is to avoid people attacking me for saying I’m trying to capitalize on the drama to benefit myself.

  9. Anon says:

    I have to say, the double standards on display in all this are really disturbing and appalling. Both on the part of Jane and the people who kept her secret and even actively lied on her behalf, and the people who think that personal friendship excuses bad behavior.

    My conclusion is that I’m going to take a big step back from Romancelandia. Several people have noted that in a short time this will all be forgotten and things will go back to the way they were before. I have no doubt that’s true in general, but it won’t be true for me. From here on out I’ll be treating romance-related websites the way I treat the rest of the net. One of the things that means is not reading the comments at most sites because nothing good comes from it.

    I’ve also decided to stay away from the big sites, and that includes DA and SBTB. I don’t care that much about DA, but giving up on SBTB kind of breaks my heart. I’ve been hanging around here since the very early days. I still miss Candy, for Pete’s sake. Over the years the site has evolve in ways that made it less interesting to me personally, but I didn’t have a problem with that. That’s how things go sometimes. This crap is a problem though and I have enough of problems with out adding more for no good reason.

    The thing I admired and enjoyed about DA, and a significant part of the reason I stuck with SBTB was that they championed intellectual honesty and treating romance seriously and not allowing it to be dismissed as silly little entertainment for silly girls. So much for that. Integrity went out the window the minute it was inconvenient for Jane and the response to that revelation has been so Queen Bees and Wannabes that I can’t stand it.

    I wish everyone involved good luck, but I’m done. I get quite enough of one set of rules for the powerful and popular and their friends, and another set of rules for everyone else in other areas of my life. I don’t want to deal with it when it comes to the books I read for pleasure.

  10. Nobody says:

    I’m so glad I’m not the only one thinking Ann is out of her mind to suggest that Courtney should talk to Jane privately when Jane has made a name for herself shitting on people publicly for years. Hypocrite much? Ah, but hypocrisy seems to run rampant in that crowd.

  11. “there is an expression in my country ‘a few roos loose in the top paddock’ ”

    Yeah, my country too. And the ableist insults are *always* the best ones, right?

    Those of you offering to be a human shield for Courtney should note she has no compunction in delivering personal insults about those people she dislikes, and going out of her way to destroy fellow authors’ reputations if it suits here.

    I hope you never rely on her for legal help because if she decides her career is better served by dumping on you in public over your legal problems – like she has here with Jane. There are friends, close friends, and then there are snakes in the grass.

    The nice thing about being me is that Courtney’s chums and fans already hate my guts so your insults about my mental capacity won’t have any effect on my reputation – or stop me commenting.

    Why aren’t I moderated? Maybe because I’m not a lying coward. I put myself out there under my regular pen name and don’t hide behind ‘anonymous.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I put myself out there under my regular pen name

    OMFG. The hypocrisy, it burns.

  13. Diane says:

    Apparently, as long as Courtney Milan’s comments on the lawsuit point out the problems with EC’s case it’s all good. If she points out a problem with DA’s side, she must consult Jane first. Got it.

    I will say this. I would still donate to the fund in a heartbeat and I still find EC’s actions despicable. Jane’s irresponsible behavior in this instance does not negate EC’s bad acts. However, the fact is that Jane’s actions, no matter how innocent, could put some authors at risk. How that would suddenly make EC look blameless is beyond me.

  14. Anon says:

    @242 elyssa “I believe I’ve been reviewed four times there and have received mixed reviews.”
    Was that before or after you were involved in beta reading with Jane/Jen? If after, was your professional relationship with the owner of the blog, whether she wrote the review or not (did she?), disclosed? Rhetorical question, of course it wasn’t. Regardless of the rating or outcome, do you believe that is ethical? In general or indeed by the standards DA and Jane had set?

  15. @cara I know my numbers and what I sell. You don’t know shit.

  16. Nonymous says:

    Why aren’t I moderated? Maybe because I’m not a lying coward. I put myself out there under my regular pen name and don’t hide behind ‘anonymous.

    Make that your “current” pen name. After all, over the years you’ve had a few. Even during your days in fandom you were a known bully who had no problem with outing and attacking people including some who considered you a friend.

    One thing I can say though, your attacks have lost a bit of bite. You used to be a lot worse.

  17. Anon says:

    @Ann 251 “And the ableist insults are *always* the best ones”
    You would know. And Anon is MY pen name. Deal with it

  18. cara says:

    @elyssa tsk tsk I was only calling bullshit on your visibility. so defensive of your own bs.

  19. Anna says:

    Even if I didn’t know what a conversation was about, it would be very easy to pick a side when Ann Somerville enters. It’s always the opposite of what she says.

  20. SB Sarah says:

    As fractious and painful as this conversation has been for everyone, I have been glad that people felt able to talk about how they were feeling, how upset they are, and why. There are a lot of overlapping issues and relationships, and this is a really complicated conversation to have. However, at this point, I want to clarify a few things.

    1. I’m not Jane. I feel that needs to be pointed out, as I think some people seem to have confused us for a single entity.

    2. Please know that if you post as “anonymous” but use your email address, you risk being identified by gravatars or other icons that are used across multiple platforms. I don’t have any of those in place here, but some sites do. Many anonymous comments here have entered their email addresses, and I wanted you to be aware. I understand that you want to remain anonymous. That’s not a problem for me. But please know that using your email address in comments can complicate efforts to conceal your identity elsewhere on the web.

    3. I think we’ve reached critical mass of comments and the conversation has devolved into screaming matches instead of a discussion. I recognize that some of you have really strong feelings and that some people are still trying to figure out how they feel. That’s really hard to do, especially when tension is very high and yelling has begun. Therefore, I’ll be closing comments to this thread at 5:35pm ET.

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