Bitchin' Blog Posts
A little Bird Told Us
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | May 16, 2007 | Wednesday at 8:56 pm | 157 CommentsAn anonymous source gave us the dish on Triskelion Publishing, which has apparently canceled their print program and has had their RWA conference invite revoked. No Dallas in July for you! Why, oh why? Author complaints is the first order on the list.
But of course, there’s always more. Our source got a hold of a letter from Gail Northman, incoming EIC at Triskelion, detailing what happened, and what RWA said to rescind their invitation for publisher appointments and workshop participation. Seems Ms. Northman is angry that details of private email were forwarded to RWA, so she fires back on those who are happy with the “FWD” button by posting RWAs letter to her on a Triskelion-centered YahooGroup. Tit for tat, eh?
Since it seems that there are those that are happy to go running to the RWA for everything including the fact that I am now Publisher or will be at the end of the month… and send details of private emails to Allison Kelley - I’m obliging by posting her letter to us….
RWA’s mission is to advance the professional interests of career-focused romance writers through networking and advocacy. In striving to fulfill its commitment to members, RWA established standards that publishers must meet to participate in RWA programs such as the annual conference. RWA recognition generate a significant amount of credibility and free exposure to the Publisher who appear on RWA’s list.
As you know, I have written to advise you of complaints against your company on least three occasions. Author have asked me to write to you to resolve issues related to delayed royalty payments, NSF royalty checks, and reversion of rights.Furthermore, I am aware that you notified authors that most print titles for 2007 will be either be delayed or removed from the schedule. By admission in email, “Triskelion bit off more than they could chew,” and many authors have suffered. Not only have authors invested significant amounts of money to publicize print versions of books that will not be released, they have also missed out on opportunities to licence their rights to other publishers.
A recent review of your company’s website lists 154 authors of which 93 are RWA members, a clear indication that Triskelion found 60% of its authors through RWA. Due to the ongoing problems authors are reporting, and the latest announcements regarding print titles, changes in editorial staff and management, I have concluded that RWA must act in the best interests, of its members and rescind the invitation for Triskelion Publishing to participate in the workshopes and editor appointments at RWA 2007 conference in Dallas.
Regards
Allison Kelley
I’m not taking over officially until June 1st however, in that I have some points to make out. First off two of our editors have now lost their flight money…. and secondly we have lost money in wasted promotion too… so it’s not something that is just down to the authors…..another thing we have not found a majority of our authors via RWA they found us and in a lot of cases here before we even got recognition… I also might add - I didn’t realise one had to RWA with changes in the company management and editors.. editors come and they go.
So here is the thing…. If you are not happy, not interested in working with us for any reason… just let me know I’ll give you your rights back. I’m done… with reading stuff that I sent out - seen forwarded elsewhere… you are either with me / us or against me / us. The ball is in your court. However, I’m here today and tomorrow and I’ll be leaving for Texas before returning home if you want it done now email me - if you are happy and willing to work with me… that’s great and I look forward to it.
And on a side no I’ve vaguely informed you I have issues at home big major ones that I have to deal with when I return..and so you know I have ***edited to remove WAY too much pathos in the form of TMI, because yeah, you have a point, gotta think of the children here *** -SBS.... so if I’m not answering your emails fast enough I’m sorry but I have a lot on my mind.
But through all this.. I hope those of you that are happy want to work with us… we’ll do well and prosper.
Gail
Good heavens. Business drama plus pathos equals extra drama like damn.
That said, good gracious. Anyone in the Bitchery want to comment or confirm the scuttlebutt? And if you have your rights with Triskelion, will you ask for them back and shop elsewhere?
Filed: The Link-O-Lator
Carrie Lofty said on 05.16.07 at 10:09 PM • [link]
Her grammar is interesting. It just…disintegrates as the letter goes on.
Laura Vivanco said on 05.16.07 at 10:09 PM • [link]
Over at Dear Author they’ve got a couple of posts about Triskelion and the RWA. The first is the news that Triskelion won’t be at the RWA conference and the second is an official statement from the RWA.
EmmyS said on 05.16.07 at 10:18 PM • [link]
I know nothing about the situation, but jumpin’ Jesus, for an “editor” her punctuation and grammar are just appalling.
Nora Roberts said on 05.16.07 at 10:22 PM • [link]
I think this woman would benefit from the rule of thumb never to post when angry and upset. Her inclusion of her personal business is far from professional, and obviously due to an emotional reaction.
I don’t know anything about anything, but in reading this letter I’m taken aback by its tone and its content.
Jorrie Spencer said on 05.16.07 at 10:34 PM • [link]
It seems so very wrong to post this personal information about her children.
spinsterwitch said on 05.16.07 at 10:38 PM • [link]
I’m with Nora & Jorrie…never good for business to mix your personal problems with your business problems.
Marg said on 05.16.07 at 10:56 PM • [link]
I feel sorry for her daughter. Her mum has just told everyone that she is prostituting herself. Surely a sentence about significant family issues would have sufficed!
Lauren Dane said on 05.16.07 at 10:57 PM • [link]
You know, dignity costs nothing.
Najida said on 05.16.07 at 10:57 PM • [link]
TMI! This letter was just TMI!
It was simply unprofessional and embarrassing.
Lynne Connolly said on 05.16.07 at 11:14 PM • [link]
Perhaps a letter sent to authors on a private list shouldn’t have been repeated on a public blog?
Unprofessional to leak and unprofessional to publish, I’d say.
I read the letter earlier today on the private list.
Gail Northman has never been anything but supportive to the authors at Triskelion, and she deserves better than to have a private letter put out on a public loop.
It was her desire to let everyone involved know all the details that led to this letter, and doubtless her distress might have led her to make a few grammar and spelling errors.
I also have family problems. My mother is seriously ill, has had a major operation and I’m now waiting to hear if it worked or if she has cancer. Comfortable with that as well? I put that up on the private loop a couple of days ago. And fyi, I’m still waiting.
Gail N wanted everyone concerned with the RWA’s decision to know what was going on.
The letter also detailed where she would be if anyone wanted to get in touch with her. Why don’t you make her day, print her address and private phone number so that burglars can invade her home?
Tina Anderson said on 05.16.07 at 11:15 PM • [link]
I take it that money’s so tight, her Zoloft prescription ran out? Oy…
Sybil said on 05.16.07 at 11:19 PM • [link]
I have to agree the post was bad. And if I were one of the trisk authors I would jump if that is how the business was going to be ran.
At the same time… this wasn’t a public post. It was a private loop forwarded from a member to a member to whoever. Hell I can name 5 people who had this early this morning who ‘shouldn’t have’.
On one hand it stinks cuz use your head and know anything posted anywhere private or public has a chance of coming back and slapping you in the face.
On the other I think it is dirty pool to post a private email to a public place without permission from the sender or group owner.
But I think I am one of the few people that has issue with it.
Jorrie Spencer said on 05.16.07 at 11:23 PM • [link]
No, I’m disturbed. Especially with the personal information of a third party being made public in this blog.
Mel-O-Drama said on 05.16.07 at 11:23 PM • [link]
Sadly, this woman appears to be in a state of emotional distress and has gone and put it in writing. I understand how tough it is to try to take over and turn around a failing business…but she should’ve thought twice about posting anything in writing about her family business. Unprofessional doesn’t even begin to describe it. It was a poor passive-aggressive attempt for pity and it backfired because now not only did she lose any point she had made in the letter, she also seems a little loco to post such private matters.
And Lynne, I understand your point completely, but in today’s world, we’re told never assume anything in “confidence” because thanks to the cyberworld, there is no such thing any more. Emails will get forwarded. And any professional or anyone with a lick of common sense will know that. It’s a hard lesson to learn.
jocelynnesimone said on 05.16.07 at 11:32 PM • [link]
I think that, perhaps, when this editor decided to post other private correspondence on a somewhat public site that she then forfeited the right to protection from similar treatment. At least, it is hard for me to drum up sympathy for her discomfort at the airing of her private business. (Any site, to mind, is public even if the membership is limited. Frankly private correspondence occurs between only 2 people in my opinion.)
Laura Vivanco said on 05.16.07 at 11:35 PM • [link]
Why don’t you make her day, print her address and private phone number
The Smart Bitches did give Kathryn Falk’s cell phone number when they posted about her. I wondered then whether that might have negative consequences for Falk.
With regards to this particular email, I think it would have been better for the Smart Bitches to have edited the email they posted in order to protect the privacy of Gail Northman’s children, at least one of whom is a minor. The internet is searchable in a way that a private Yahoogroup is not, and so I have concerns about this information being so freely available and perhaps being found by people who know the children in question, live near them and/or attend the same schools as them.
As Candy so often says, ‘Won’t somebody think of the children?’
ArkansasCyndi said on 05.16.07 at 11:37 PM • [link]
I’ve always been told (and try to practice), don’t put anything in an email (or blog post, for that matter) that you wouldn’t want everyone to see.
Email is not private. Yes, it should be, but when you post a letter such as this to a loop as large as the one she posted to, you have to know that someone somewhere will forward it to someone else.
That said, I have to admit I’d already heard most of this from another author, who is NOT one of her authors and my source had heard it from one of her sources,etc etc etc.
I have only been around in this world (i.e. writing and publishing…not the world in general!) for a couple of years and even I realize how small the writing community is and how quickly word can spread.
I do feel sorry for those authors, especially those who have been there for a while. But I am hearing of royalty checks in the amount of $0.00. YIKES! I can make that much breeding my 12 year old sterile border collie!
Carrie Lofty said on 05.16.07 at 11:39 PM • [link]
Nah, the Bitches didn’t give out Falk’s real contact info. It was a TV/movie phony 555- number.
Laura Vivanco said on 05.16.07 at 11:44 PM • [link]
Nah, the Bitches didn’t give out Falk’s real contact info. It was a TV/movie phony 555- number.
Thanks for explaining that to me, lovelysalome. As I’m not from the US I haven’t got a clue what formats/codes are used for US telephone numbers, so I just took that one at face value.
KF said on 05.16.07 at 11:44 PM • [link]
Yikes, she should have wrote this and then drawered for a day or so until she relaxed.
As far as this is a private matter and shouldn’t be posted, my thoughts are, I’m searching for a publisher, I want to know all I can about anybody before I send my work out there. Obviously she’s a bit overloaded and should consider taking a break instead of loading more on her plate.
KellyMaher said on 05.16.07 at 11:47 PM • [link]
Sidenote to Laura: All numbers that start with 555 either as the area code or the first three of seven digits are fake in the US. This is why all phone numbers in movies and books and stuff, start with 555.
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 12:00 AM • [link]
If I email something to a prive loop of personal friends, I expect those friends to keep my confidence. Or they wouldn’t be my friends to begin with.
If I post something on a professional loop or list, I’d fully expect someone would pass it on to someone else. It’s the way it works—right or wrong.
If an editor or industry professional emails a group of authors, it should be about business—certainly one might share happy personal news—if one doesn’t mind that news making the rounds. Because it would. Just as sharing family crises will get around.
This woman sounds severely and sincerely overwrought. While I can’t help but sympathize, I stand by my position that sharing the intimate and distressing information about family was a serious lapse of judgment, and very, very unprofessional.
It appears there are problems with this publisher which some of its authors have reported, and which RWA has chosen to address. Those are professional matters, and should have remained on a professional level.
Valerie said on 05.17.07 at 12:03 AM • [link]
All I will say is that gossip-mongers are everywhere. A private post, on a private loop shouldn’t be circulated, its unprofessional. Gail has a heavy enough load as it is and I know she has the fight in her to get everything sorted. Triskelion is in good hands!!!!
Jen said on 05.17.07 at 12:11 AM • [link]
Here is the deal - if a post was made on a loop that is considered private, yet it is forwarded on to many, many other people, well, I think we can all agree that is wrong. This is the way it is in RWA PAN and PRO loops. Unless Permission to Forward is granted, people are supposed to feel comfortable talking about whatever the parameters of those loops are. Any discussions about agents/editors on those loops are suppose to remain private and not forwarded on. There is a level of trust there so that we authors can feel comfortable discussing our hunt for the right publisher or the right agent. With that said, no flaming reports allowed.
What disturbs me about this post is that it was taken off a private loop and with total disregard to the person who wrote it, publically displayed for the world to see. I take issue with that.
It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with what is going on with Triskelion, or isn’t going on with triskelion, what matters was that private information was passed on and then displayed. I myself have said things on private loops, under the assumption that it will stay with those people on the loops I have joined. It certainly makes me think twice about saying anything, anywhere. It’s sad when we can’t trust our fellow authors, friends, whoever.
Sloane Taylor said on 05.17.07 at 12:18 AM • [link]
I too received this letter earlier today on a private loop. Lynne Connolly is correct that to post it here (or any where IMO) is unprofessional. I also find it distressing the personal information remained unedited before it was posted. But I am happy to see that other people’s personal problems can give so much joy to so many.
Triskelion is a good house and has always been up front with me. Gail is a talented professional and does not deserve this type of attention.
As for typos - So you all are so expert you never make a mistake?
just my two cents said on 05.17.07 at 12:30 AM • [link]
Perhaps this is just a reiteration of points that have already been made, but…
Perhaps it is not so responsible on the part of SBTB to repost the information about her children. I can see this point. But to use a cliche, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Why was she posting this information about her family at all? Anywhere?
Sure, it was posted on a private loop but that doesn’t keep people from passing it around. If it’s being read by more than 1 person, it’s a public forum. Also, it was posted on a professional forum, and that kind of information has absolutely no place there. If the Internet has taught us anything, it’s that if you put it out there, people will find it. And circulate it.
And honestly, why should her writers care about her problems? Their relationship is professional, and needs to stay that way. Her job is to make sure that they are taken care of. If she has been slipping up, then sure, she owes them an apology, but nothing more than, “Due to personal problems, my work has suffered, and I apologize.” If she is this overwhelmed, however, then maybe now is not the best time for her to head this organization up. She definitely seems to have more pressing issues.
It can’t be gossip-mongering if she’s being quoted directly. And while the Bitchery is chock-full of Professional Bitches, this isn’t a professional site. It’s a review site. It’s editorial. And it’s bitchy, in case you missed the site name. We aren’t here to play nice. I can see the point about editing the information to protect her children, but really, that should have been Falk’s primary concern before she spit it out to clients and co-workers.
But I do wish her the best. She obviously needs a lot of support right now, and I hope she and her family come through all right. It’s a horrible situation.
a teacher said on 05.17.07 at 12:45 AM • [link]
Children go through a lot in school-everyone knows that.
This letter, should it get back to friends in school, could make their lives difficult.
This letter posted on this site should be edited to protect the privacy of the children involved.
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 05.17.07 at 12:49 AM • [link]
I asked for and got my rights back not long ago. I hope Gail’s personal life rights itself and I feel badly for her, but I’m very glad I’m no longer with Triskelion.
Gail R. Delaney said on 05.17.07 at 12:51 AM • [link]
As an author with Triskelion - and part of the recent change in Triskelion managemen - I have stayed quiet outside of Triskelion. But, I realize that to a degree, silence indicates complacency. A passive agreement to what is being said. Since that isn’t the case, I decided I might try posting without causing a war of sorts.
Unil two weeks ago, I was the Executive Editor for Triskelion Publishing. I was an author with them before that, and still am. The ONLY reason I stepped down as Exec. Editor was because I had finally accepted the reality that I had taken on too much responsibility. I am an author first, and I chose to step down to focus again on my writing.
The biggest problem I see in this is the definition of ‘professionalism’.
It is easy to stand on the outside and condemn someone for sharing personal information. But as an outsider, you cannot understand the close knit community of authors that makes up Triskelion Publshing. We share our ups and our downs. We talk about our families… our good times and bad.
This post was made on a loop intended ONLY for Triskelion authors. This was not a reader loop or a public arena. As such, the designation of unprofessinal falls on those individuals who deemed it their duty to take that business correspondence and air it to the general public.
If this were a traditional office, and your boss sent out a company wide email… you could very well lose your job if you forwarded that email outside the company. This is the same situation.
And the comments about Zoloft… please…
I said before that I am an author with Triskelion… and like many others, I have been effected by this business change. To clarify… Triskelion is not stopping ALL print… nor is this permanent. This is a revamping of a business plan. Like other authors, I was anticipating my release with great excitement, and was disappointed with the change.
However, I’d rather deal with this change than hear that Triskelion is closing its ‘virtual’ doors.
Far more authors are staying with Triskelion and supporting these changes with enthusiasm. It is a small portion of the Triskelion ‘population’ who have decided they should bad-mouth the company to anyone who will listen. It’s unfortunate that people are more willing to accept the negative than see the positive.
Gail Northman doesn’t deserve this criticism.
I could continue, but I’m sure I’ve added enough fuel to the fire.
Gail R. Delaney
Loyal Author with Triskelion Publishing.
Chicklet said on 05.17.07 at 01:12 AM • [link]
I’m not going to approach the question of whether this email should be available to the internet at large, because I don’t know the parameters of the YahooGroup in question; if it’s open to anyone, without moderator approval, it’s as good as public, no matter what the name of the group is, or its intended membership.
I will, however, say that if Triskelion has been issuing NSF checks to authors, and authors are being left high-and-dry when their contracted print books don’t make it to print (after the authors have spent time and money promoting the books), then I think it’s only right that RWA disinvite them from the national conference. Triskelion needs to get its affairs in order before authors can commit to them again.
My spamblocker word is “low,” which certainly is how I would be feeling if I had to go back to the management of a bookstore and explain that I couldn’t hold my previously arranged booksigning because I had no books.
spinsterwitch said on 05.17.07 at 01:13 AM • [link]
Interesting the furor all this has caused. Being outside of the writing and editing world (I read this website because I like the genre of romance & the bitches are the best at satirizing covers that I’ve seen) and a small business owner, myself, I stand by my statement that this is not a professional presentation in a “private” loop for the business that someone represents.
I put in the quotation marks above because there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet. If Gail has not learned this before then she has not been paying attention.
As to what is appropriate for the Bitches to put up on their blog, quite frankly, that is their decision. They might decide in the future, given the response, to rethink whether they post something similar, but again that is their decision.
Lisa said on 05.17.07 at 01:20 AM • [link]
General rule of thumb of email: Never send anything through email that you wouldn’t want the whole world to read. Even if it’s just to a friend, spouse, priest.
Doreen Orsini said on 05.17.07 at 01:23 AM • [link]
I’m appalled. You have truly earned your names by posting this and deserve to be sued. To post something that deals with a young teen with no regard to the ramifications is unforgiveable. I will never read this blog again and will rally others to ban it.
In regard to Triskelion and Gail…
Gail Northman has been the backbone of Triskelion. She has always supported the authors and tried to do what’s best for them. Sure, I lost money spent on promoting a book that will not go to print for now, but I’d rather see this company stay afloat than have it go under. Samhain had to delay some prints, but no one made a stink about that. Hollywood produces movies that get shelved.
Gail knew we were all counting on Trisk surviving and stepped into a tough job to help. For her to get this in return is more disturbing than what Trisk did.
You Bitches have gone too far. May the guilt of what comes of this eat away at you! And I have to say that the person who sent this PRIVATE email to you also deserves to pay. Why didn’t you make this blog about how terrible it was for someone to pass on such an email? Why not post that person’s name and let them feel a fraction of the humiliation that teen will feel? That would have been smart, bitches! I hope you all get sued.
Doreen Orsini
TRISKELION AUTHOR
Katie W. said on 05.17.07 at 01:27 AM • [link]
I simply wanted to jump on the “Email is not private” bandwagon.
Regardless of whether you send an email to a single person, or to a large group, as soon as you send that email, you have lost your right to privacy. That email becomes the property of the recipient, not the sender. Unless you state, specifically, in the email that no part of it may be posted/used without permission of the author.
This is why my email signature contains that very statement because that is really the only way to retain privacy rights in regards to email.
Although there is certainly no guarantee that people would respect your declaration of privacy, but if you did find people posting your emails in public forums, you would certainly be able to petition for their removal based on the fact that you declare all of your out-going email as private, and retain all rights to it. (Again, this would have to be stated in every single out-going email to make it legally binding.)
The Smart Bitches have not done anything wrong. While most people believe that there is an EXPECTATION of privacy in regards to email, there is no legal precedent for it.
And I think a woman who would tell a group of people that she suspects her 15 year-old daughter of prostituting herself has far more things to worry about than a leaked email. Such as why she felt the need to share her suspicions in the first place, instead of opting to protect the privacy of her daughter.
(And it is not the Smart Bitches responsibility to edit out the above information. It is the mother’s responsibility to not spread potentially libelous rumors about her minor child on the internet.)
SB Sarah said on 05.17.07 at 01:33 AM • [link]
Sued for what? Pointing out that someone showed her behind when in fact she did show her behind?
We went too far and should be banned? Banned from what, the internet?
Please. I learned in 5th grade never to write anything down that I didn’t want the whole world to read. And in 5th grade I certainly wasn’t a grown up with clients to whom I owed an explanation as to why professionally things were going to hell in a handbasket.
I did in fact edit out the part about her kids because I certainly have no need to make their embarrassment worse - if it could get any worse. So to the teacher et al who pointed that out, you’re right.
But I should take the high ground and not post something that reveals just how badly the state of affairs at a publishing house is right now? To what end? Oh dear, someone who was considering this publishing house might think twice? Good for them!
Jennifer Armintrout said on 05.17.07 at 01:34 AM • [link]
I find it interesting how polarizing this is with Triskelion authors. No matter where this is posted, there are the authors who have major complaints who are saying, “Good, I’m glad they’re getting what they deserve,” and authors who have never had any problem calling those authors whiners and liars.
Now, I am having a spectacular experience with Mira, an imprint of Harlequin. But I know there are people who haven’t had a good experience with H/S, and I would never assume that what is happening to me is happening across the board.
And then, I see emails like this, where you have an editor spilling personal information very freely. It’s like there is no line between business and personal matters. Maybe that’s why there is such a divide in the way their authors are taking this news. If personal information was shared this freely with their authors (and I’m just speculating here) it’s less like a business facing the consequences of their choices and more like a few close friends being treated badly by the big, bad RWA.
Robin said on 05.17.07 at 01:37 AM • [link]
General rule of thumb of email: Never send anything through email that you wouldn’t want the whole world to read. Even if it’s just to a friend, spouse, priest.
I’m actually very glad that the SBs edited out the personal info by the time I got here to read the letter, because while I find some of these professional dramas fascinating, I don’t feel the same way about people’s personal dramas, at least when they don’t mean to share them publicly. Of course you’re right about accepting the fact that even “private” correspondence can easily become public, but IMO there are other people who decide whether or not to print that information. And people will have varying reactions to *those* decisions, separate, IMO, from the decision of the original writer to reveal the information. I don’t think there’s anything good to be gained from reprinting the information, especially when it concerns children.
RB said on 05.17.07 at 01:43 AM • [link]
This the era of Youtube, bloggers trying to make a name for themselves, and instant gratification journalism. There is nothing private, especially on the internet. I don’t care if you are the only person posting on a private, passworded board, you still take the chance it will be hacked. If you post something dishy on a “private” board, there is nothing to prevent an easy cut and paste.
SBTB has always been about trying to keep it real, and I don’t see that they are doing anything differently here.
Also, my mama taught me a long time ago to never write anything down I didn’t want preserved for all eternity.
Robin said on 05.17.07 at 01:45 AM • [link]
I don’t think there’s anything good to be gained from reprinting the information, especially when it concerns children.
Let me just clarify that I’m referring here to Northman’s personal family info, not the general stuff about Triskelion.
I find it interesting how polarizing this is with Triskelion authors.
From the little I’ve seen, this seems to be the norm for many publishers. Some authors couldn’t be happier, while some feel like virtual slaves. Clearly there are issues, and perhaps they are exacerbated by the fact of the business/personal conflation you refer to. There always seems to be a fair amount of drama around these situations that isn’t merely about *professional* relationships and situations.
Shannon Stacey said on 05.17.07 at 01:48 AM • [link]
Samhain had to delay some prints, but no one made a stink about that.
Probably because it’s not the same kind of situation, and that’s not really an entirely accurate description, either.
Jennifer said on 05.17.07 at 01:49 AM • [link]
I don’t give a damn if her letter was put out on a public loop or not, this is just sorry as hell. When you start putting kids into the line of fire, you’ve stepped over the line.
You have two words right in the title of your blog all right—Trashy Bitches.
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 01:52 AM • [link]
~It’s like there is no line between business and personal matters.~
Nutshell.
Nora
Sybil said on 05.17.07 at 01:54 AM • [link]
I am not saying legal or not… I am saying it is wrong. But we all have our lines, our morals and hot buttons. There is a difference between The Star and The Post but really how many people buy the star…
So whatever, I do completely agree with with lisa, anything you send in email can come back to slap you. It sucks but not everyone can be trusted so you should never put in email what you aren’t going to own up to in public if someone you trusted fucks you over.
Is it news? Completely. I think that is why Jane emailed RWA to get the facts and authors to get their take. But I know this is an issue for me and it isn’t for many others.
Many see anything as fair game and gossip is king. It is something I have been thinking about a lot so this is perfect cuz I have examples to help explain myself now cuz god knows I ramble enough to lose people ;).
Piddloo said on 05.17.07 at 01:55 AM • [link]
Yawn, here comes Doreen Orsini to kiss more Triskelion ass. What else is new?
I’m glad the personal info was edited out, but frankly amazed that anyone can claim Triskelion is a professional house after seeing an email like that from someone who is supposed to be an editor and in charge.
I get the point about this incredibly close community Triskelion is suppsoed to have (which isn;t what I’ve heard, and your own authors seem to belie that), but c’mon. PublishAmerica has a close community too, and its “authors” seem just as reluctant to use their heads and admit that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Having said that I sincerely hope things work out for Ms. Northman. It seems she could use a long rest, and I think it’s a testament to how un-bitchy the Bitches and the readers here are that everyone seems to feel that way.
just my two cents said on 05.17.07 at 01:57 AM • [link]
Except that we didn’t put them in the line of fire.
Their mother did.
And Our Bitch has had the dignity to admit she was wrong for posting that part of the original letter, and removed the offending information.
So, what’s trashy, by your definition? Making a mistake, admitting you made it, and fixing it to the best of your ability? Or posting that kind of information about your children as an excuse for not returning emails?
Candy said on 05.17.07 at 01:59 AM • [link]
People are getting their panties in a twist because this was supposedly posted on a private loop—but once you go beyond a certain number of people, what sorts of realistic expectations can you have for privacy, really? From what I understand, the group consisted of all the authors and editors for Triskelion, so, what, about 200 people? What in the hell kind of privacy is that? That’s about how big my company is. To put this in perspective, what Northman did was the equivalent of my company’s President sending out a company-wide e-mail saying “Hi, I just wanted you to know that I haven’t been 100% at work lately because I’ve been too busy battling a raging case of gonorrhea contracted from my cheating whore of a wife. Also, I just found out my son is selling his body for crack. But don’t worry, I’m sure we’ll be back on track.”
Yeah, it sucks for Northman that this was leaked. But dude. 200 people. Come on.
bam said on 05.17.07 at 02:05 AM • [link]
I laughed uproariously at that. Still tittering.
Katie said on 05.17.07 at 02:07 AM • [link]
Let me tell you, if my mother sent out an email to EVERY EMPLOYEE in her company accusing me of being a whore, I would be furious at her. What did she expect would happen?! If she knew that a private emails had already been forwarded, she HAD to have know that this one would too.
The RWA is an association for writers, and they were doing their job and protecting their members. After Gail’s daughter finds out that everyone in her mother’s aquaintance knows about her personal problems, there will be hell to pay at home. I mean, a 15 year old girl?! Her family issues have just gotten a whole lot larger, and she has no one to blame for that but herself. Rediculous.
Lynne Connolly said on 05.17.07 at 02:08 AM • [link]
I’m published by both Samhain and Triskelion, as well as 4 other publishers (that’s pretty much the norm in the epub world). I maintain my reputation by not telling tales. What is in one house and on the private lists, stays there. That way I can live with my own conscience, as well as with more than one publisher.
I am a writer. I have to live in this world and someone who might have been a rival one moment might be a collaborator the next.
Gail Northman is a friend, an editor and a mentor. Her style is to be friendly and upfront, something most people who come into contact with her appreciate. There is no snide, no hidden agenda with Gail, something so rare in this world as to be singular.
Her post was to people she regarded as friends, on a private list.
Moreover, there is a subscript on every post to that list, that it is a private list and no post should be shared outside the list.
Authors, editors and other staff regularly share their personal problems and their fears and hopes, trusting that the other members will treat their posts with respect for their privacy.
So it might be a legal loophole. So what? I take honor and trust seriously. A pity others don’t.
Pam Champagne said on 05.17.07 at 02:09 AM • [link]
You should hang your heads in shame. You, too, Nora Roberts. Professionalism doesn’t exclude being human. As far as I’m concerned, Gail Northman has been the guts of Triskelion Publishing and I’m thrilled that she now has the opportunity to take the company where she wants. And I’m sure Gail imparted that information trusting that the authors wouldn’t go pasting it all over the internet. This whole situation makes me sick.
Trista Ann Michaels said on 05.17.07 at 02:17 AM • [link]
Normally, I stay out of stuff like this, but this is…I’m speechless. I sickens me that some people are so sad and pathetic, so mean spirited that they can only find happiness by screwing over others. Just remember. Karma is a bitch.
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 02:17 AM • [link]
~But as an outsider, you cannot understand the close knit community of authors that makes up Triskelion Publshing. We share our ups and our downs. We talk about our families… our good times and bad.~
If you’re talking about intimate family business on a professional (close-knit or otherwise)loop, you’re making a huge error in judgment. If any of those discussing private family business is part of the publishing house, it’s unbelieveably unprofessional. That’s my term, that’s my absolute unwavering opinion.
There HAVE to be lines.
I would wager heavily than many on that close-knit group have never met IRL, but have formed their relationships on that loop. Has every one—and if there is ONE who hasn’t, it breaks it all down—forged a personal, face-to-face history? Do all know each other’s families, spent real time together?
Loops and blogs are marvelous, and can be valuable communication tools. But to believe they are intimate, to believe it’s okay to use a professional loop to air deeply personal business—and that it will remain within that box, is terribly naive.
Nora
Candy said on 05.17.07 at 02:19 AM • [link]
Unlike the mother of said children who posted the information to 200 of her closest friends—THAT was pure decorum, eh?
It’s good that Sarah edited out the information about Northman’s children. Northman, in my opinion, used the information about her kids in an unconscionable way—whether or not that was a conscious ploy for sympathy, it certainly struck me as such. But now that the TMI about her children HAS been edited out, why exactly is everyone getting all bugfuck nutty over OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN again?
And you know, the funny thing is, when I read the post, what struck me as newsworthy was how Triskelion in general seemed to be unravelling at the seams, and how the person running Triskelion in particular seemed to be losing it, and how this would be of interest to authors, editors and agents looking to work with them. It wasn’t until everyone started bawling about the children, the children, oh lawdy lawdy the children that it struck me that OH, right, that part was pretty awful, too.
Y’all who are hollering about this? Are adding fuel to the fire. Just a thought.
Ahhh, Internet kerfuffles. Where would we be without you?
Piddloo said on 05.17.07 at 02:20 AM • [link]
Hmm. maybe if Gail and Triskelion hadn’t screwed so many authors over, they wouldn’t be getting screwed now…just a thought.
Lisa said on 05.17.07 at 02:21 AM • [link]
Professionalism doesn’t exclude being human.
No, it doesn’t exclude being human, but it does include using good judgement. She’s running a business, not a social circle. I think she used very poor judgement revealing what she did about her personal and family problems. Saying that there are personal problems is enough. Going into detail about to 200 or so people, regardless of whether you consider them good friends or not, in a supposedly professional email…? In email format, no less? No, I don’t think in a private list that information should be slapped all over the internet, but how close do you really feel to ALL 200 of those people?! Have you personally cultivated a many-year relationship with all 200? Do you trust each and every person in that group? More importantly, if you had common sense, WOULD you trust all 200?
I love the team of 10 people I work with - I’ve worked with them for 3 years or so. I wouldn’t reveal information like that to them if I didn’t want it around the whole company at some point. I think the example Candy posted is pretty accurate in comparison to what Northmen emailed.
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 02:21 AM • [link]
~You should hang your heads in shame. You, too, Nora Roberts~
For what? I should be ashamed for having an opinion?
Nora
ArkansasCyndi said on 05.17.07 at 02:22 AM • [link]
“Authors, editors and other staff regularly share their personal problems and their fears and hopes”
This might be true. I don’t know, but during an agent workshop at a conference, one of this agent’s “never do this” was to tell your editor, fans, anyone when you were having martial problems, or kid problems, etc. especially if you’re not published or or are still trying to establish an identity. Her reasoning was that editors, agents, etc have enough dealing with authors who are not hauling loads of emotional baggage. Why would they want to take on an author who is?
Someone earlier noted that authors needed to know this information, especially those trying to make decisions about where to place their work. And from that standpoint, a situation like this would be disconcerting, to say the least.
As for her children, my heart breaks for them. Someone wrote “Her post was to people she regarded as friends” - maybe so, but 200 people as friends close enough to share that kind of intense personal information?
Again, I’ll say…this is a small community. It is difficult, if not impossible, to keep secrets, especially if 200 people know that secret. What is it that they say? Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead.
AJ said on 05.17.07 at 02:26 AM • [link]
I tend to believe that if the community was as close as people say it is this e-mail wouldn’t have been forwarded to people outside the loop. Further, is posting an e-mail from a private link on a blog and more wrong than posting a private e-mail on a private loop? Just another point to consider does personal information belong in professional correspondence, even if you would otherwise share that personal information with the receipents? Would any one have posted or forwarded the e-mail if it pertained soley to her children? If the peron forwarding/posting it were a total asshole. Should your children’s personal matters be discussed with all your collegues? I don’t care how close you are the answer is absolutely not.
Should the e-mail have been forwarded outside the group in the first place? Obviously not. There seems to have been some expectation of privacy. Should it be posted publicly once someone receives it? That’s a bit of a grey area.
Trista Ann Michaels said on 05.17.07 at 02:33 AM • [link]
For what? I should be ashamed for having an opinion?
Nora
You know posting the business information, that’s one thing. To post the personal stuff, that’s another thing entirely. They knew exactly what would happen when they did it and that’s exactly why they did it. It was done on purpose and with spite. Do I think they should be ashamed? Hell yeah I do.
Piddloo said on 05.17.07 at 02:39 AM • [link]
What expectation of privacy does everyone think there was, when she clearly says in the first paragraph that people keep forwarding her private loop emails? DUH.
Najida said on 05.17.07 at 02:40 AM • [link]
Emails and videos should always been created with the attitude that the whole wide world will have access to them.
Just ask Paris, Pamela and lots of politicians.
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 02:41 AM • [link]
Well, Trista, you may feel posting the information shameful—and that’s your opinion. How is my responding to the information, as others have—shameful?
It’s okay for Pam Champagne to single me out as a commentor on this issue, to wag a finger that I should hang my head for expressing my thoughts on it?
Candy said on 05.17.07 at 02:41 AM • [link]
Oh noes we’ve been found out! Our secret agenda to…wait, what the fuck, Sarah removed the TMI bit about the children? OH THAT SPITEFUL BITCH.
Theresa Meyers said on 05.17.07 at 02:47 AM • [link]
Honestly, ladies,...um bitches…, I’m on those loops.
I’m one of the authors that had a print book yanked out from under them two weeks before the street date, despite great reviews, a huge load of promo with booksellers, several arranged booksignings and speaking engagements, and about 500 preorders waiting at Ingrams to get filled.
I’ll agree that the professional tone of a LOT of email on that loop leaves something to be desired. There are plenty of people sharing personal information that I wouldn’t put in a business forum.
That said,there are a few things people are missing if they would get past the children comment (which for the record kind of stunned those of us on the loop who aren’t that “close” with everyone, we just work there as authors).
1) Did anyone miss the part about the company being contacted by RWA three times for various concerns?
2) RWA didn’t yank their approval, just their invitation to go to nationals and get more business when they are seemingly way too overloaded at the moment with huge changes in-house.
3) Trisk has happy authors and pissed off authors. All publishing houses do.
Triskelion is doing what they feel they need to in restructuring their company to maximize profits over losses as any business should do. As a business person I understand that.
They will print those authors that they had already paid advances sometime in the future, if those authors chose to stay.
As a publishing professional I also can see RWA’s side of things. They are looking at a publisher who is in the midst of a big shake up and thinking, if you can’t meet all the contracts you’ve already with print authors and are canceling contracts in large numbers, then why would we allow you to solicit more at this time at our conference from our members?
Unfortunately a lot of authors lose out, including those that are doing well with their ebook titles at Triskelion and are having to deal with the fallout.
My editor at Triskelion did a great job editing my book, their cover art was wonderful and I’ve been paid royalities on the ebook version of it in a timely manner, but considering that this print book was to be my first and I already had sunk $$$ into promo and ads for it, I’ve asked for my rights to be returned.
At this time I understand that all the authors with PAN status via, Triskelion are still able to retain that status if the ebook version of their book was released, even if their print version was canceled.
Do I harbor ill will? No. I feel bad for Gail, and I hope she’s able to overcome all her challenges and the company is ultimately successful for its authors. But those feeslings aren’t enough for me to base a business on—and this is a business.
bam said on 05.17.07 at 02:49 AM • [link]
Hah. I knew it. *smirks*
I don’t know why this made me laugh and laugh and laugh. There are… like… 65 comments on this thread. Why single her out? Like she’s supposed to be a Paragon of Womanly Virtue and Discretion because she’s got 250 million books in print? She’s human like the rest of us unwashed masses who surf the internet out of boredom and… like… have opinions and stuff.
Trista Ann Michaels said on 05.17.07 at 02:49 AM • [link]
Oh noes we’ve been found out! Our secret agenda to…wait, what the fuck, Sarah removed the TMI bit about the children? OH THAT SPITEFUL BITCH.
She left it in there to start with didn’t she? Why did she have to be reminded about the children before she took it down? Can she not figure it out on her own?
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 02:53 AM • [link]
~Why did she have to be reminded about the children before she took it down? Can she not figure it out on her own?~
Mom shouldn’t have had to be reminded either. Again, that’s my opinion, and I’m not ashamed of it.
(And I do, too, wash, bam. Occasionally.)
Trista Ann Michaels said on 05.17.07 at 02:54 AM • [link]
This is why I stay out of stuff like this. It only serves to piss me off. Nora, i’m not signaling you out, sorry it came out that way.
Trashy Bitches, yep that’s the perfect name.
I’m out of this before I say and do something that I’m sure they’ll get a thrill out of throwing all over the web. I’m just sorry people get such a thrill out of stuff like this. It’s sad and so is the person who posted it.
Darlene Marshall said on 05.17.07 at 02:55 AM • [link]
I wouldn’t mind seeing this discussion veer back to RWA’s claims (according to the email) that Trisk royalty checks bounced and there was delay of payment and reversion of rights issues. As an ebook author who’s had two publishers fold, there’s a great deal of fear and financial risk for the authors involved with these small houses. The more public discussion of these situations, the better informed new authors will be before they sign contracts.
Candy said on 05.17.07 at 03:00 AM • [link]
Maybe because, like me, it kind of blew past her because it was overshadowed by the rest of the content? It didn’t even occur to me that somebody could impute malice from a bit of carelessness. Interesting that you read that into our actions. Heh.
And Darlene: Yes. I am getting bored with Northman’s personal life, though the accusations are pretty amusing. So, dudes, what’s the skinny on the bounced checks? Why isn’t there more yelling about that? Surely that’s yell-worthy?
just my two cents said on 05.17.07 at 03:07 AM • [link]
Ooh, yes. Getting bitch-slapped by the RWA saying, “Um, nevermind, you are not wanted” is definitely something I want to hear about.
I know for my union to send out three grievances is a big, bad deal with some heavy consequences. While I know that the RWA is obviously not a union, to appear on their radar three times cannot be a good thing.
Enough with the “you’re wrong, no you’re wrong, no you’re wrong!” At the end of the day, opinions are like assholes. Everyone’s got one, and they all stink. (And hence the unwashed masses!)
Let’s get to the real good stuff. Let’s bring it back to the bottom line.
Former Trisk author said on 05.17.07 at 03:08 AM • [link]
As far as I know, the explanation was that the checks bounced because they were erroneously written on the wrong account.
And as far as I’ve heard, Trisk has re-issued the checks along with money for the bank fees.
Pam Champagne said on 05.17.07 at 03:10 AM • [link]
I did not mean to single out Nora Roberts in particular. I’ve enjoyed most of her books. I was disappointed with her opinion, but as has been pointed out, everyone is entitled to one.
I’ve never liked the media because they take a story and write it in ways that suits their twisted purpose. That’s what I saw happening here.
Sort of like “Oh look! Triskelion has fallen, let’s kick them while their down, especially the new manager.
I wish Gail luck both in her personal and business life. If anyone deserves it, she does.
Poison Ivy said on 05.17.07 at 03:23 AM • [link]
Regardless of privacy issues, someone needs to tell romance writers thinking of submitting to or staying with Trisk-e-mah-hoochie that this epublisher is in business trouble, apparently has been breaking contracts, not paying royalties, and whatever. And that its editor is having a hard time keeping her mind on her job because of personal issues.
“Written on the wrong account.” Ha! We all know what that is about. Float. Time for authors to up anchor.
Smart bitches warn each other when there is danger. You don’t want even one more author wasting effort or throwing promo money down a rathole over this, so timely info is crucial. And just how much forbearance should we have for publishers who break contracts? I say, none.
Sybil said on 05.17.07 at 03:26 AM • [link]
apparently has been breaking contracts, not paying royalties, and whatever. And that its editor is having a hard time keeping her mind on her job because of personal issues.
I thought her response was done well. Rather or not is it true I guess we will see. But I respect her for answering it and feel bad she was dumb enough to trust 200 people.
I am glad I am not an author to have to decide to stay or go…
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 03:27 AM • [link]
The vast majority of the article here was written by or to Ms. Northman. I don’t understand how anything was ‘twisted’ there.
The commentaries to the article are opinions, which obviously land all over the board.
And whether or not you agreed with my opinion, you did indeed single me out. Very specifically.
Robin said on 05.17.07 at 03:39 AM • [link]
I don’t know whether this is more like a tennis match or a hockey game (no offense to either sport, as I enjoy them both), but Jane just posted a response from Northman on Dear Author.
Unlike the mother of said children who posted the information to 200 of her closest friends—THAT was pure decorum, eh?
Yes, even in a supposedly closed loop, it does seem like a grievous betrayal of her childrens’ privacy at the very, very least. But judging by her response on DA, I don’t think she sees it that way—unfortunately. Of course, when you’re emotionally over the edge, you *don’t* have the best judgment to begin with, usually, which brings us back to the question of Triskelion’s problems and the extent to which they are or aren’t connected to some folks being just totally unable to cope with the business of publishing right now.
Sadly, though, I don’t have really high expectations for the notion of “professionalism” after that whole J. Wallace massacre. So now I start to wonder more whether some of the problems in Romance publishing are due to the blurring of these personal/professional lines, or at least exacerbated by that.
SandyO said on 05.17.07 at 03:44 AM • [link]
There are several things that hit me on a professional level about Ms Northman’s email (which I read on this site)and subsequent comments.
1) Airing very personal family information as an excuse for your lack of professional responsibility is beyond tacky. One mark against Trisk for lack of professional ethics.
2) The ramblings of Ms Northman makes one look very askew at the business’s ability to edit the books they publish.
3) While it is very minor, it does not build confidence when the former Executive Editor, Ms Delaney, doesn’t know the difference between effected and affected.
It’s not the Bitches that have instilled a question about Triskelion’s business, but rather their own personnel.
Lisa said on 05.17.07 at 03:47 AM • [link]
From dearauthor.com: I chose to share, because in the past it has for many been a great help - the support network is tremendous.
So… now the professionals she works with are her therapists and support group?
Tsk tsk. As Nora and others have repeatedly stated previously - very unprofessional and in poor judgement.
Jennifer Armintrout said on 05.17.07 at 03:48 AM • [link]
I find it interesting how polarizing this is with Triskelion authors.
I didn’t mean polarizing in that some of them are happy and some are unhappy, but that some are defending the company and accusing the unhappy authors of lying or simply being too picky. It’s like there isn’t a doubt in the minds of the well-treated authors that the company is a shining beacon that can do no wrong, just as there isn’t a doubt in the minds of the mistreated authors that the company is made of pure evil mined from the very depths of Mordor.
I have yet to see a post from someone saying the company is “meh” to them and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. It’s either “Stop talking bad about this perfect company” or “Stop talking good about this insidious, creeping scourge.”
Robin said on 05.17.07 at 04:15 AM • [link]
I have yet to see a post from someone saying the company is “meh†to them and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. It’s either “Stop talking bad about this perfect company†or “Stop talking good about this insidious, creeping scourge.â€
But don’t you think that’s because it becomes an issue of personal loyalty for people, rather than a simple business analysis? Heck, we see this all the time with readers defending authors and authors defending each other and readers attacking each other for criticizing certain authors, etc. ad nauseum. I don’t know whether it’s the forum or the lack of face to face contact, but I constantly feel I have to make sure I include the appropriate caveats when I’m talking about certain things so my comments aren’t construed as absolutist. As someone whose signature reaction is ambivalence, I became aware of that “you’re either with us or against us” attitude early on in many of these online discussions, especially those around heated issues (and is it any surprise Northman actually invoked that sentiment directly—I think that says a lot about the cultural paradigm functioning here).
Jennifer Armintrout said on 05.17.07 at 04:35 AM • [link]
But don’t you think that’s because it becomes an issue of personal loyalty for people, rather than a simple business analysis?
Oh, definately. In fact, that’s what I find shocking about this particular case. The authors aren’t saying “My treatment at the company has always been fair, so I don’t understand your complaints” but “if you complain, you’re being disloyal to the company are a big ole meanie head.”
It’s beginning to look more like a fight between high school aged girls instead of a business discussion.
Amy E said on 05.17.07 at 05:28 AM • [link]
I’m a third of the way through the comments but had to reply to this:
Samhain had to delay some prints, but no one made a stink about that.
This is because the print books at Samhain are selling so well, they’re changing to a different print and distribution system that will allow their authors to reach a wider audience than ever before. Speaking as a Samhain author, while of course I’d love to hold my book in my loving arms now now now, it’s really hard to get disgruntled about something like that. As someone else said, it’s really an entirely different situation.
Now off to keep reading the rest of the comments…
Kalen Hughes said on 05.17.07 at 05:44 AM • [link]
Do I think they should be ashamed? Hell yeah I do.
I think you’re projecting the shame Ms. Northman should be feeling on to other people.
Amy E said on 05.17.07 at 05:59 AM • [link]
It’s like there isn’t a doubt in the minds of the well-treated authors that the company is a shining beacon that can do no wrong, just as there isn’t a doubt in the minds of the mistreated authors that the company is made of pure evil mined from the very depths of Mordor.
This is pure brilliance. I’ve been trying to put this into words in my mind for a while now, but you’ve done it better than I ever could. “One Trisk to rule them all and in the darkness bind them…” LMAO!
And I must admit, I’m loving the shame-shame at Nora to the depths of my bitchy and snarkastic soul. It’s so delightfully wacky. Yes, it’s obvious that Nora Roberts knows nothing at all about how a professional relationship with a publishing house should look. She’s clueless as to how this business works and needs your guidance to build her career. After all, these Interwebs are so confuzzling. Clearly she should sit down and shut up, sooner rather than later.
Snort. I’d jump in and defend you, Nora, but you’re doing a bang-up job of it yourself and clearly don’t need any backup.
Personally, I don’t share personal information that could come back to bite my professional ass on loops or on my blogs. I do, however, speak personally in one small and private yahoo group. I’ve met about 75% of the members in person and feel comfortable discussing almost anything with them. However, it’s important to remember that Google can search even private yahoo groups and will show your post to anyone if they click “show cached page” instead of the link. (Did you know that? I didn’t until I googled my pen name to find a review and bam, there were several of my posts—found because my pen name and book titles are in my email sigline.) So now I make sure to never put anything on there signed with my pen name or real name (everyone has nicknames there anyway), and I use a different email to post to it.
Do I think this guarantees privacy? No—as others have said, anything that’s out there on the ‘net is fair game for search engines and repostings. However, it’s a small group of close personal friends, it’s not a professional group in any way, shape, or form, and I accept the risk while trying to minimize it. But I have to say, if I thought my child was doing something like what I gather GN thinks her daughter’s up to, I wouldn’t even post it there. Some things are too personal and even with close friends, there is such a thing as over-sharing. It’s vital to know where to draw that line.
Former Trisk Author #2 said on 05.17.07 at 06:02 AM • [link]
The Yahoo loop for Trisk authors—I’m still a member of it, even though Trisk sent back my rights. Not everyone who has access to that loop is a friend of Trisk.
I guess they don’t moderate.
Ann Aguirre said on 05.17.07 at 06:05 AM • [link]
The time is now. Our world needs guidance and leadership. I give you Romancelandia’s new religion… WWND?
Don’t you feel wiser, just having clicked on it?
Nikky James said on 05.17.07 at 06:25 AM • [link]
*gasp*
I wonder if Nora Roberts having an opinion means she’s human like the rest of us and not some goddess who lives in a golden tower.
Damn, I’m really going to have to rethink the meaning of life now.
Nikky (who has no real opinion on the other stuff, but loves Nora)
anonymous said on 05.17.07 at 06:35 AM • [link]
I’m a co-owner of a publishing company. In the three years we’ve been in business, my partners and I have had health crises, deaths in our respective families, and emotional upheavals.
Like everyone else in the world, I have problems. Big ones, even. But I have a competent, professional staff who makes sure those problems don’t affect the business. I’m relieved to say that none of our authors know anything about my personal problems. My company has not bounced one single check, and we’re meeting our schedule for publishing books.
Authors trust my company with their intellectual property. It’s a huge leap of faith on their parts. The least I can give them in return is respect and professionalism.
Katie Dickson said on 05.17.07 at 06:54 AM • [link]
Ana, I love it. WWND? Brilliant.
For the rest of y’all, I especially enjoyed the little rant about the media twisting everything to suit our own purposes. WTF? The “media” is not The Borg, people.
Or, to continue the LOTR metaphor, the “media” are not mindless, evil Orcs, bent ruthlessly to the will of Sauron.
I’m having a hard time figuring out who should be Sauron in this scenario (Robert Murdoch, maybe?), but you get the picture.
Charlene said on 05.17.07 at 07:26 AM • [link]
Will there be WWND bracelets?
...please?
Shannon C. said on 05.17.07 at 08:59 AM • [link]
Maybe it’s just too late at night, but I’m not so sure I’d be all that thrilled publishing with these people if their executive editor doesn’t know the proper use of periods. Just sayin’.
pennifer said on 05.17.07 at 09:57 AM • [link]
I don’t normally post here (I’m generally content to watch the snark go by), but I felt that I needed to add something to this debate.
Firstly, I think it’s a bit weird that people who I’ve never seen posting on this site before turn up and are all “for shame!” and “Karma will get you!” at the members of the bitchery. There were also insinuations that everyone here was getting joy out of Northman’s situation. I’ve read this entire thread, and I don’t see anyone getting joy from this woman’s situation. Confused and/or disgusted at her lack of professionalism, saddened at what she’s going through, but there’s no joy.
Secondly, as someone who has recently had an email to a colleague forwarded to others, and then been in a lot of hot water due to the content, I think people who claim that no-one should forward email and it’s just not right are being somewhat naive. As has been pointed out, once it’s out of your inbox, it’s not really yours anymore. I’m not bitter at the person who forwarded my email - it was my own fault, and I shouldn’t have said what I did. I paid for it, and I learned not to do it again. Claiming that those who forwarded on the email or made it public are vicious, manipulative beyotches who deserve to pay is just emotive, empty rhetoric.
Finally, I need to address Doreen Orsini , a post from a long while ago. Do you not realise how ridiculous it is that you seem to think you can sue anyone for the least infringement? I mean, honestly. I’m not American (Australian, actually), so the thought of suing someone over something like this strikes me as absurd, but it seems that you can get sued for anything in America these days. Why is the threat of being sued considered to be an effective attack? It’s like her thought process went “I don’t like you, you’re a big meanie, so I’ll sue you and that’ll make you sorry!”
Apologies for the rant and if I have offended the many right-minded Americans here. That just struck me as a particularly inane aspect of a ridiculous comment.
Piddloo said on 05.17.07 at 11:43 AM • [link]
It would indeed be nice if we could get off the personal stuff and the attacks about how it’s just so so wrong to leak emails (I guess those women all have serious moral issues with Deep Throat and Jeffrey Wigand too, huh?) and concentrate on the actual issue at hand. It looks to me like a smokescreen—when you can’t think of something to actually say to the point being made, just go on the attack about a minor issue.
The fact is, if the problems at any publishing house are this serious, it is important that writers know about it so they can decide if they want to submit their work to that company or not. It’s great that some people have had/are having such good experiences at Triskelion, and it’s good to hear those stories. But I don’t understand why the people who feel that way need to berate and cast aspersions on those who are saying they didn’t have the same experience, and why they need to belittle some very real problems like unpaid royalties, contractual obligations not being met, etc. as if that’s no big deal?
It IS a big deal, it SHOULD be important to all writers, especially ones claiming to be as caring as the Triskelion authors here say they are. Does it not even occur to you for a minute that maybe this isn’t just mean old RWA trying to screw with your publisher, maybe it’s your publisher screwing other writers?
Have any of you even stopped to wonder why people would make this stuff up to begin with? Why RWA would impose sanctions like they have if this is all just made-up garbage? I know “disgruntled writers who wouldn’t accept edits” is such a popular refrain over Triskelion way (check out the Piers Anthony site for more on that) but seriously, do you really think that explains all of this?
What I find most disturbing about the email is the contemptuous tone (“those happy to go running to RWA with everything”). The petty, unprofessional intention of posting Allison Kelley’s email as revenge against those writers. Do you suppose editors at, say, Random House or Tor send out emails that say “You’re either for us or against us”? Thus turning what should be a professional relationship, however amiable, into some sort of high school clique?
Ms. Northman’s personal troubles, while they don’t belong in an email on a loop (which according to my sources actually had closer to 25-300 members) are actually far less disturbing than the lack of spelling and grammar, and the belligerent tone of the letter.
But the most important thing is, here’s a company under investigation for failing to meet contractual obligations and for not paying royalties. Said company announces major issues/changes with its print program, thus costing many of its authors considerable money. In other words, a compnay that was already having problems paying royalties is now admitting it cannot afford its print plans and has, as quoted in Allison kelley’s email, “bitten off more than it can chew.” Now the publisher is leaving (for whatever reason) and giving the company to someone else.
And seriously, not one of you Trisk authors can look at those plain facts and think, “Oh, yeah, if that was some other company I had no relationship with and I heard that story, I would totally think something was wrong and people should be careful. Yeah, maybe a publisher in financial trouble having to cut back on its print schedule shouldn’t be soliciting new authors when it can’t afford to fulfill its obligations to the ones it already has.”
Pam Champagne said on 05.17.07 at 11:45 AM • [link]
I’m thrilled to have provided enough distraction to drag the attack away from Gail. Reminds me of a time I was attacked by two German Shepherds. They let go of my leg and stomach when someone else came on the scene. The newcomer became their target.
I give you a gold star for your witty sarcasm. You’re good at what you do.
So long. I’m tired of wasting my time. Have fun ladies.
Lynne Connolly said on 05.17.07 at 12:31 PM • [link]
Last word, then I’m done.
I was once with a company (NBI) which skipped town, leaving all its authors and editors high and dry, owing most of us a year’s royalties. So I look for problems in other companies. I have received my royalties bang on time ever since I started sending my books to Triskelion.
I knew about the cheques, and yes, it’s true, they were drawn on the promo account, not the author one. When a few bounced, they were all withdrawn and reissued. None of them bounced, and they’re not about to do it again. I worked for a very large engineering company once that did exactly the same thing. The cheques are not computerised, they’re drawn by hand, so these things happen. If it happens again, I’ll be wondering, but one oversight does not a conspiracy make.
The description of the media as orcs from Mordor is about right. I’ve been there. Hell, I’ve been one, in that I was in the ad industry before I left. I was that orc.
I am not aware of any contracts being breached, and if they have been, then I daresay Trisk can expect court cases and it’s all over. The contract is pretty standard, and includes a clause for print. No dates are given, no guarantees included. Yes, I had a book that was due out in print last month, and it isn’t now, but there were no legal obligations associated with it.
Triskelion is small press. Large small press, but small press all the same. It hasn’t the resources to deal with the massive returns that have been coming in. If you look at Harlequin, Simon and Schuster and Border’s results, you’ll see the same thing. Print sales are down all around. So they did the sensible thing and decided to restructure.
The only people who are setting the RWA against Triskelion are the people here. The RWA’s decision was sad, but accepted, considering what is going on.
The management restructuring is nobody’s business but Triskelion’s, but it does include the recruitment of more editors, not fewer. It’s a sound business practice to abandon strategies that don’t work in favour of ones that do and to restructure a company to suit the new refinements in approach. FMCG companies do not generally continue producing lines that don’t sell. TV companies do not continue with series that get below their projected ratings.
Gail Northman only edits a very few authors personally. She is management. She manages personnel, schedules etc, and she does it well. She’s honest, and if you ask her a question, you get a straight answer. She is taking control of the day to day management of Triskelion, but she does not own the company. How she chooses to conduct herself is nobody’s business but the people she manages. And I for one like it. For the people who don’t, and who want their contracts back, she has offered them the opportunity, free and clear. Not many companies do that, either.
If there are problems, real problems, I will voice my concerns and make sure my fellow authors know about them. My first loyalty is to them. God knows we have enough strikes against us. But all this is doing is reducing the author’s choice, and driving a company with sensible and legitimate policies into the ground. If there are any people with real complaints, come forward and voice them. No hype, no opinions, just tell us what happened, why and how Triskelion is at fault, and what you did or are doing to rectify it.
Anyway, I have better things to do. So in the hope that people here will listen to reason, I am now out of here.
Oh yes, and while I have an audience, buy my books. Whoever publishes them. That’s only if you like hard-edged urban gothic romance. Paranormal romantic suspense with a touch of sensual action.
Or historical romantic suspense with a real sense of period.
There, promo for the day!
Melanie said on 05.17.07 at 01:08 PM • [link]
Hi, Candy & Sarah
I’m not an author, I read this blog because I luurve the snark. The Bitches have done nothing wrong, they have just given their OPINIONS about an email that they didn’t seek out. This supposed editor admitted that people have already forwarded her emails. Therefore, she can’t claim that it was private correspondence now. For this woman to blame her daughter for her utter lack of professionalism is disgusting. What kind of a mother DOES that? I feel bad for the daughter. The SB’s have done a service to the romance writer’s community by pointing out that this company has failed to publish the books they promised or PAY their authors, as far as that goes it’s fraud. WTF? Is that a fair thing for the authors who depended upon this company to publish their work? Just because the editor can’t take responsibility for her personal problems? If she’s that overwhelmed she should quit. Thanks for keepin it real ladies its cool ya’ll r here.
Trista and Pam get over yourselves please! Either that or go away.
Hey Nora you’re great!
Valerie said on 05.17.07 at 01:19 PM • [link]
This is really getting out of hand.
Gail is not using her family problems to excuse anything!!!!
Authors do get paid.
Print books are only on hold.
The company is restructuring, what every company does now and again. Things get revaluated, changes are made….it’s normal.
And Nora? Is that really the real Nora Roberts here? I’m surprised she stoops to post her opinion on such a bitchy, trashy blog.
Me? Well, I’m a little nobody!!
Valerie
Trista Ann Michaels said on 05.17.07 at 01:32 PM • [link]
Okay, plain and simple facts.
I have at this time 5 books with Triskelion. 3 out and 2 in editing. One print about to come out. I also have 6 with EC, 5 with Liquid Silver and 1 with Pocket.
I have NEVER not received a royalty check. They’ve always been on time and for the correct amount. Can I say that about the others?? Nope. Have they broken my contract in any way shape or form. NO. Have I been treated professionally? Yes. Have I been lied to by them? No. Have they always answered my questions in a timely manner and told the truth? Yes.
I appreciate the fact that Gail would answer the questions about the print books honestly. Other publishers have hemhawed around, coming up with excuses or just brush you off entirely. Because she was honest, she gets slammed. If she’d lied, she would have gotten slammed.
They had ISF checks ONE TIME in how many years of operation? How many of you have ever written bad checks? How many of you have been a new employee on the job and made a mistake? How many companies have growing pains, and triskelion is STILL growing? Companies can’t change staff? Where was all the broohaw when EC had a huge change of staff? Where was RWA then?
Did you ever stop and think that you should verify your facts before you start harping that authors should run for their lives? Ask the authors for their opinions. Don’t just assume the worst because you heard a rumor or a little birdie told you. Check with RWA. Find out from them honestly how many complaints they received. Was it numorous or was it one or two out of over 200 authors?
I’m sorry, but my opinion is still that it’s a witch hunt. Get your facts straight, get the correct information and then spread the warning if one should be spread.
If I’m wrong about Triselion, prove me wrong, but do it with more than this.
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 02:06 PM • [link]
First, I’m thrilled and honored to accept the resposibility as figurehead for the tough but fair standards cited by WWND. Where is my statue?
Pennifer made some good points, including that fact that none of the comments here expressed joy at Ms. Northman’s situation, as accused. And that the I’ll sue/you should be sued response is old and tired.
Pam C, you provided the distraction by singling out one poster as shameful—and one, if I do say so myself, who expressed sympathy for Ms. Northman’s personal problems while opining that it wasn’t profession for her to have emailed her private business to her authors. Sorry about the German Shepherd, but huh?
Lynne, it’s clear you’ve had positive experiences with the publisher and with Ms. Northman, and are supportive of both. I can’t imagine you’re the only author associated with the publisher who’s had good experiences and feels the same. Just as it’s clear there are other authors who haven’t had positive experiences and feel differently.
RWA responded to complaints from its members regarding this publisher, and detailed some of its concerns in the calm and professional letter send to Ms. Northman. RWA has elected not to HOST this publisher during its national conference. It hasn’t removed its official recognition at this time, but has chosen not to be the platform for the publisher’s promotion and editor appointments in Dallas.
I don’t know the ins and outs, but I can read the two letters posted—Kelly’s and Northman’s, each representing their organization. Kelly’s states RWA notified Triskelion previously, three times, regarding author complaints against them. Therefore, it doesn’t strike me as RWA’s decision came out of the blue. I sincerely doubt the decision is due to a shuffling of in-house staff and leadership, but likely stems more from the reasons that may have caused the shuffle.
I hope for everyone involved that the realignment shores up whatever problems there are, and Triskelion can continue to publish and offer positive experiences to its authors, as Lynne, Trista and undoubedly others have had.
Yes, Valerie, this is the real Nora, honored to sink to the trashy and bitchy.
Valerie said on 05.17.07 at 02:15 PM • [link]
WELL!! Hello Norah!!
I’m a BIG fan of your In Death series. I LOVE them!!!
Valerie
Darlene Marshall said on 05.17.07 at 02:34 PM • [link]
Since everyone else seems to have a final word on this, I’ll add my $.02:
My publisher is not RWA recognized. AQP doesn’t primarily publish romance. I’m sorry we’re not RWA recognized, but at the same time, I maintain my RWA membership because of the benefits it offers me and the other members. It is an organization of romance writers doing oversight on those publishers and agents they do recognize, and I appreciate that.
So I think this entire discussion of what’s happening with a publisher that wants RWA recognition is valid, important, and should most definitely be public.
Another Pam said on 05.17.07 at 02:52 PM • [link]
Most ebook publishers converse with their readers and fans on their public groups about personal things at their choosing, just seems to be the way it is in that market. However on a moderated, company-only group where it is known that it is for private discussion among themselves, including any social discussion, I don’t think that post should have been sent around for distribution where that is “understood” - especially considering it is a group of “professionals.” I can see others points of view about the business side of it now that it’s been made public, and their right to their opinions. Still, those forwarding it around and posting it with the personal family part could have had the common decency to at least delete that part of it to begin with.
Gail was not using personal problems to excuse anything. It is taken out of context not being privy to other private posts on that group which prompted it, after she alerted authors she will be taking over as publisher on June 1, decided only very recently. I believe she will make her own changes now that she will in charge in that capacity from what I know of her, which only benefit the authors, time will tell as said. She answered a few major concerns quickly and that more would be forthcoming only because she was far away from with limited communications when this came up, perhaps typing rather quickly. Her personal comments, which is rare for her, from what I personally gleaned from all the postings only meant “and on top of all I have to do to restructure quickly, I’m dealing with that, too, but I do have a plan” (my words not hers) - not meant as I can’t handle it, if you’ve conversed with and know Gail and had been privy to all that was posted. I know she is in it not just for the money but for ebooks and the authors, give her a chance to make a good change in her very new position.
Kind of hard to really say what’s what with no one blogging knowing all the facts and which were or were not substantiated.
And as far as another publisher delaying print books for marketability reasons only, I don’t know if I believe that also doesn’t have to do with profits really.
Nora Roberts said on 05.17.07 at 03:11 PM • [link]
~Most ebook publishers converse with their readers and fans on their public groups about personal things at their choosing, just seems to be the way it is in that market.~
If this is true, I think most e-book publishers will find it difficult to gain a strong and lasting foothold within mainstream publishing.
I was and am very friendly with the former CEO of Putnam, and have a friendly relationship with her successor. I have a close and personal relationship, developed over the years, with my editor, who is also publisher of Berkley.
If any of these women posted personal information, personal problems, private family business on an internet loop, I’d be stunned and, frankly, appalled. So would, no doubt, other executives within the house.
Admittedly, I don’t hear everything, but this is the first I’ve heard the claim that most e-book publishers share private business with their authors, on loops. I’m amazed, if so, that other such letters haven’t made the rounds.
Another Pam said on 05.17.07 at 03:33 PM • [link]
Nora, after all of this and previous postings of the same nature, I’m thinking your advice to keep away from such personal disclosures is most likely something to follow. I’ve seen the same thing happen in very small private companies offline when I think about it. As far as other such postings not making the rounds, could be because others disgruntled for any reason keep it private and off public place, or someone who really does have a grudge, or even that it was forwarded it in anger without thinking about that the personal part of it. I just know that I personally, would never have included that part of it even if it was something I would have passed around, which I wouldn’t have. Letting these private issues out to the public certainly doesn’t credit anyone in the ebook industry.
Darlene Marshall said on 05.17.07 at 03:41 PM • [link]
For the record, I have zero information about the personal lives of my current ebook publishers and editors. I don’t know if they’re married, gay, straight, have children, have financial problems or have been medicated for anything.
And I’d just as soon keep it that way. What I want from my publisher is for them to publish and promote my books, not become my new best friend.
Theresa Meyers said on 05.17.07 at 04:01 PM • [link]
“I have yet to see a post from someone saying the company is “meh†to them and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. “
Sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Let me try again…
Triskelion was supposed to be my publisher of my first book. Now they’re not. I’ve asked for my rights back and don’t have vengeful feelings, but don’t plan on keeping my book on infinite suspension until they get the print side up and running again either. (does that sound like “meh” to you or am I not bland enough…)
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion (there, doesn’t that make you feel better), but I’d rather make my business decisions based on contracts, dollars and cents and common sense, rather than feelings, whoa, whoa feelings…
OK, anyone resorting to Barry Manalow definately needs a morning cup of tea!
Ciar Cullen said on 05.17.07 at 04:06 PM • [link]
Why is it okay for you to publish internal communications like this? You have gone waaaay too far, bitches. There’s snark, there’s fun, and there’s wrong. You are wrong.
SB Sarah said on 05.17.07 at 04:12 PM • [link]
The only thing more amusing than the part where some woman named Doreen is in charge of who is on the internet is the idea that we’ve gone “too far.” Yeah, tell it to the viking above.
As was already pointed out, as far as I am concerned, if you post something to a YahooGroup you might as well make it public because it IS ACCESSIBLE via Google’s cache. Moderated group or not, it’s accessible by any random person on the internet.
Why is the issue the right/wrong of whether I should have posted this entry, as opposed to the actual problem, which is, should any writer looking for a viable career as an author hope to find that career with stability at Triskelion?
Trevelynne said on 05.17.07 at 04:22 PM • [link]
I’m just a reader, not a writer, but I use some of these posts to help me determine what authors NOT to read and which publishers NOT to send my $$ to. And I’m not referring to the fun and snarky reviews.
I have actually started keeping a list of authors that I choose not to support with my money, specifically the authors that slag off their readers or other authors in blogs/open forums and the publishing houses/editors that are allegedly participating in questionable practices.
When I find out that a company is having troubles paying their employees or has been treating their employees questionably (whether in the publishing world or elsewhere), I seriously debate whether I want to send them money for a product.
First off, if I have doubts in regards to their ability to handle finances - a problem which may only be occurring on the publisher/author side - it makes me wonder about the publisher/reader side as well. If you can’t cut a check correctly, it makes me question whether you can handle my credit card info correctly. It doesn’t matter that there has never been a problem regarding that specific financial transaction, the reputation has been tarnished.
Secondly, there is just some behavior that I choose not to support. Treating artists like crap is one of them (as is artists treating their reading public like crap or editors choosing to air family problems in order to get sympathy for why they may be unable to perform their jobs).
I am just a consumer, and what I respect most is professionalism and a good product. But there are enough good products out there that I can just walk away at anytime and buy something else. If you want my $$, then consistently and professionally deliver a quality product, and I’ll be loyal to you for as long as that is the case.
Theresa Meyers said on 05.17.07 at 04:23 PM • [link]
Because, Sarah, luv, it so much easier to point fingers than take responsiblity of your career!
Ranting about the letter itself takes the focus off of the real issue. Can you make a career here? Well can you? Perhaps if you epublish, but not in print at this time.
The information sent to only the print authors, not the entire loop, said the company plans to focus on their ebooks and on hotter stories.
spinsterwitch said on 05.17.07 at 04:40 PM • [link]
I may be adding fuel to the fire, but what the hell. I’m going out of town for a few days. And maybe this topic is dead after 100+ comments anyway.
My comment specifically is about the “protecting the children” theme that seems to offend people. I’m all for protecting children and keeping them safe and all, but I think that we overreach when we define protections for children below the age of puberty the same as children who are above the age of puberty.
It is only a very recent thing that young women the age of said daughter have been protected in such a way. Hell, there are states in which in a year she could marry, even today.
Daughters and sons of this age are beginning to act with their own agency, agency that parents are supposed to somehow reign in…but it is wrong to deny that they have agency in what they do. Should we protect such people from their youthful indiscretions, perhaps. I think further discussion is needed on this.
However, I was a teen who went to a public school and let’s just be clear that if you think that gossip is king on the internet among adults, you have forgotten what high school is like. If a mother is suspicious about a daughter’s behavior, my guess is that the whole school knows the truth of the behavior, anyway. And if it’s really as bad as presented, said daughter has probably an I-don’t-give-a-shit attitude about it as well.
The bitches publishing something like this on their blog may not have been terribly discreet, but seriously it’s not like they took it to Jerry Springer!
*This post was heavily informed by my inner 15 year old (and heavily edited because she curses more than I do).
Ciar Cullen said on 05.17.07 at 04:47 PM • [link]
SB: As a former Triskelion author, I’m not a stranger to the struggles of the people who have been affected by this, trust me. Nor am I unmoved by what they are going through. I’ve received dozens of emails from people wondering “how I got out.” This was a kerfuffle from a few years ago, in which several of us left.
I take it this message was posted on a Triskelion’s Yahoo business group. Whether it is held in a google cache or not, whether everyone in the world has access to it or not, authors do agree that business loops are confidential when they join.
Look, they’re angry and hurt. I get it, I was too a few years ago and I blathered on to anyone who would listen. I regret it, and they will too as they seek out new publishers, who look at how authors conduct themselves publicly.
If RWA has suspended Triskelion, then you can say that, of course. Warn authors that the shit is hitting the fan, whatever.
Still think it’s wrong to publish something like this, even if it may have been an error in judgment on the writer’s part to trust the loop.
Trista Ann Michaels said on 05.17.07 at 04:59 PM • [link]
You can’t tell them their wrong. They think it’s funny. The ‘you’ve gone too far, bitches’ post is testiment to that.
This letter has brought people to their site. They’re loving it, feeding off it. And that’s a shame.
Want to write for Liquid Silver, EC or Triskelion and have questions? My email is on my website, I’ll be more than happy to answer them as unbiased and as HONESTLY as I can. Want to know the fact behind the suspension, then how about emailing RWA. Get the answers straight from the horse mouth instead of believing crap that’s floating around the web.
Every publisher has disgruntled authors, it’s a fact of life. You can’t please 100% of the people 100% of the time and you should take what they say with a grain of salt.
I’m tired of feeding the bottom feeders. Here’s were I can be reached.
http://www.tristamichaels.com
Leslie Dicken said on 05.17.07 at 05:15 PM • [link]
Okay, right now I don’t have the time to read all the comments to this, but I am answering the original question. Yes, I had a book for sale there, and yes I asked for (and received) my rights back on it. My decision is strictly business. With Triskelion deciding to halt print for a time, I felt my book’s sales would not hit their potential. I respect Trisk’s rights to make a sound financial decision to keep the company afloat, but I need think for my own future. My ebook was not selling well there and with no hope for print, I felt I’d lose out on potential readers - if not some decent royalties.
So, all politics aside, I’ve moved on from Trisk. The past year has been a huge learning experience for me. I’m sorry they are facing such a public incrimination, but I do not regret my decision.
~ Leslie
Ann Aguirre said on 05.17.07 at 05:16 PM • [link]
Ms. Michaels,
The bitchery doesn’t need Triskelion or Gail Northman to drive traffic to their site. They’ve opened a discussion on whether Triskelion is a place an author will be treated fairly and can build a career. The resultant discourse is a consequence of Internet dynamics, something the Bitches don’t actually control (contrary to rumors I read on Fark).
In my mind, the question at hand becomes a matter of professionalism. Authors may say what they will regarding the close-knit nature of the group, but it’s my opinion that Ms. Northman’s post was an egregrious breach of the wall that ought to divide one’s personal and professional lives. And you aren’t doing her or Triskelion any credit by calling people names like “bottom-feeder.” Your reaction comes across as emotional, excessive, and ill-conceived. In addition, your open-handed condemnation of others offers a steaming pile of hypocrisy and reminds me of something that seems to fit the situation: Whenever you point the finger at someone, four fingers point back at you.
SB Sarah said on 05.17.07 at 05:20 PM • [link]
Oh, for the love of potpourri. You can certainly tell me I’m wrong. In fact, someone did and I - hold your breath - admitted that I agreed. And edited the post accordingly.
Clearly you haven’t spent enough time around here because Candy and I are forever telling one another how wrong the other is about this, that, or the other thing. The point is, we can disagree without troweling on the pathos or making bizarre ultimatums, calling names, or making dire statements that we’ve “gone too far.” Gone too far for what? Is Doreen REALLY gonna ban us for the internet?
One of the hallmarks of the site is USUALLY disagreement in the comments without name calling, threats, dire predictions of doom and other immature nonsense.
The only thing that happens when there’s overdone pathos like that slung around is that I take the subsequent information far less seriously. If you dress your opinion up with too much drama and self righteous angst, it’s hard to see past the hyperventilating nonsense to the actual matter of the post.
Mel-O-Drama said on 05.17.07 at 05:20 PM • [link]
It’s okay if it’s something you yourself don’t agree with, but there is no right or wrong here. It’s a very big shade of gray.
If I were considering Trisk I would want to know everything about the publishing house I could discover. Knowledge is power. And I want to be well informed. And frankly, for me, the professionalism side of the equation is a big issue. And I’m not just talking about the personal info in Mrs. Northam’s email. I’m talking about the information regarding the Print books, the NSF checks (yes, even just one time is one time too many. That’s a HUGE warning sign) and delayed royalty payments. It’s obvious this has happened often enough that RWA was asked to intervene on behalf of some of their members. That’s the kind of information I would personaly want to know. I can’t speak for others but I can honestly say, I don’t think it’s WRONG this was posted. I think an error in judgement was made regarding leaving the personal info about the kid in the post and it was promptly removed and corrected.
Things will never get better in the industry if we accept substandard treatment. IMO that’s what Trisk has been doing. I hope the restructuring will help and I’m glad that not everyone feels let down by them. I can honestly say that I personally know many more unhappy Trisk authors than happy. And I’m thankful the Bitches are willing to put this info out there for discussion…I’ll say it again, knowledge is power.
There. Dead horse has now been properly beaten.
Not loving the new post said on 05.17.07 at 05:37 PM • [link]
Usually, I enjoy the snarkery. Today? Nope. You’ve slide from Snark to full out Slime.
When Karen posted Katherine Falks’ email the other day - it didn’t bother me. It was addressed to Karen and hers to do with as she pleased. But to post someone’s email, that wasn’t meant for you or addressed to you, reminds me of a cliche highschool movie where the ‘mean girls’ read a private letter over the intercom just to make someones life hell.
And, gee, for all those who are ringing off ‘If you don’t want it read, don’t write it down’. How about ‘Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should’?
Smart Bitches? I think Bitches will do.
Dunkin said on 05.17.07 at 05:38 PM • [link]
Get the answers straight from the horse mouth instead of believing crap that’s floating around the web.
Sorry, but is the authenticity of the email in dispute? because if not, this is straight from the horse’s mouth.
I’ve seen this comment quite a few times in this thread, and it’s crap. Nobody is denying the email is real; therefore this isn’t “internet gossip” but an authentic document (such as it is.) You might not like that it’s out there, but dismissing it as not factual or important or as “gossip” is simply incorrect.
This email is news. Why wouldn’t the Bitches post it? If this email was sent by George Bush and the NY Times got ahold of it, would you people be saying what a horrible, shocking shame it was and why would anyone want to post it? Honestly.
Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t make it cheap and unimportant.
Teresa said on 05.17.07 at 05:39 PM • [link]
I too am grateful to the SBs for giving a forum for discussion.
Also think it should be clarified that so far RWA has NOT suspended Triskelion, it has only revoked their invitation to officially attend the conference in Dallas and take appointments.
Stephanie said on 05.17.07 at 05:42 PM • [link]
First - I’m so sorry I missed this yesterday and am so late to the game.
Second - The last few posts by Lynne C and Trista were more rational and logical than ANYTHING said by Gail. You guys should be EIC.
Forget being stunned and frankly embarrassed for this woman who would post such things about her children on a loop - but the absolute lack of professionalism should be - more than anything else imo - very alarming to the authors who write for this house.
The “You’re either for us or against usâ€? mentality of Gail’s response is just one of the justifications for removing her from this position.
Her defenders have called her honest and sincere, but does she make good decisions? Does she buy the rights to the best books avaliable? Is she capable of running a business? Is this woman going to help authors make $$$$$?
Reminder folks. Publishing is about buying good books that you think people will like enough to buy in order to make a profit for the author and the publisher. MONEY!!!!! Say it with me.
For the authors who have had success with this company - congratulations. Frankly as an H/S writer I was really impressed by the one poster who said she had booksignings and speaking engagements lined up!
Wow - speaking engagements. That’s cool.
But after reading that letter if I was a Trisk author I would RUN not walk to get my rights back reglardless of any success I had in the past.
Or if I cared enough - I would demand that this woman be removed from this position.
Anyone who would send a reply to her author base as a response to a rational letter from RWA - is simply not fit to be in a position that will impact other people’s livelihood.
And I’m sorry but I have to laugh at those who were so outraged by the posting of this blog. Your outrage should be directed at Gail and Gail only.
“It’s not personal - it’s business.”
Didn’t the Godfather teach you anything?
Not loving the new post said on 05.17.07 at 05:45 PM • [link]
I’m sorry? You’re comparing SMTB to THE NEW YORK POST???? Get out more.
And since were talking about opinions. I’m allowed mine.
Dunkin said on 05.17.07 at 05:55 PM • [link]
I’m sorry? You’re comparing SMTB to THE NEW YORK POST???? Get out more.
No, I wasn’t comparing it to anything (and I used the TIMES in my example), merely illustrating the point that as far as news in this industry goes, that email is news, and that no news outlet, no matter how big or small or niche, is going to turn down news.
I wasn’t saying Gail Northman is George Bush either. Most people can understand how an illustration works. If you can’t, maybe you should get out more.
ceilidh said on 05.17.07 at 06:19 PM • [link]
Tangential to the current topic, I have what are probably two very naive questions. I am not an author nor am I in anyway invloved in the biz other than as a romance reader. I am not versed in the ways of the RWA. From what I understand RWA acts as writers’ advocate, yes? As such do they have, for lack of a better comparison, a Better Business Bureau like component that would inform an author of any complaints about a publisher RWA has acted on? That with what I would expect to be honest reporting of the state of, and my future with, the house would be used to make an informed decision whether to submit to the publisher or not. But I think I would also want any anecdotal author insight and yes, scuttlebutt(one of my favorite words) gleaned from a forum such as SBTB to add to that.
Secondly I was confused about a statement made in the letter from RWA to Triskelion:
“A recent review of your company’s website lists 154 authors of which 93 are RWA members, a clear indication that Triskelion found 60% of its authors through RWA.” Huh? How does this follow? Are authors asked a question like, “Did you chose your publisher based on contact made with them via RWA?” How does RWA know that’s how Triskelion found their authors? From my outside perspective that seems like a mighty big assumption.
Long and rambling but darn it I’m curious.
Kaite said on 05.17.07 at 06:25 PM • [link]
To quote one of my favoritist authors evar, “Personal isn’t important. It’s just personal.”
For one, I don’t want to work for someone who has such weak boundaries between professional and personal. I don’t give a crap about your life, and I seriously don’t want you up in mine. Just publish my books, give me my money and shut up about it.
I’m glad they published this letter. Between her poor judgement in telling all to 200 of her closest friends (OMGWTFBBQ up with that? Sweet Jesu, I blush when I confess to my priest and he took vows to God to keep crap secret; what is her problem?)—things which, frankly, I had no notion of until I read the comments and Gail’s biggest defenders were crying about what Candy had posted IN DETAIL. If you’re going to bitch about her posting it, STFU about it yourselves, eh?—and the chaotic fashion in which she was writing, I have no faith in her professional abilities.
Romance writing needs to be professional. Otherwise, it’s too easy to dismiss as a bunch of “silly girls” writing dirty stories and flapping their hands around in distress. In this case, she is acting like a silly girl and she needs to grow up.
Not Liking This Post said on 05.17.07 at 06:25 PM • [link]
Ya know, Dunkin. For someone who’s all over the free-speech bitchery bandwagon, you sure do seem to have a problem when people’s opinions differ from yours.
I disagree that email is news. News is news. Emails are emails. And, when people try to make news out of other peoples emails… that’s indeed trashy . But, hey, if you’re cool with that, more power to you.
Acajou said on 05.17.07 at 06:50 PM • [link]
I have to delurk for this. I first read this blog post from the when it was first posted. I was horrified that Ms Northman had horrible punctuation, verbal diarrhea with the TMI. I was not horrified that the SBs printed the email because it seems clear to me that Ms Northman already knew people were forwarding her “private” emails. As a plain ole genre reader it seems to me that the SBs did the writing community a service by pointing out real management problems at Triskelion publishing. Ms Northman’s email alone points to many problems ( mismanagement, lack of strategic planning, understaffing, financial difficulties, lack of professionalism etc). The responses by Triskelion authors show me that small e-presses are suffering what many small nonprofit enterprises suffer from business relationships marked by the lack of boundaries (too much personal info, too much hugging/handholding and koombaya-ing and not enough time paying attention to the business). Its always business. Can you do your job (publishing books, serving dual diagnosis clients or whatever you do)or not? Its clear that Triskelion is having trouble doing the basics which means publishing books.
previously pubbed with triskelion said on 05.17.07 at 07:09 PM • [link]
~I disagree that email is news. News is news. Emails are emails.~
Gail’s personal family issues aside, the purpose of the e-mail had been to INFORM those 200 authors on the Triskelion loop of RWA’s letter and to offer to return rights to anyone dissatisfied. That is NEWS. It’s news to anyone who is affected by this, whether it’s the authors happy with Trisk, authors that are not happy, or authors sitting on fence trying to decide what to do at this point.
The RWA contacted Triskelion THREE times regarding complaints, and for the record they’ve been looking into Triskelion’s business dealings with their authors since at least March. They didn’t come to this decision to withdraw the invitation overnight (though recent talk of ceasing print and restructuring at Triskelion probably didn’t help) and have been investigating NUMEROUS complaints, not just one or two.
JulieT said on 05.17.07 at 07:16 PM • [link]
To put this in perspective, I write non-fiction articles, not fictional novels. (Plus I run a fairly successful blog and on-line biz.) I spent much of my early adulthood working as an accounting clerk for banks and other businesses so it’s possible I’ve got a stuffy and uptight idea of how business should be done.
That said, my first response to that letter, while reading it, was ‘oh damn, that’s unprofessional’, long before I got over here and read the comments. My second thought was that if the publisher/editor I work with regularly started putting out letters like that on the e-mail loop, I’d start looking for someone else to work with. Period. I’d be far more worried about the ‘if you’re not for us, you’re against us’ sentiment than the personal info, on a professional level. That and the implication that she has no idea how information moves on the internet.
Whether or not she’s using her personal life to excuse her business dealings, she obviously has no clue how the internet works. I always, always assume that anything I say about anyone (including my family) on line will eventually get back to them. In my blog I have variously made comments about scientific foundations (CERN), authors, and museums (British Museum), and know for a fact they’re paying attention because I’ve heard back from them. For anyone in the e-publishing industry to not have a concept of that is so incredibly short-sighted as to be a major hindrance in their career. Not to mention it should scare the shit out of anyone thinking of working with them. What information will she give out next? Will it be yours?
I hope they all get their personal lives straightened out, sincerely, but if I were currently shopping for an e-publisher, I’d want to know this and I’d be thankful to the Bitches for giving out this information. And I’d chart a very wide course around them.
Amy E said on 05.17.07 at 07:39 PM • [link]
For someone who’s all over the free-speech bitchery bandwagon, you sure do seem to have a problem when people’s opinions differ from yours.
I know there’s Godwin’s Law (in a flame war, the first person to toss out the Nazi comparison loses) but is there a similar law about Free Speech? Because there so should be.
As has been pointed out a bazillion times in multiple forums, Free Speech doesn’t guarantee agreement. It just guarantees that you can have an opinion and say it. So far, depsite many opinions being tossed around, I haven’t seen the Bitches say something like, “Yo, Amy E. You’re not allowed to have that opinion.” No—they may say it’s a stupid one, but they don’t say I can’t have it.
Let’s call it Amy E’s Law—in a flame war, whoever starts whining that their Free Speech rights have been infringed by disagreement from others on the loop, loses. Yeah, I like the sound of that.
Rosemary said on 05.17.07 at 07:44 PM • [link]
Just for shits & giggles, I present for y’all the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary definition of “News.”
Main Entry: news
Pronunciation: n(y)üz
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English newes, from plural of new, newe, adjective, new; probably translation of Middle French nouvelles
1 : a report of a recent event : new information : fresh tidings
2 a : what is reported in a newspaper, news periodical, or news broadcast b : matter that is interesting to newspaper readers or news broadcast audiences : matter that is suitable for news copy
From what I can tell, definition 1 qualifies this as news for most people.
I am such a damn librarian, because of all the shit that’s being thrown around, I run to the dictionary to argue word definitions.
bam said on 05.17.07 at 07:46 PM • [link]
Won’t someone make a Wiki of that already? ;)
Jeri said on 05.17.07 at 07:46 PM • [link]
There was a similar kerfuffle in SFWA late last year. After Harlan Ellison’s infamous ‘tit-grab’ of Connie Willis at the Hugo Awards, a lot of heated words were exchanged on the private SFWA loops. One author made those heated words public, and for that he was censured for one year, which meant partial loss of membership benefits. (The poster was censured, not Harlan—he got to keep his Grandmaster Award.)
Yes, we should be careful what we post/e-mail/say on unsecured phone lines/whisper in our sleep, but when the rules state DO NOT FORWARD POSTS WITHOUT PERMISSION, it’s unprofessional and just plain wrong to do otherwise.
If we all just followed one simple rule, “Don’t be an asshole,” the world would be a better place.
Jeri said on 05.17.07 at 07:53 PM • [link]
And it’s possible that by stating that rule, I might have just broken it. Oh well. Everyone think about fluffy bunnies for a few minutes.
anony-cat said on 05.17.07 at 08:09 PM • [link]
I have heard from more than one source that there are different tiers of writers at Trisk—you’re either The Sh*t or Jack Sh*t and I believe it. I remember back six months or so ago being offered a contract from Trisk, who had just been RWA approved.
They refused to actually detail in the contract how long I was signing the rights to my story over for and they refused to negotiate. They REFUSED to negotiate the contract (and they were incredibly snotty about it to boot).
New York negotiates….all the time. That’s why we have agents, right? But Trisk said no and so did I.
Lynne Connolly said on 05.17.07 at 08:21 PM • [link]
You said: Her defenders have called her honest and sincere, but does she make good decisions?
Yes. Overwhelmingly. She’s made decisions that have effectively tripled my sales in the last two years. She helped to brand my main series, she helped me to brand myself, something not many editors with publishing companies do. She’s also been instrumental in introducing the new website.
You said: Does she buy the rights to the best books avaliable? Is she capable of running a business? Is this woman going to help authors make $$$$$?
Oh yes. If she didn’t, friend or not, I wouldn’t be there. Her assessment of a book is superb, as anyone attending her recent class at RT would have seen.
You said: But after reading that letter if I was a Trisk author I would RUN not walk to get my rights back reglardless of any success I had in the past.
No, not with Gail in charge. Very astute, but at the moment very stressed.
You said: And I’m sorry but I have to laugh at those who were so outraged by the posting of this blog. Your outrage should be directed at Gail and Gail only.
It was unethical to post it here. The post was on a private loop, meant for employees and authors of Triskelion. Whatever you think of Gail, whatever you think of Triskelion, or of the RWA, the ethics and lack of them are clear.
It went to other blogs, too, the poster obviously wanted blanket coverage. The Bitches are the only ones who actually posted it.
Stephanie said on 05.17.07 at 08:29 PM • [link]
“Romance writing needs to be professional. Otherwise, it’s too easy to dismiss as a bunch of “silly girls†writing dirty stories and flapping their hands around in distress. In this case, she is acting like a silly girl and she needs to grow up.”
Amen Katie. I hate to say it but when this kind of stuff happens it just gives critics another opportunity to point at us and snicker.
We need to do it smarter, cooler and more professionally than anyone. This is going to leave a black mark on Trisk,on epublishing and sadly I think on romance.
How people are still defending this woman’s actions - I’ll never understand. Forget about the privacy/posting/bloging/news-not-news issue. Over 200 authors on a loop were essentially sent an email by the head editor of their publishing house explaining some “facts.”
We start with the ... “we lost money too…” argument.
Followed with sarcasm directed at RWA.
The “If you don’t want to play by my rules - fine take your ball and go -” argument. (And someone actually tried to put a positive spin on that!)
The threatening - you’re either with me or against me portion of the email - my personal favorite.
Edning wiht the - you need to feel sorry for me because I have personal issues.
I think her followers - and they are vocal - need to stop worrying about the fact that the information got “leaked” and start reading again what was said in this email.
Kalen Hughes said on 05.17.07 at 08:34 PM • [link]
The Bitches are the only ones who actually posted it.
And for this, we thank them. This kind of information is vital and necessary to those who might be considering publication with Triskelion, IMO. Lots of people thought their receiving RWA recognition was questionable in the first place, and this whole kafuffle just serves to further reinforce the idea that perhaps that recognition was made in error.
Candy said on 05.17.07 at 08:41 PM • [link]
This is not helping to elevate discourse, but I seriously, seriously cannot resist posting this picture. So, to all y’all who are “Fare thee well, Bitchy Interblag, I will not sully my pristine fingers and thoughts with your polluted discourse evah again”:
Just be grateful I’m not resorting to Lolcats.
Dude, we quoted an e-mail from Gail motherfucking Northman. I’m not sure how much more factually verified something can be than QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM A PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION. What more do you want? A letter from the Attorney General? A Noodly Appendage descending from the skies and touching your outstretched finger and bestowing perfect enligtenment (and unlimited beer and strippers) upon you, RAmen? I mean, seriously.
As for harping that authors should run for their lives, this is exactly the extent of the commentary that Sarah published regarding whether or not authors should run like damn and like burning from Triskelion:
Good heavens. Business drama plus pathos equals extra drama like damn.
That said, good gracious. Anyone in the Bitchery want to comment or confirm the scuttlebutt? And if you have your rights with Triskelion, will you ask for them back and shop elsewhere?
It seems like there’s been some serious filling-in-the-blanks here, because Sarah asked for more information, and didn’t offer much in the way of opinion. Do we have a problem with Internet Reading Comprehension here?
‘Scuse me? Is Dunkin—or anybody else, for that matter—attempting to revoke your right to post your opinion? Is anybody else pulling a Doreen and suggestiong that we ban you (or anyone else, for that matter) from Teh Internets, or suggesting that you be sued for your opinion?
You’re being disagreed with, not silenced. Get over it, and stop invoking Amy E’s law.
Nice that you have that demarcation there, but e-mails sometimes become news if they’re, well, newsworthy. Now, one can certainly debate about whether the dealings of bugnutty people running a small press is newsworthy, but Sarah thought it was, and I agree with her.
And now comes the part of the comment thread wherein I would like to quote parts of the e-mail that made me go WTF long and hard. I am, in fact, going to offer commentary, which Sarah, being a much nicer Bitch than I am, utterly refrained from providing.
Now, keeping in mind this e-mail was posted to a Yahoo Group with at least a couple hundred members:
Since it seems that there are those that are happy to go running to the RWA for everything including the fact that I am now Publisher or will be at the end of the month… and send details of private emails to Allison Kelley - I’m obliging by posting her letter to us….
We’re at the starting line, and already all my alarms are shrieking, because:
1. This person sounds petty, angry and vengeful about something the authors had every right to do, i.e. go to the RWA with complaints about their treatment.
2. She’s engaging in a game of tit for tat. It’s one thing to engage in immature escalation in, say, an Internet forum, and God knows I occasionally delight in Internet escalation and will, in fact, cop to being a douchebag, but what is the point, exactly, of doing something like this in a business loop? What does it accomplish? How does it help her business, or her authors, or her editors?
The posted e-mail from Alison Kelley didn’t strike me as particularly offensive in tone; I will, however, note that Kelley’s assertion that the number of RWA members in the ranks of Triskelion authors = proof that Triskelion has used the RWA to recruit is puzzling at best and howlingly terrible use of statistics at worst. Bad RWA liaison! Back to math class for you!
But on to other sketchtacular bits of Northman’s e-mail.
I also might add - I didn’t realise one had to RWA with changes in the company management and editors.. editors come and they go.
Nowhere in Kelley’s e-mail did I notice any registered complaints about changes in staffing. The complaints addressed were, in the order stated in Kelley’s e-mail: delayed royalties, NSF checks, problems with reversion of rights, print runs being delayed or outright cancelled, and Triskelion admitting IN WRITING that they had bitten off more than they could chew. The staff changes were a footnote at the end of Kelley’s e-mail, sort of the fucked-up cherry to top off the cupcake of fuck-uppery, if you will.
So on top of coming off as a vengeful sort, I’m registering that Northman seems to have issues with reading comprehension as well—or it’s a straw man to make the Big Bad RWA seem meaner than they are.
you are either with me / us or against me / us.
And now let’s slather some False Dichotomy Icing on top of the Cupcake of Fuck-Uppery, shall we?
And then there’s the TMI she posted, which I won’t repeat here, which were the OMGWTFBBQ candy sprinkles of on top of the Cupcake.
Seriously, re-read that e-mail and tell me it was in any way a sane or professional decision to post that in a forum with members in the triple digits. If she’d ranted about this to somebody in private or among a small group of friends, that’d be something else entirely, and Sarah and I would never have contemplated posting this, because there’s an expectation to privacy with private e-mails that we wouldn’t have breached. This reads like a semi-public electronic middle-finger extended to the RWA and any authors who’d complained to them about their treatment, and now it’s just become a whole lot more public.
There’s some moral grey area here, sure, (my take is: private loop or not, for the love of puppies and ponies, it had OVER TWO HUNDRED MOTHERFUCKING PEOPLE) but c’mon. Some of you are acting like we hacked into her account and posted her mash notes and private journal entries.
Those of you who are interested in More Coverage should head to Dear Author, where Jane has posted statements from the RWA, two different Triskelion authors and Gail Northman herself addressing this dust-up. (Assertions of Chinese whispers distorting the situation are puzzling, because her words were passed on verbatim.)
Michelle said on 05.17.07 at 08:45 PM • [link]
I think you hit it on the head. There are already too many stereotypes of women not being able to think rationally, or logically, or to even be able to handle the stress of the business world without falling apart. Then there is something like this where supposedly “professional” women are acting shrill, pointing fingers, and using insults instead of logically debating points, and it just seems to justify the stereotype. This does not help romance to earn the respect it deserves.
Also to the author who invited us to check out her books, after this no thank you.
Michelle said on 05.17.07 at 08:53 PM • [link]
Oh my goodness, I think the whole kerfluffle was worth it for this line alone: “And now let’s slather some False Dichotomy Icing on top of the Cupcake of Fuck-Uppery, shall we?”
Candy you rock!
Celine C said on 05.17.07 at 09:04 PM • [link]
As a “former Trisk author” who had her books thrown back at her without asking… All I can say is that any publisher who treats her authors like “dirt” is liable to get buried alive in their own much some day.
It’s happened sooner than I thought, too.
JulieT said on 05.17.07 at 09:06 PM • [link]
Since we’re kinda beating a dead horse, anyway, I thought I’d add further thoughts from the accounting-clerk-turned-author viewpoint (which would be mine).
My understanding of how royalties work is, the author gets a negotiated percentage from each sale of each book, as stated in a mutual contract. It could be argued, then, that the royalty money belongs to the author from the get-go and is simply being held in trust by the publisher until such time as they write the monthly, quarterly, or whatever royalty checks, at which time it is then turned over to the author. If that is the case, then any royalty checks written out of the royalties account that bounce means that they’re using authors’ money - which legally does not belong to them - to pay the bills. No matter how you slice that, it’s very, very bad. It may or may not be something you can prosecute, but it certainly indicates very bad business decisions.
Someone on this comment thread said something to the effect of ‘that happens all the time’. No, in fact, it does not. I’ve worked as a clerk in quite a few businesses, small and large, and usually bouncing checks are a sign of the business going under. Everyone seems to be getting bogged down in the personal side of it (with the loyal friend statements), but it’s not friendship, it’s business, and they’re bouncing checks.
Leslie Kelly said on 05.17.07 at 09:23 PM • [link]
This whole issue of internet privacy is very interesting given today’s article on MSNBC.com titled “Friends Don’t Let Friends Join MySpace.” The entire article is about how there is no such thing as privacy on the internet. Something you post today can turn up a few years from now and bite you in the ass (or cost you a job!)
There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy on the internet. And while I sympathize with Gail Northam’s problems in the letter, to think it wouldn’t be forwarded was naive at the very least.
And BTW…if I ever posted anything so personal and vile about my 15 year old daughter to 200 people, many of whom I’d never met, she’d never forgive me….nor should she.
Stephanie said on 05.17.07 at 09:55 PM • [link]
Lynn - it sounds like you’ve had success and maybe Gail had something to do with this - or maybe you write fantastic books.
I won’t question what this woman did in the past. I have no idea. I MUST question an excecutive’s decision to send an email like this to her authors. (As I said - I take offense to this even though I don’t write for Trisk because it really paints a very negative picture of our industry)
Surely you can at least agree that this was an unprofessional thing to do and qualifies as a poor decision.
This was a loop of authors who write for this house. This was a message from the “head” of the house to these authors.
Obviously you support her - but can you truly say you support this this message?
Jewel said on 05.17.07 at 10:30 PM • [link]
They refused to actually detail in the contract how long I was signing the rights to my story over for and they refused to negotiate. They REFUSED to negotiate the contract (and they were incredibly snotty about it to boot).
I signed my contract with Trisk last July. I did read the entire contract they sent, the standard one they send each author, and there is a clause in there that does detail how long they hold your rights. There is also a clause where you or they can opt out.
Without disclosing, because there is a non disclosure clause, I didn’t like one or two points in the contract and I negotiated those points to our mutual satisfaction. At no time was anyone snotty about my reservations and they were quite willing to discuss my needs and make adjustments. Triskelion was very up front about thier needs also which made compromising easier on us both.
I can’t say why your experience was different unless what you wanted was not possbile for them to either give or do. But even then, there is no reason for anyone to be “snotty” to anyone else. If you cannot agree, then you can go your seperate ways. You can submit your work to another publisher, and Triskelion can offer to publish someone else.
Valerie said on 05.17.07 at 11:38 PM • [link]
JulieT
The bouncing checks were a ONE TIME thing when their payment process got mixed up. It has been sorted out and will not happen again.
Sheesh!!! You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill!!!
Valerie
Valerie said on 05.18.07 at 01:26 AM • [link]
Acajo,
Ms Northman is just taking over the helm at Triskelion, infact she is not offically in charge until June…so why are you all accusing her of anything? Give the woman a chance, willya????
Valerie
anonymous said on 05.18.07 at 03:17 AM • [link]
“Most ebook publishers converse with their readers and fans on their public groups about personal things at their choosing, just seems to be the way it is in that market.”
This is what bothers me the most about this topic. Things are obviously out of control at Triskelion (despite how hard some people are working to blind themselves to the truth) and it’s the rest of the e-pubs who get tarred with the same brush.
Another Pam said on 05.18.07 at 04:06 AM • [link]
“Most ebook publishers converse with their readers and fans on their public groups about personal things at their choosing, just seems to be the way it
is in that market”
Seeing this again, I have to correct my own mistake in that I meant to say “most ebook authors” not “publishers” in that sentence, and referring to (some) authors and readers alike sharing.
AJ said on 05.18.07 at 04:55 AM • [link]
Spinsterwitch, I don’t disagree with you. Yeah the other high school kids probably know more dirt on kids than their parents do. Still, I work with my mom now. I’d be pretty pissed if had she spread my high school transgressions around (and I wasn’t all that bad). Considering a lot of companies google and check myspace before hiring now, maybe parents ought to think twice before posting anything about their children on the internet.
Comparing what was historically true to today’s standards is a bit unfair. In the grand ol’ US of A we have a very long adolesence. We’re living longer so of course our childhoods are longer. I don’t really think that’s a valid justification of what was done. Right or wrong, culturally, we choose to protect teenage girls. We also encourage the idea that young adult years are for screwing around (pun not intended). So, anyway I agree that the girl is shaming herself, but I don’t think mom needs to compound that.
Ann Aguirre said on 05.18.07 at 05:06 AM • [link]
I’m touched and overwhelmed by your support of WWND. *wipes a tear*
I would like to thank my parents, without whose drunken fumblings and glassy-eyed protestations of “WHAT THE HELL DO WE DO NOW?” none of this would be possible.
Amy E said on 05.18.07 at 09:19 AM • [link]
I admit to a quiet little squee of delight when Candy referenced Amy E’s Law. Joy and glee!
I’ve had an employer bounce my paycheck exactly once in my life. (It wasn’t a publisher, btw, it was a restaurant.) They also said they’d written my paycheck on the wrong account. They folded three weeks later. Not implying that Trisk is about to fold or anything, but to say that sending out a bunch of NSF royalty checks is making a mountain of a molehill is truly naive. Wrong account or no money in the right account, it still means poor accounting practices, and that *is* a mountain.
I’m currently published with Loose-id, Changeling, and Samhain, so I’m not entirely talking out my ass here. I write because I love it, but I’m published because I want to sell it. I don’t need buddies, I need business partners.
It all boils down to whether you want a focused business relationship, or if emotions and personal issues should be allowed to cloud the waters. Decide what you want from your publisher and go with it, but I want mine to sell the hell out of my books first and foremost. If I find I have something in common with my publisher or editor and we build a friendship from there, that’s one thing, but the business side has to come first. End of story.
Laura Vivanco said on 05.18.07 at 09:47 AM • [link]
‘My comment specifically is about the “protecting the children†theme that seems to offend people. I’m all for protecting children and keeping them safe and all, but I think that we overreach when we define protections for children below the age of puberty the same as children who are above the age of puberty.’
Spinsterwitch, I’d argue that it’s right to protect the privacy of adults as well as children. Clearly sometimes there is a legitimate ‘public interest’ reason to reveal details of an individual’s personal life, but in general this isn’t the case. For example, in my opinion, the affairs of politicians are irrelevant unless (a) the politician is standing on some ‘moral’ platform and is therefore guilty of hypocricy (b) the affair also involves abuse of power e.g. trying to get the girlfriend’s wage increased when she works in the same organisation and this is against the rules (c) if there is some other illegality involved (d) if the girlfriend is a spy or the affair in some other way compromises state security (e) if the events demonstrate that the politician is prone to complete ‘moments of madness’ and may therefore be mentally unstable. Otherwise, I don’t think a politician’s personal life is ‘news’ and the privacy of the other parties should be protected unless they themselves choose to make it public.
In this case it’s the publisher-to-be who is the public figure (as far as romanceland is concerned), but the activities of any of her family members are not news and their privacy should, in my opinion, be protected, even if she herself made unfortunate revelations. It was the rest of the email which contained news and, if anything, the inclusion of the TMI section has distracted attention from the significant issues concerning Triskelion.
AJ, re ‘So, anyway I agree that the girl is shaming herself, but I don’t think mom needs to compound that.’
We don’t know any of the details of the matter apart from what was revealed by a clearly stressed mother who has been travelling and so presumably received any information about her children second-hand. In those circumstances, how can we be sure that the mother isn’t over-reacting? It does happen and parents do sometimes make overly-negative assessments of what their children are up to on sometimes rather limited evidence.
Susie Q Author said on 05.18.07 at 08:42 PM • [link]
…As you know, I have written to advise you of complaints against your company on least three occasions.
Okay, here’s my beef with y’all harping at SB for releasing this (yes, I am focusing on the “liars, all a bunch of liars and troublemakers†portion of today’s melodrama), that’s three times RWA has contacted Trisk for something. Do you think that only a couple/few people have complained? Hell no. That’s many complaints that people have made and to the point RWA had to investigate and felt compelled to speak to the company about it—on not one occasion but three.
Shoot ~ I could say my publisher infringed on my contract in hopes of getting them in trouble with RWA whether it was true or not. Do you think that RWA will say “Oh my, Susie Q Author has been compromised; we must holler at the publisherâ€.
They have lawyers that ensure that they proceed within their rights of workings. They will have verified the facts to make sure I, Susie Q isn’t spewing sour grapes for vomit sake.
AJ said on 05.20.07 at 09:52 PM • [link]
Laura Vivenco, let me clarify my point. I don’t know whether Northman was overstating, understating, or just plain making shit up. To me that irrelevant. Even though an adolescent is accountable for their own actions, I can’t see any way that regaling a large group of people with personal details about her daughter’s life is helpful. If there is a problem, announcing it from the rooftops isn’t a viable solution.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments