Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I need to digest some before being able to coherent commentary—for whatever it could be worth—but I wanted to let you know that link to Selah March’s quote Jane gives is broken.

Just a quick comment here.  There is active prejudice in the world of romance novels.  Otherwise, men wouldn’t write under female pseudonyms. There are numerous other examples. The audience can be quite cruel to anyone who appears different from what the audience is expecting.

I can’t take time to digest cuz I dont post coherently anyway LOL

” What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized? “

Face it, Authors/Bloggers/Reviewers you’re all public figures and like the Tom Cruise’s and Paris Hilton’s that came before you, you’re left wide open for any and all aspects of your lives to be commented on. Only difference is Tom and Paris are billionaires and well, most authors/bloggers/reviewers are not. LOL
At the convention you’re all at a public event and hell yeah you’re open to scrutiny and comments. Why go if not to gape at the authors and people you’ve met online and form opinions and have opinions formed about yourself? (yeah yeah you go for the free books)

Nora Roberts commenting on Kenyons hat..well, geeze. Why does someone wear a big hat?
1. to hide bad hair day.
2.to get attention from a bold fashion statement.
3. to piss people off who might be standing behind them.
4. to get nora roberts attention!
(on sale soon, the big ass swan hat for the nora roberts bobblehead doll!)

now.. off to read the blogs to see what I really should be commenting on and see if I find some coherence lol

I’m soooooooo glad I quit reading that thread when it was only a tropical storm. *sigh* Last I saw it was still a mostly civil debate about the appropriateness of costumes at RWA (especially when worn outside of the literacy signing).

I really don’t know what to say here other than, WTF? I’m confused. totally confused.  When the comments on the costume thread hit 400 I thought, “Damn, you would think the blog was about politics or religion. Or both.”

I’m just confused. So, all I will say is that I find it ironic that the biggest complaint was about the lack of “professional” dress (ie cleavage) posted in a supposed “professional” blog. I don’t know…isn’t she a writer? I’m assuming that’s her “writing” blog…anyway, it seems to me that this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. If wearing low cut shirts is unprofessional (uh oh…I’m in a lot of trouble) then it seems to me that it’s just as unprofessional to bandy about personal attacks on a blog you use to promote your writing.

If there had been just a general “I think low cut tops at the RWA conference are unprofessional” then I wouldn’t have batted an eye. I would disagree, because I think professionalism has everything to do with attitude and nothing to do with clothing…but that’s a whole ‘nother post.

I’m just shaking my head over this. So what if you didn’t like the costumes or the cleavage! In the grand scheme of things, this stuff is small potatoes.

No matter what you think of the hat (not for me) or the stockings (so wish I could pull that off I thought they looked fab) the discussion for me should center around the writing profession and the role of marketing. Where do these intersect? Is there marketing that writers shouldn’t do? What responsibility (if any) do we as writers have to others in our professional group?

If we can’t discuss it without being reduced to name calling and vowing never to darken our book shelves with someone’s book, then we do way more damage than any hat to our goal of being professionals. I’m interested in other’s opinions if for no other reason then it helps me clarify and form my own. I didn’t like the hat. Then I had to question why. Was it a personal thing- a hidden anti-water fowl issue or was it something else? I wanted to hear others opinions. If you only want to hear people who agree with you- or if you can’t disagree without being reduced to troll status then I fear we miss the opportunity to grow.

And I still think Nora makes a hell of a bobblehead.

I unsubscribed from comments at around 250, the first time I’ve ever done so.

But thanks for the chocolate suggestion, bitches. Don’t mind if I do…

A random thought, because I totally missed this storm: If this was about a author’s convention in a mostly-male field, such as suspense, would anyone care about “inappropriate” attire? If a male author showed up in V-neck shirt or shorts, who would care?

Culturally and socially, women are made to walk the “power professional bitch with huge shoulderpads”/“whorish young thang using tatas to get ahead” line. We literally get it from both ends. Tempests in teakettles about “provocative” female clothing comes directly from the misogynistic slant in our culture.

Does that make the storm more or less complex?

AN. An author’s convention.

Sheez.

How boring would summer be without the annual RWA kerfuffle. *grin*

I haven’t been there but only seen pics of the ‘offending items’. I must admit I loved the swan hat and thought the other two authors looked cute, but I come from a reenactment background. Since I don’t write romance (I write epic historical fiction) and are here as reader, I won’t comment on the effect swan hats may have on Romance as genre. Personally, I’ve never defended myself for reading or writing anything - I just do it.

There’s a Rockin’ Girl Blogger award making the rounds, and I think you deserve one. You may proudly add the pink icon to your sidebar, because you girls rock. :-)

wow.

Romance authors face such disdain from the outside world, why do they focus that inward, also? Kenyon was adorable, as always, odd, yes, but still - it’s part of her charm. What really is painful to me is the way M&M were hurt because of the comments over their outfits. They looked adorable!

So what if they didn’t wear a button-down suit? It’s a writer’s convention people, not dinner with the president! For my two cents, they should tell everybody to suck donkey balls,STOP READING THE DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM and love their goofy selves!

For Ferfelabat and friends:  “The keenest sorrow is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.”  - Sophocles

For reviewers:  “People ask for criticism, but they only want praise.”  - W. Somerset Maugham

For authors:  “To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.”  - Elbert Hubbard

I found the discussion (what I read…I think I stopped around post 100) to be mainly focused on what it means to be in a professional setting—which I don’t think should be personal. And I think those lines get blurred at RWA because while it’s professional, it’s also a socializing time to get together with old friends and make new ones. So I think some rules (how low your shirt is) can be relaxed, especially if you’re hanging out around the hotel. Because that is you in your own personal space and time.

But if you are in the midst of representing yourself or your employer, just keep it in mind. I would hope that authors/reviewers/whoever understand that. A signing, a reading, a workshop: they’re all public, professional events; imo, that means everything is up for grabs, behavior and content.

First off, whew, am I glad this isn’t my genre. I don’t suppose it would do any good to point out that SF/F writers, agents, and editors get scads of work done at WorldCon, despite the presence of elaborate hall costumes. (Besides, it would be disingenuous of me, since much of that work is sliding toward World Fantasy Con, where the halls are not full of adventuring elves and space rangers. Also, smaller genre. About 5000 people attend World Con.)

I think when it comes to talking about women, sartorial snark is indeed personal. It can be so for the men, too, but there is a centuries-long history of women being catty about each others’ clothing, and it certainly has always been intended personally. It takes several forms:

1. how poor she is
2. what a slut she is
3. how weird she is
4. how not-part-of-our-group she is

In all cases, the trait (lack of money, sexual expression, oddness, not part of the inner circle) is considered by the speaker to be shameful. Whether the recipient of the comment agrees, the intent of the speaker is to wag a finger and say, “You are doing something that makes you inferior to me.”

That said, it is entirely possible for one woman to say to another, “Excuse me, dear, but perhaps you are unaware that dressing in that fashion creates the impression of [bad impression] amongst [people you might not wish to give bad impression to].” However, this statement is best delivered by a friend, and barring that, MUST BE DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO THE WOMAN IN QUESTION, DISCREETLY.

Sorry for the caps, but I feel very strongly about that. If someone really, truly, is trying to be kind and help someone, then they do not wave that shit in public and call attention to it. I don’t care how you phrase it, it’s still going to sound like cattiness, like the lyrics to Blondie’s “Rip Her to Shreds.”

As for reviewers, I think it’s fine for reviewers to sound off on a particular book, as long as they can back it up with excerpts from the text. Think a writer loads up on cliches? Cite a paragraph and show it. Think a writer has lackluster, circumlocutious prose? Example, please.  (I tend to smack down on bad prosody, which authors tend to take personally. I cover my ass in the way we all learned to in college: “It’s in the bleedin’ text, so STFU.”)

I’ve never seen a review on this site that I thought took a shot at an author, other than some on-going, “I can’t stand any books by [insert author here]” themes. That starts to rise to personal mockery, continuously singling out one author (usually Cassie Edwards) as the sort of Evil Overlord of Bad Writing.

Though personally? I don’t have any problem with folks mocking people in public, particularly if the target of the mocking is reasonably public and the mocking is about the things that are public (frex, mocking CE for her writing, fine. Mocking her for, say, her car, would be kinda stupid. Mocking me for my obsessive use of commas is fine).

I have a problem with folks who mock and then deny that they’re mocking. If you’ve got the brass ones to make fun, then have the steel ones to own it. Claims of “I’m just saying what we’re all thinking” or “It’s my opinion!” do not fool anyone.

Yeah, well.

If we were talking about the book signing at the Romantic Times convention then we wouldn’t be talking because the RT signing generally has people in costumes and it is not considered anything but good marketing.

I decided I had to see what Kenyon’s hat looked like (yes, I had heard she was wearing one, but I was sitting in my little spot at the signing all the time and didn’t get over for a first hand peek).

So I did a websearch and sure enough found a picture…from another convention which is definitely fan based.

Apparently SK decided to wear the same hat for her fans at RWA. Liz and Marianne dressed up in what I’ve heard were outfits based on their characters in the Shomi books. They looked pretty cute. I just wish I could get away with that kind of outfit. It would have looked darling 20 years ago.

I’m pretty sure I saw someone at one point in Regency garb but they may not have been signing.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of anyone dressing up at the signing at RWA. Given the flack, I’m guessing it might be the last time.

My feeling about it? To my knowlege no one has ever declared a dress code for the literacy signing. A couple years ago there was this insanity over the possibility of lewd covers at the signing and in addition to the “kids shouldn’t be exposed to that stuff” (and I did see kids at the signing), the underpinning message was that RWA was desperately intent on looking like a professional organization. There was even mention of how they didn’t want their convention to look like RT with all of its craziness.

I love going to RT. That must say something about me.

So, I am not surprised by all this. I’m guessing that next year there will be specific instructions on dressing professionally for the signing. Maybe that should have been said before.

Overall, I’m not really surprised at how nasty things have gotten. I’m disappointed too…partly because of how unsurprised I am.

I do very much wish this wasn’t happening in such a public venue.

Janet Miller/Cricket Starr

I had a major Mom moment, reading this blog post.

“The least said is the easiest mended.”

I’ve written many blog comments that were never posted.  If the subject is something inherently flammable, I step back, give it a moment or two of thought - as in, “Is this going to hurt someone needlessly or bite me in the ass later?” - then decide whether to post or not.  Nine times out of ten, I delete and don’t post the comment.  It’s sometimes difficult, because I know someone has something wrong, that their assumption (usually RWA related) is incorrect.  But I’ve come to realize that in BlogLand, the truth isn’t always favorable.  It’s so much more fun to piss and moan, or poke fun, or climb up on a soapbox and beat one’s chest about inequity.  Or hats and hosiery.  Or cleavage.

I started to click on the links provided, then decided not to.  I read maybe 1/16 of the posts in the orginal SB blog about the hat/hosiery.  After a while, my eyes glazed over and I closed the comments.  So, in all fairness, I confess I haven’t read what prompted Candy, Jane and Sarah to write this blog post.  I suppose I mostly wanted to say I’m sorry things got out of hand and people were hurt.

And I wanted to wear my Mom hat.

I had several very bad moments in Dallas, even a few with women I consider friends.  I was hurt and it’s been difficult to get over it.  But I will, because I realize their anger wasn’t about me - it was about what I represent.  It would have been lovely if they’d approached me as a friend and we had a dialogue about their issues - but that’s not how it shook out.  I could carry a grudge and remain angry and hurt, but what’s the good in that?  Everyone screws up, says something they regret later, and perhaps wish they could take it back.  Sometimes, rather than simply apologize sincerely, they take a more strident attitude, perhaps to cover embarrassment?  I don’t know about this particular blow-up.  I’m strictly speaking in generalizations.

I suppose I just don’t understand what’s so hard about The Golden Rule.  I’ve no doubt hurt others as I stumble through life - but never intentionally, and for certain, if I realize I’ve hurt someone, I immediately grovel for forgiveness.

If I have a serious issue with someone’s blog posts, I email privately and say, “I take exception to what you said, and here’s why: etc.”  They then have the opportunity to respond, out of the public eye.  I’m not saying all controversial subjects should be handled that way, but let’s be honest - some things are better said in private.

And some things are better left unsaid altogether.

“Least said, easiest mended.”

Stopped reading at around 300 or so but for the most part, I thought the smart bitches here were smart cookies. I come here for interesting debate and to hear viewpoints I hadn’t considered. I certainly got that.

I think to accuse someone of being a prostitute or pedophile lure or whatever, just lowers the conversation to the point where nothing of any substance can be said. It’s silly because we’re all people who love words. It’s like when I saw the RWA being compared to Nazism, my eye roll meter goes off the charts.

Can we be passionate advocates of our POV? Sure. Can we disagree with someone we adore? (*waves at Nora and tries not to look like she has a crush*) Yes. Can I personally take it seriously when anyone says Maverick’s thighs ruin the respectability of romance? No. I can’t and that’s obviously a personal bias but there it is. Put differently, can I take seriously a comment that says non-business attire at a signing is unprofessional? Totally (even if I disagree).

I think the thing is, we forget we’re not in our rumpus room (remember those?). People are watching what we do and say and so our “private” squabbles aren’t really private and viewing this stuff from the outside, without benefit of context makes us all look silly.

I’m guessing that next year there will be specific instructions on dressing professionally for the signing.

I don’t see why that follows.  In fact I would hope that would NOT come out of a blog kerfuffle.  This thread is two blogs talking about blogging, and it’s unfortunate to attach that to the swan-pissing contest of last week.  Even the original 600-comment thread wasn’t anything to do with RWA official-like.

I do very much wish this wasn’t happening in such a public venue.

I agree. Enough is enough, or too much sometimes.  This isn’t going to help settle anything.  It’s just further entangling the professionalism/respect/publicity/costumery issues with the respect/courtesy/reviewing/blogging issues.

First, let me focus on an important tidbit in this post:  Dark chocolates filled with port rock.  I hope y’all get the opportunity to try them.

Second, I have a handful of blogs I read every day.  Smart Bitches, Dear Author,  It’s My Blog, and I usually take a look at BAM’s site, but I generally don’t visit the others alluded to in this article.  It’s all about what’s going to be the best, most thoughtful writing on issues of importance to me as a romance writer and reader.  That’s all.  My time is valuable, your time is valuable.  Why waste it in useless conversations that make you feel like you’re being bludgeoned?

And Lilith, if I saw a male author dressed in shorts and a v-neck shirt at RWA, I’d think he was being unprofessional.  It’s not just about gender, it’s about time and place.

How boring would summer be without the annual RWA kerfuffle. *grin*

Sing it, sister.

What I find fascinating about this debate is that it started out pretty calm and intelligent, then one shot was fired, then a bunch of shots, and the next thing you know, it was a damn bar brawl with a mob throwing punches and some not even seeming to know what they were fighting about. Meanwhile, most people kept an intelligent and respectful debate going, ducking the occasional flying beer mug.

So, here’s my stance on it: If someone says, “Gee, Lani Diane Rich might have been showing a little too much boobage at the signing, that’s in poor taste,” I’d be embarrassed (I’ve got a prodigious rack that works against me sometimes) but I’d accept it. I’m a public figure at a public event, what I wear is open for discussion and if I ever embarrass my colleagues, I’d sure as hell like to know. I have friends I trust who I hope won’t let me get that far, but if it happened, I’d like to be aware, whether I agreed or not.

If someone said, “Did you see Lani’s BOOBS? She must be a SLUT! And I bet all her books SUCK, because hotdamnmama, look at what she was WEARING! I’ll bet she’s a PEDOPHILE, too! Whore! She sucks!” then I venture to say THAT would be out of line. And to be honest, it’s an opinion I wouldn’t sweat much. I think once slut, whore, and pedophile enter the debate, the arguer sheds some credibility.

So now, I’m no one-woman-supreme-court of Blogland, but I think there’s your difference. I chose a career in the public eye, when I’m in public, my behavior is up for debate. Now, lucky me, I’m low-level midlist and I have neither L&Ms courage, thighs, nor rockin’ sense of fashion, so most of what I do slides by unnoticed. Which is okay by me. I’m of the “write the best books you can and pray to as many gods as will have you” school of promotion. But promotion and marketing is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, and we’re discussing The Line.

Now, for journalists (I consider reviewers and bloggers journalists, if you disagree, humor me) I’m torn. My gut reaction is that you are not IN the public eye, you ARE the public eye, and therefore anyone who picks on you should just back the hell off. But, in reality, in these circles, you guys are extremely well known, so… are you public figures as well? I don’t know. I didn’t see the site where they picked on what you were wearing, and I won’t go because I tend to get mama bear-ish and I don’t want to be pissed off while writing this, but I’m still inclined to call foul. One, this isn’t your profession. Two, it wasn’t a blogger’s convention, it was a writing convention, and there were no public events where you were on call to represent your industry to the media. Three, it just feels wrong. I know that’s a weak argument, but that’s what my gut says - lay off the Bitches (which includes Jane and all the journalists.) I think it’s a one way street - you guys talk about us. We chose to be public figures; you didn’t. It’s just not the same. I know you two are probably more famous than me - most people are - but still… I drop back to my third argument. It’s just wrong. Someone else come up behind me and argue it better, will you? All I’ve got is my gut, and my gut says it’s a sucker punch.

As authors, we put ourselves out there. Where the SK and L&M discussion was about professionalism at a public event, I thought it was fine. Where the personal slut/whore/pedophile/bitch stuff came in, that was out of line. It’s at that point that I’ll call a foul. And while I think that authors should take the hits and shut up when it comes to reviews, I think that it’s fair play to speak up when someone calls you, say, a pedophile. (Can you tell I’m still pissed off about that?) But what I noticed about Liz and Marianne and Nora, who were the most violently and unfairly attacked, is that they defended themselves, but they never lobbed back. They never said, “I’m not a pedophile, you slut.” And I think that’s where the women separate from the girls.

So… did I answer the question? Or did I just ramble on for days? LOL. I have a tendency toward rambling. Have y’all noticed?

I’m only addressing the “what is a personal attack” part of this, because going through the comments over at Crucugar’s site, I was smacked in the face at the moment it crossed the line (for me). And that’s when she asked “So what did we decide about Candy’s breasts?” 

I mean holy fucking christ. I can’t even make it past that comment because I’m stunned by the cruel mean-girl high school gym locker-room memories of suffocating awfulness it stirs up in me.  It’s just breathtakingly wrong. I haven’t hated my fellow females like that in a long long time. I’m afraid to read further and see what depths it might reach.

So I guess my verdict is: It’s a personal attack when the person being criticized somehow becomes nothing more than a piece of meat.

What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?

Yes, there should be a line drawn.  Is it really that hard to know what is appropriate and what isn’t?  Do we have to talk about a bad hair day (for instance) when we discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of a book?  No.  Is overall appearance and presentation okay to discuss?  I think, Yes.  At my place of employment, and dare I say many others as well, there is a very general dress code and a sort of code of behavior of what’s appropriate and what is not.  The lines of same are discussed all the time.

As for author/blogger/reviewer behavior and whether or not it’s appropriate to comment on it or discuss it.  I think discussion or observations should be made only as it relates to their individual profession or public presence.  The work, not their personal life.

Most of us work.  We have work relationships.  Just because we are communicating via the internet does not throw civility out the window.  My rule of thumb is if I wouldn’t be comfortable saying it face to face in an office setting I probably shouldn’t post it.

One final word, no one wants their opinion, observations, or work legislated, monitored or censored.  I know I don’t.  For the most part I think there are great discussions going on out here in the blogosphere everyday.  Why some people have to resort to the point and laugh method of communicating I’ll never know.

I had never been to that blog before this latest blow-up and I was appalled at the venom eminating from some of the posters there.  They reminded me of high school girls - the ones who would be nice to your face and then trash you behind your back.  I went back and forth on whether to comment there but then decided it would lower me to their level to do so.  Robin tried to reason with them and they attempted to slice her to ribbons.
They took on people I’ve come to know and care about in the on-line community and for the life of me I can’t fathom why - what was the point of it all?
I’ve seen flame wars come and go - but that series of posts and many of the comments went way beyond nasty and entered vicious.

WHO UPSET STEPHANIE FEAGAN??? LEMME AT ‘EM, LEMME AT ‘EM….

Sorry. It’s that damn Mama Bear in me. Stephanie, we’ve only met in passing and you probably don’t even remember me, but you were DELIGHTFUL and phooey on anyone who was rude to you. Double phooey.

And I think you’ve got good advice. But honestly, what I love about this website is that there is so much intelligent debate, and let’s not be quick to throw that baby out with the name-calling bathwater. I think it was an interesting discussion, and those who managed to discuss it respectfully created an engaging debate, which I think is always a good thing. There was a lot of bad stuff going on, you’ll get no argument from me on that, but I think most of it was good, solid stuff and I’m glad I got the chance to hear the differing opinions.

So I think as long as you check yourself for respect (and I personally cannot imagine Stephanie Feagan being anything less than DELIGHTFUL) then you should absolutely jump in with an opinion.

So, m’dear, I will respectfully disagree, while saying that you are DELIGHTFUL. Because you just are.

I think that it is important to look at context and intent.  I personally did not see the big deal about the authors’ outfits, but I can understand, say, Nora Roberts’ argument about not liking the outfits within the context of the event.  She was not judging the outfits themselves, just the appropriateness of wearing them in that particular venue. In my opinion, that is very different than saying an outfit is “pedophile luring.”  That is an attack, no getting around it.

When the issue of meany reviewers comes   up, I always heave a big sigh.  It seems that no one gives people credit for having the brainpower to distinguish the context and intent of the review.  Is it really the author (of the review)‘s intent to cast aspersions upon the author (of the book)‘s looks, intelligence and morals, or are they just saying what didn’t work for them?    Tone and language, regardless.

I find there is a tendency to grab onto a piece of a post or comment and use it out of context, to say, “See, she/he/it said this.”  This totally derails intelligent conversation as everyone scrambles to defend themselves and clarify.  This happens a lot in conversations about race and racism among others.

I’m blathering but I think it comes down to looking at what the comment is judging.  Criticizing a social construct, genre rules and conventions or a piece of writing is different than attacking a person’s, well person.

As for poking fun at a swan hat, I doubt Kenyon wore it to win any Best-dressed awards.  There had to be some humor involved there.  I doubt she’s in tears over comments made here.  She had the cojones to wear a swan hat, for goodness sake!

The wonderful, horrible thing about the Internet is that, not only is everyone entitled to their opinion, but anyone can post it for the whole world to see.

The net would be boring (and fake) if everything was nicey nice all the time. Snark is fun. Look at Television without Pity or Go Fug Yourself. The difference is making the distinction between “Starlet X dresses like a crack whore” and “Starlet X IS a crack whore.”

(I picked a non-bookish site as an example to avoid recent baggage then realized it was still talking about clothes. Oops. Complete coincidence.)

It takes a lot more time and effort to be funny and snarky than it does just to be mean and go for the cheap shot. Blogs are like sex that way. Anyone can do it, but it takes a little work to make it worth shaving your legs.

When a very famous author opined that “Wearing a costume at a “business” function (as vs a private signing) is inappropriate,” that was part of a discussion.  For examples, she brought up three authors in “costume” and gave the reason why.  That gave people an idea what she was talking about.  The fact that it was a world famous author who said this doesn’t constitute remark as an attack on the exemplified persons.

As far as I could tell, no malice intended.

When **koffDebSmithkoff** extrapolated that to conclude these authors who dressed like that were pedophile baits and thus, disgusting, that was NOT discussing but being moralizing.

From where I sit, malice intended.

When a group of other bloggers pointed to this discussion in their own blogs and commented on the topic, then it wass part of the discussion too.  When they write dissenting posts about the topic at hand in their own blogs, that’s a debate.

No malice intended there either.

When a group of other bloggers pointed to the POSTERS in their blogs and snark about the posters’ behavior and appearance, and in general, started a sub-thread of their opinions of these posters with whom they disagree, that’s malicious gossip.  Since it is in a PUBLIC blog, it is intentional malice.

Umm…Big Time Malice pie with a whopping heap of “we’re so much better than that” on top.

Believe me, an observer can tell the difference.

cases84

In my mind that discussion was pretty civilized for as long as it went on. And enough has probably been said on that topic so I won’t say any more here.

What I will say is this: I wish I had the kind of cleavage where 1) I could wear a shirt like Candy did (in any venue) and 2) pictures of my cleavage were then posted on other blogs in an attempt to stir up trouble and get attention. (They are just jealous - I am)

My mother always said “if you’ve got it, flaunt it” ;)

I’m still digesting but—if you’ll forgive some rambling—lemme start with this:

When a reviewer—paid or amateur—dissects a book by saying things like “this particular plot device didn’t work for me because (insert reason),” or “the dialogue felt unnatural/stilted/stiff/whatever, or “there was too much tell and little show, such as when (insert example)” there’s nothing personal there, right? I mean, even if the phrasing goes something along the lines of “and this sucked big hairy monkey balls because…” it’s still about the BOOK, and therefore not personal.

Now, if a reviewer said, “it’s obvious that the author needs to take remedial English” then no amount of “because…” will make it NOT a personal attack on the author.

However, there are times when behaviour can and (dare I say this?) should be scrutinized. And such scrutiny can and must be separated from the person indulging in it. After all, haven’t we all at some point done something so incredibly stupid that, had we not been there, we wouldn’t believe we did it? I know I have, and I’m positive more people have than not.

So I can say that “so-and-so people’s behavior and this particular event didn’t strike me as particularly professional within the context of that specific event/situation/setting,” and such an observation/statement/comment would not mean that I think that so-and-so themselves ARE unprofessional whatevers. The line has not been crossed.

As far as the 630+ comments thread? I was impressed that the great majority of participants managed to both keep on track and behave civilly—and sad over the few who chose to go off on tangents over personal baggage/vendettas (or what I perceived as such—having my own baggage to bring to the discussion)

I really thought the discussion here was great, except for the L and M feeling horrendous part (I feel they weren’t truly attacked except in that one instance,  . . . I’m much clearer on whether or not it was fair to discuss the issue at all. Yes. Image/ad campaigns and books are put out there and so are fair game for criticism. [And I console myself that they must have gained a gazillion readers, including me]) Sure it went on too long, but there you go. The best discussions often do.

I haven’t been attacked by ferfe—well, my politics have been, but heck, I don’t mind that—so she hasn’t gotten under my skin.

I have learned how rotten it feels to be unfairly cast in the role of bad guy. It hurts even when you can see how absurd it is to be attacked by someone for being an attacker.

Pot, kettle to the nth degree. You’re so rude, someone yells rudely, since there’s nothing ruder than someone pointing out bad manners. (Omigod, it’s one of those dressing rooms with the endless mirrors. That’s what that and that discussion started to feel like) 

what I like about Ferfe—she puts her name on her stuff. She is not a coward and she is often funny.

...I do think her skin isn’t as thick as all that and she tends to hit back, instead of running and whinging (my strategy, which I might add, works well. Particularly the running part).

I don’t care what anyone claims. No one’s immune to criticism, except the people who don’t read it.

Gabriele - Is it bad that I read “I haven’t been there but only seen pics of the ‘offending items’” and automatically thought the offending items in question were Candy’s boobs?

I think blogs and blog comments tend to feel very much like a community and even as I watched that RWA thread explode comment-wise, I was impressed that aside from a few trolls and a few whackjob comments from non-trolls, it was professional and smacked of spirited debate.  However, the Cruciger blog excerpts are appalling.  That’s just holier-than-thou cattiness, plain and simple… not to mention really asshatty about blogging.

So what DID we decide about Candy’s rack?  That it’s pretty damn fabulous and I respect you Smart Bitches for always bringing thoughtful commentary… and, oh yeah, mantitty!

So I guess my verdict is: It’s a personal attack when the person being criticized somehow becomes nothing more than a piece of meat.

I *heart* Beth.

PS I’ve had two rules for comment posting rules for the last half year or so.

rule one: don’t say anything on any blog about anyone that you wouldn’t say to that person’s face.

rule two: especially don’t insult people who wield wicked wit with ease.

my newest rule: don’t comment on anyone’s physique or bosom, even when the racks in question are excellent—unless said physique or bosom is oiled and on display for commentary. (eg man-titty or fairy costume at RT)

Holy shitdamn.  I have several thoughts swirling around in my head and all I can come up with is holy shitdamn. lol

1. I will never understand why people seem to be threatened by blogs and message boards that don’t moderate and censure every word that is typed on them.  I personally enjoy sites where I can say what I think and someone else is free to disagree or agree or tell me to shut my trap.  It is the free exchange of ideas that allows people to exercise that muscle in between their ears.  But, I do think it behooves people to think before they type and not hide behind the anonymity of the Internets to say whatever mean and spiteful thing they can, just because they can.

2. While I did not read the entire swan hat/pink stockings thread, the personal attacks on L&M were not made by Candy and Sarah (I can’t imagine that they would anyway) and blaming them for something someone else said is just juvenile.

3. The posting pics of people just for the purpose of criticizing their appearance because you don’t like their blog smacks of high school and a bunch of girls ganging up on another because someone made eyes at someone else’s boyfriend.

4. The slight obsession with Candy’s breasts makes them seem like a bunch of creepy old men leering at her, or like a clutch of Victorian spinster aunts hissing about some young girl they are determined to ostracize from “acceptable” society.  Good hell, this isn’t 1880.  A little cleavage (or thigh for that matter)never hurt anybody.

Monimala, roflol, Candy’s boobies have really taken over. But they’re very nice.

Though can you imagine some men discussing the size of their little or not so little friends online instead of wheather wearing a cowboy outfit at a crime convention is bad style?

What they talk about at the bar is another matter. ;-)

Ok, if there’s a blog collecting pics of other bloggers, here’s mine. :-)

Wow…that comment about Jane and WASP is really racist.

Now that I’ve begun my blog, I see how hard it is to remain subjective, yet share how I felt about a particular book—while not coming across as attacking an author. I really commend the Ja(y)ne’s and Karen and Sybil and Candy and Sarah and all of the review bloggers out there: it ain’t easy.

I am an avid member of many celebrity blogs and some are snarky, some are nice and some are downright bitchy towards celebrities. You can say they deserve it because they are in the limelight, but the line is drawn between a personal attack and snark when someone has an irrational hatred of that particular person.

It’s one thing if you comment on,say, a Paris Hilton post and say “she’s so useless, I wish she’d go away”, but it’s another thing when you say “She’s a tasteless douche bag who should be stuffed in a bag and dumped in the sea”.  Yes Paris Hilton is all that is wrong with society, but the latter comment clearly shows how emotionally involved one is with a person one doesn’t even know!

The fact that Ferfe & Co ripped apart the appearances of review bloggers is way over the line and borders on psychotic. What I don’t understand is why Ferfe & Co has made it their personal vendetta to spew and rant about review bloggers they don’t even have to pay attention to. It’s not as though Candy lives next door to any of them, or Jane is their co-worker, or Karen is their sister-in-law—YOU have a CHOICE of not visiting a blog or website. The fact that they take the time to visit websites authored by people they dislike really shows something.

What I do theorize is that the review blog—or just any place where books are reviewed and discussed online—is threatening to the establishment. And since the audience for e-books is primarily online, the online presence of reviewers threatens their livelihood. After all, you don’t see authors like Anne Stuart or Christina Dodd publicly gnashing their teeth over online reviews and reviewers.

I think to accuse someone of being a prostitute or pedophile lure or whatever, just lowers the conversation to the point where nothing of any substance can be said. - Lauren Dane

EXACTLY! Thank you for stating that.

I think the proof is in the pudding.

I saw that two of the people who were being held up as an example were kinda hurt in general by those comments and from what I read expressed that clearly in their posts. I do not think they thanked anyone for the free fashion advice.

I would myself would have been having severe issues, especially around the time Deb Smith posted, and started yelling for people indiscriminately to go to fuck themselves with a chainsaw no matter how nice they were.

I have to admit it, I have this anger management issue and start rampaging like a bull in a china shop and can become very angry, bitter and caustic, while accused of being “pedophile bait” and contributing to “minors being turned into sex slaves” or something along those lines.

In the end, I think it’s one thing to review a book and say it did not work for you. There is some distance that a writer is expected to have between themselves and their work.

The other stuff, not so much.

But that’s just me, I always say to myself on such occasions What Would Barbara Cartland Do.

So I’m off to buy more house coats, lot’s more vodka and kick my dog.

Please do not hate me,
Mr. Slave

another PS, this is sort of a question for Candy:

Why do you think sometimes the borderline-mean humor works and other times doesn’t? For instance, what’s the difference between the snake example at ferfe’s and the monica jackson “author calming visualization”?

Is it a matter of context? Exaggeration? Or the fact that Monica sent it directly to you so it wasn’t behind your back? Can you think of times when it does work?

(And I know I’m supposed link to examples but I’m not even supposed to be here—I promised myself I wouldn’t do this any more and I clearly lied to myself—so forget making links)

Barbara Cartland kicked her dog???

Oh, Teddy why do you have to break my heart.

I have to add a big hurrah for M&M’s editor, Chris. Classy. None of these people were rude when they waded in the fray in defense of their decision. No matter which direction the debate took (I really like the dodging beer mugs analogy) they kept their cool and showed their professionalism by not drowning in the muck.

I’m second guessing, no doubt about it. I haven’t asked.

But Candy, maybe the reason ferfe dumped that particular example (the thread you saved a screen shot of) was because she finally came to the conclusion that it *was* inappropriate. I can’t see why else she would.

Perhaps proof that your argument has had some success.

Up there Bella said

Romance authors face such disdain from the outside world, why do they focus that inward, also?

For me (and if memory serves there were a couple of people there in agreement) the debate was about how authors’ behavior at professional settings affects the “outside world’s” perception of romance novels, romance writers, and romance readers. From that perspective, it makes eminent sense (to me—YMMV) to clean house first, then head outside to pick trash at the roadside.

Kenyon was adorable, as always, odd, yes, but still - it’s part of her charm. What really is painful to me is the way M&M were hurt because of the comments over their outfits. They looked adorable!

Again, to me, it wasn’t about how adorable or otherwise any of them looked—anymore than it was about how Candy or Sarah or Sybil or Jane were dressed!—but about what image the RWA’s literacy signing presented to outsiders of what the romance genre is about. The authors, as members of the RWA, represent the organization at this event, whereas the bloggers? No more than any other reader of romances would.

So if Candy’s “feathergasm” picture had made it to the papers, the caption would have had to be “romance reader/fan/reviewer” instead of “best seller romance writer”—and that does make a difference, IMO.

So what if they didn’t wear a button-down suit? It’s a writer’s convention people, not dinner with the president!

But—as was repeated ad nauseam on the long ass thread—why are the extremes continuously trotted out here? There’s a huge area between the extremes, for goodness’s sake! Choose a comfortable spot for who you are somewhere along the continuum, and stop fretting about the extremes!

Great post.

First, I’m sorry I contributed to comments on the original thread getting shut down. No excuse except I had just finally had it. 

Second, I think Sherrilyn Kenyon responded *beautifully* to this whole issue: 
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=135494181

Third, Tara Gelsomino wrote a brief piece about the RWA discussion as it relates to second and third wave feminism, and even though I disagree with her conceptualization of the issue (but am a *weeee* bit busy for the next couple of days and can’t yet write a coherent response) I think it’s part 2 (and maybe the REAL issue) of the RWA costume discussion.  I also recommend reading the Steinem piece RfP linked to:
http://accessromance.com/gab/2007/07/23/frankly-my-dear/#comments

4.  I actually think there’s far too little public discussion of controversial issues these days, which is one of the reasons I don’t think we (as a society) do it very well or comfortably.  I don’t think people should be forced to speak when they don’t want to, but I do think the greatest danger to our most fundamental liberties is that we don’t feel the persistent need to protect them—or we forget that the things most important to our basic political and social integrity are also those things we need to actively nurture and protect. 

6.  Strong disagreement is not censorship. I think this needs to be reiterated like a million times.

Monica and I aren’t BFF or anything, but we’re friendly. I dig her. She threatened me with the author calming visualization when I reviewed her book, and she took my review like a trooper (my reviews stop being kind right around B- territory, and In My Dreams got a C-). It was a joke, and we clearly understood it as such.

I think the crucial element is that the author calming visualization was a joke on BOTH of you.  THAT’s kind of where I draw the line (as an extension of your relationship and context points).

I didn’t have any chocolate; I had carrot cake instead - yummmmm!

I don’t know whether to be impressed or appalled at the way this little discussion took on a life of it’s own then multipled all over the place! It was so intelligent and so mature for so long then the longer it went on the more useless the conversation was. And nobody would give an inch of anything. That was just on this blog, then I started hearing about happenings on other blogs. WTF!! And for a while I couldn’t figure out how to disable the comments from coming to my email (I’ve got it now thank you very much). It reminded me of a pack of pitbulls attacking babies - pitiless.

And for what? Nothing was decided or resolved. No RWA board members stepped up and said “Alright already, let’s do this and this from now on.” Actually I don’t think anybody was listening after the first 300 posts.

I’m going on to long. To these people doing the mean girl act - you need a life.

I’ve been quiet throughout this cross blog “discussion.”  Sarah and Candy have done an amazing job of leaving the forum open for communication and I, for one, appreciate it.  I really enjoy Dear Author and love the fact that you are having cross blog debates…

Here is my opinion.  Name calling, snide remarks, and insult slinging, fun though it may be to watch (much like a train wreck), has only one outcome.  Lots of pissed off people and a train that derailed off topic. 

Calling someone unprofessional in one side of the mouth then slamming them for the way the look, act, etc in another doesn’t deserve a response. 

Taking comments out of context is libel.  Plain and simple. 

Ladies, I thought you all looked gorgeous in your pictures.  :-)  Sarah, I wish I glowed like you do when you’re pregnant.  And the teething suggestions you gave me for my son has worked wonders. My husband, my son and I all thank you! Candy, hon, what can I say that hasn’t been said already.  :-)  You looked gorgeous (looove the cowboy hat)!  And Jane, it was fantastic to put that lovely face to your blog. 

My two cents, for what it’s worth.  Have a great week ladies and thank you for keeping this weird world grounded.

Second, I think Sherrilyn Kenyon responded *beautifully* to this whole issue: 
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=135494181

She wears that hat in church? I’m now officially a fan of her. :-)
I ordered some of her books from Amazon.de. I admit, I hadn’t come across her before, but I live in a place with few English books on the shelves.

This is very conflicting for me in a lot of senses. I think I tried to hash it out on my blog, but even there it doesn’t seem to sum it up well.

I will say that I don’t think it is personal to question behavior, because everyone has done something that they wish they hadn’t, and that the something shouldn’t, in most cases, define their lives. But that doesn’t omit it from comment. I have scolded a few and have been scolded by more, and I can appreciate them as people and they me after the fact. I think that behavior should be put in context, however. If it was a one time thing, or a continual hash, for example.

Jeez. I wish someone could get what I’m saying, because I sure as hell can’t.

And for what? Nothing was decided or resolved.

But does a discussion have to be resolved in any specific way to be valuable?  I don’t think anyone really wanted universal action; it may be my perverse attachment to ambivalence, but I thought the fact that we could have such a comprehensive and sustained discussion of genre image was really remarkable.  And I think I would have felt disappointed if all the various issues raised (and IMO there were A LOT) all got neatly tied up and delivered in the form of ANY resolution, formal or informal.  But like I said, my love of ambivalence is fierce.

Earlier,—E said,

That said, it is entirely possible for one woman to say to another, “Excuse me, dear, but perhaps you are unaware that dressing in that fashion creates the impression of [bad impression] amongst [people you might not wish to give bad impression to].” However, this statement is best delivered by a friend, and barring that, MUST BE DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO THE WOMAN IN QUESTION, DISCREETLY.

And I’ve been thinking, why doesn’t this ring true with/for me? After a bit of soul searching, I realized…

I would think it presumptuous of anyone to approach me at a professional event and tell me that—and more so if it’s someone I don’t know. I mean, s/he would be perfectly right, but unless it’s my boss and/or there’s a written dress code somewhere that I managed to mangle… well, let’s just say that it would be easy for me to interpret the motivation as anything but helpfulness.

Does that mean that my behaviour is exempt of scrutiny/criticism? Heavens, not at all! I’ve done plenty of stupid things, thank you, and will probably screw up a bit more in the years to come. That’s living, no? But dammit, if I do manage to sink my feet in all the way to my armpit, I want to know how, and when, and (if applicable) to whom, so I can learn from it.

It’s all in how it’s said, honestly it is!

DO: “This particular behavior is not acceptable/professional/desirable/allowed in this particular setting/environment/setting/situation, because….”
DON’T: “So and so is a tramp/an idiot/trash/stupid because s/he did this here!!!!”

This makes sense to me, I hope it does to you guys out there!

(the spamfoiler is scary!!! “across91” As in, “getting my point across”)

Taking comments out of context is libel.  Plain and simple.

Jessica, thanks for the compliments. I thought RWA was peopled with beautiful women. I hate to correct you on this issue but I am really, really anal about it.  Taking comments out of context may be rude or inappropriate or whatever adjective you want to put on it but it is not libel.  Libel is a written factual untruth.  Someday I’m going to do a whole blog post on this because it is easily misunderstood. 

I am really interested in people’s opinions on what is considered a personal attack or criticism.  Is there ever a time that personal criticism is allowable or is that always out.  I recognize that if I put something out there for public consumption that I am exposing myself for criticism and frankly, I want it but not when its about my religion, my race, my sexual orientation, etc.

For example, I feel like LKH opened the door for us to speculate about her personal life affecting books because she has talked openly about characters being based on people in her life (her two husbands for example).  I think other characters serve as a metaphor for her unhappy fans in her books.

But, even if an author does make a personal reference, are we free to speculate as to whether that personal conflict had any impact on her books?  Does it matter if we set ourselves up as “reviewers”?  Does it matter if we get compensation?  If the only form of compensation is a free book, does that change? 

If we were simply “readers” and not “reviewers”, would the standard be different? 

If, as Lani suggested, we are somehow public personas, where is the line of criticism drawn?

I generally don’t post here just because I can’t follow all the conversations and keep up with them if I want to write (I must limit my addictions)

But I did feel the need to throw my two cents in on this~I tend to ramble so don’t be surprised if I don’t make a lot of sense.

A personal attack is just that… something personal.

Discussing a hat and a costume-this is critical discussion. 

Going on about somebody’s rack veers into personal territory. 

If people were using the hat/costume deal to make digs at the authors… personal. 

Discussing whether or not they felt these things were appropriate for a writer’s convention, that’s critical discussion.

There’s a line between critical discussion and personal attack, but I suspect that line differs from person to person.  Some stuff that sets one person off isn’t going to faze another so it falls to the individual to decide if they are crossing the line. 

How do you decide if you’re crossing the line, eh, I’d think that if you have to ask yourself that, then you probably are crossing it. 

If it isn’t something you’d feel comfortable saying in person, then it’s probably not smething you should say online either.

I dunno if any of that made sense but there you go.  That’s my ramble for the night.

Didn’t follow the original - and apparently epic - thread. Also just went out and hunted down the Kenyon photo - LOL! And the issue everyone has is the hat?? But that opinion is neither here nor there…

I’ve had an on again/off again relationship with the RWA over the last several years, mainly because I think the organization fluctuates too wildly between fan-girls gathering to squee that La Nora peed in the stall next to them and striving desperately to be a legitimate and professional writer’s organization. The split (if not truly multiple) personality disorder that the RWA excretes is beyond exhausting. Anyone remember the “Defining Romance” kerfluffle two years ago in Reno? The fact is the RWA National Convention offers really excellent opportunities for would be writers to rub elbows and learn at the knees of their chosen elite. But it’s a package deal.

Frankly, I’m an avid attendee of fan-boy conventions (Comic-Con, World Con, etc) such that the “fashion violations” in question are so below my radar. I can absolutely empathize with both sides of the argument (less the mud slinging, natch). But again, the RWA is a constantly evolving entity and today’s kerfluffle (what an awesome word!!) is tomorrow’s modis operandi. To the poster who above seemed astonished that an official dress code could possibly result from this incident: if you think the hairy asshatting raised here on the outside is bad, you can bet your own fowl chapeau the twisted panties amongst the membership has reached astronomical proportions. It’s the unfortunate nature of the beast.

Blogs are like sex that way. Anyone can do it, but it takes a little work to make it worth shaving your legs. Rosemary, you are my new hero.

How do you decide if you’re crossing the line, eh, I’d think that if you have to ask yourself that, then you probably are crossing it.

Or it’s a delicate, but important, subject.  In which case you might want to ask yourself the question, and maybe rephrase your comment, but not delete it.

I think often the criterion is: Are you about to derail the discussion?  i.e. will your comment be personal enough, or sting enough, that the other(s) will feel compelled to stop and refute/discuss it?  A really charged comment can make it almost impossible to get back to the original topic without a lot of baggage.  There are times when it’s still important to make your comment, but it’s something to consider before you do it.

Think of it as the unfair thing that happens in family fights:
“I don’t like what you did” escalates and becomes personal with
“You always do that”, so naturally the other person answers
“Well, YOU always do THAT”.
By that point, everyone’s too upset to make sense.

I can only speak for myself. When I criticized wearing costumes at this event—and I can’t deny I was critical—it was an issue for me, not a personal attack on the authors who chose to wear them.

Obviously, I feel strongly about this for all the reasons I stated in the previous thread. It was, and is, a larger issue for me, and at the same time—I realize—a personal one. Again for reasons I stated previously.

But personal attacks are different things entirely, and twisting someone’s comments or opinions into something mean and spiteful is a different thing. And, imo, cheap and petty.

Disagree, fine. Attack the person rather than the opinion—skewing the opinion to suit yourself—not fine.

Posting photos of people to make nasty, and again petty, comment, not fine.

The reason, I think, the thread went on so long was that it evolved into larger and broader issues, and many posters had opinions on those issues.

Using socks to get your digs in? Cowardly and childish.

We all, writers, bloggers, readers, observers, should have a right to express our opinions in a rational and intelligent manner. And there will always be those who can’t express them in any way but childish hoo-ha.

the issue everyone has is the hat?

No, that’s really not the issue.  I’m happy to say I don’t think Comment Thread Godzilla would have happened over simply a hat.

BTW, if you meant me—I’m not at all astonished at the idea that the dress code could be formalized.  And I wish them joy in policing it :P

I didn’t know I could do that. :P

It’s cute, but I wasn’t going for quite that much snot; I was aiming more for wry.  More like: :)

I will undoubtedly be sorry that I bothered to post this in the morning. But it’s not morning yet, is it?

Shall we take it from the top? (And wow…I’m feeling more than a little stalked, to be honest. It’s almost flattering. Though I’m sure that’s not how it was meant.)

”I’ve been publicly humiliated by award-winning authors in front of entire classrooms full of my peers because my stories dared to incorporate PLOT”

Yep. Said it. Meant it. And would say it again, because the “award-winning authors” I referenced were seventy-year-old literature professors who disapproved of my story having a beginning, a middle and, incidentally, the happy ending that I’ve seen Jane tout as the prerequisite for a book to be a true “romance.” Incidentally, we agree on that point, so I’m rather surprised she referenced this.

“Can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if you try, you might just be writing middle-of-the-road crap that alienates the people who write ME fan letters about my ‘gritty, realistic’ characterization.”

And again, yes, I said that. And if anyone out there believes, for an instant, that you can, in fact, please all of the people all of the time and not be writing pabulum, I’d ask you to email me privately and show me an example of it. I’ve run into people who can’t stomach Nora, who won’t read Austen, who despise Heyer. And so have you.

I believe my reference to “gritty and realistic” was ironic in intent. The folks to whom I was speaking got that, I think. I apologize if it came off otherwise to anyone else.

“So yes, when I came across a post on Keishon’s blog and Selah March wanted to engage in a debate, I refused because I knew that I would only be subject to sarcasm and viputeration.”

I invite anyone to check Keishon’s blog post on the RITA winners and tell me I was anything but polite until Jane turned on me with the “I don’t recall addressing my comments to you.” In fact, I believe I was pretty polite after she turned on me. And when I then engaged in discussion with Sybil, and Jane returned to address my points, I was again polite, if slightly sarcastic. We’re apologizing for sarcasm now?

*checks title of blog*

Oh, good, I thought I was in the wrong place.

Jane and I have been knocking heads since way back when we debated whether a man could sleep with another woman after he’d already met the heroine and could we still call that a romance?  And that’s fine. We’re both allowed to hold opinions—on each other, even—and speak them out loud. Is the smartest thing in the world for authors to be honest in public? Perhaps not. But no one has every accused me of being more smart than smart-assed. I’m ready to live with the consequences, whatever they may be.

The rest of this nonsense merits no comment from me. What’s occurred between myself and Jane was finished two days ago, as far as I’m concerned. I’m amazed it’s been dredged up again, but I honestly hope she feels better now.

Anyone is welcome to email me with a reply, or to comment at my blog. I’ll do what I can to keep up, but I won’t be responding to anyone here.

And for the record? I could pull a whole bunch of stuff out of context and make any number of people look like raving egomaniacs, but I don’t have that kind of time. It’s almost comforting to know that some people do. Makes me believe in the American way, somehow.

You all have yourselves a good night.

What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?

I believe making fun of someone’s personal taste (in clothing or hair or what have you) or appearance is pretty much always a personal attack unless the person about whom you are commenting is in on the joke and demonstrably enjoying the humor. Commenting on someone’s publicity photos? Skates the line, but in the end as long as you don’t slam the person wearing the clothes I think it is acceptable and indeed human nature to offer an opinion. But I feel strongly that such comments should be clearly labeled as opinion, and not used as an opportunity to axe grind or assassinate character.

As for whether only content is fair game or whether remarking on an author’s or a reviewer’s behavior is acceptable, it matters to me whether the behavior took place in a personal or professional setting. The line for me in that case is whether the person was acting in their professional capacity when the behavior took place. No one should be commenting about someone’s personal life unless they are themselves part of that person’s personal life. If you don’t know the author or reviewer personally, what the hell insight could you possibly offer? On the other hand, if the author/reviewer is acting in a professional capacity when (s)he does something goofy or questionable, I believe intelligent commentary is useful if you believe you can offer some insight. Otherwise, not so much. It’s sadly easy for people to use some public figure’s faux pas as an opportunity to ride their favorite hobby horse, and I think those people can be safely ignored, or better yet their obsessions mocked. I think the recent Don Imus spectacle clearly showed the difference between reasoned commentary and disingenuous showboating in this kind of situation.

spamfilter seem89 because it seems like I used italics 89 times

It’s late and I have to do something important tomorrow and I missed about the last 200 posts on the hat/socks thread, but I do think that I think this is an important discuss—not the hat/socks thread, this thread== and if I have a chance tomorrow I may have something intelligent to say.  But I do stop by here and Dear Author every day that I have some free time because I love the discussions, even when I may not agree.

Jane said,

But, even if an author does make a personal reference, are we free to speculate as to whether that personal conflict had any impact on her books?  Does it matter if we set ourselves up as “reviewers”?  Does it matter if we get compensation?  If the only form of compensation is a free book, does that change?

If we were simply “readers” and not “reviewers”, would the standard be different?

If, as Lani suggested, we are somehow public personas, where is the line of criticism drawn?

I’m struggling with the author’s personal life part of the question—it makes me uncomfortable, to be honest. Yet, LKH’s diatribes online make it waaaaaaaaaaay too tempting to indulge in such speculation—no matter what your professional/amateur standing.

But whether you are a “reviewer” or simply a “reader who shares his/her opinions on the books s/he reads,” you deserve the same respect you give, IMO.

People—other bloggers, authors, other reviewers, fans of authors whose books you’ve reviewed—should be able to take issue with your review without having to resort to cheap shots and name calling.

LOL! iffygenia - I believe that I was in fact referring to your post (you were way up there and I couldn’t bear to scroll around for a proper identification - I’m sorry!).

Beleive me, my friend, where there’s a large group and will… there’s a whip to keep a little law and order.

My comment about the “issue is the hat??” comes from too many years of working the Renaissance Faire and seeing the public in full tilt. I found the hat quite dashing in context. I suppose it never fails to amaze me how much lather can be worked up when people dress for fun rather than to the expectations off the surrounding society.

LUV the smiley with the glasses. Tres cool.

azteclady said:

LKH’s diatribes online make it waaaaaaaaaaay too tempting to indulge in such speculation—no matter what your professional/amateur standing.

I think this brings up another interesting question. With the “plogs” (or whatever the hell they call them) now on Amazon as well as the growing number of personal author blogs, some authors are choosing to share personal info with readers as well as to respond directly to reader criticism. Personally, I think some authors overshare in this context. And I also question whether LKH, for example, is wise to go mano a mano with some of the crazies who stalk her on line. What do you guys think? Does this kind of direct contact just encourage the crazies and their vicious attacks or is it a mostly effective marketing tool?

“What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?”

I think that it’s entirely acceptable to comment (negatively) on authorial behavior when that behavior has a *direct impact* on the public perception of their industry because it takes place at an industry convention.  This kind of behavior would garner commentary in any other industry, so why not in publishing?  There is no “special pass” for unprofessional behavior just because the professionals involved are “cute” or “wacky” or “romance writers”. 

There are very few venues (clown cons, fan cons) where someone can be regarded as professional while in costume, and even in these cases, commentary on the costumes concerned and behavior of those in them is pretty standard - that’s the reason people are wearing the costumes in the first place.  They *want* people to notice how much effort they put in to standing out, and talk about them. 

If someone wants to attend an industry event where costumes are not expected, and flaunt those conventions, that’s also fine - their choice - but to then claim no one else is entitled to comment on their non-professional dress choice is sheer foolishness.  On the other hand, if someone wore bog-standard professional dress to their conference, and then everyone talked about how they were “too fat” or “too old” or “too ugly” to wear those clothes, then that would be inappropriate commentary, because it’s about their *person*, not about their *decision* to use their dress to garner attention.

I would say that the same rules apply to journalists (which is essentially what bloggers are in this context), i.e. that if they are conforming to accepted industry standards, then it’s inappropriate to comment on their dress or behavior.  If they are outside of industry standards, then their behavior and dress are fair game. 

I believe that Hunter S. Thompson set the acceptable standards for the journalism industry, and if I *ever* read about the Bitches, or any other journalists/bloggers, crossing the sartorial or behavioral standards he set, then you can bet your bippy I’ll be discussing them in detail.

eggs.

Interesting to see that the world of original fic is much the same as that of fanfic—people confuse the author’s output for the author herself. So narrow of scope. The authors themselves do it, too—they take concrit as a scathing indictment of their quality as a human being, not of how well they write.

I think all the brouhaha about swan hats or hoochie outfits to promote books boils down to people being cranky they didn’t think of it themselves, so they put on a front about how OMG SCANDALOUS it is for others to do it. Major, major sour grapes.

And what I got out of the surprise that Jane wasn’t a 40ish WASP was the concept that disdain must, apparently, be only be a characteristic of white folk. Those of Asian descent apparently just aren’t capable of that emotion. LOL racism. <—sarcasm

I’d just like to say that I’ve rarely been so happy to be ignorant as I am now. I read the original blog thing and then ignored it, and now I’m going to continue to ignore it.

Thank you. You’ve been a great audience. I’ll be here all week.

For sale:

One pair of toe socks
One foot that should go in said socks but somehow went into my cyber mouth

My sincere apologies to anyone who read my comments on the linked posts and was offended in any way.  It’s all too easy to write things and click that send button. On the internet, it’s also not the same as casual conversation, where one can judge another’s statements from facial expressions, tones, etc. I have a sense of humor that sometimes flies away from me (like a swan, a living one, anyway).

I do take romance seriously, because it’s the genre I love to read and write above all else. And fundraising for causes like literacy (I’ve worked for a charity for 14 years) is important to me and so is professionalism. But I also know life is short, too damnably so as I found out, yet again, at RWA with news of a fellow author’s death. 

I kept wondering as the debate went on what Ronda would have done at the literacy signing. Would she have worn a swat hat? Or a suit? I don’t know. I’d like to think that she’d say to me, “Bonnie, wear a pyramid on your head with a suit and have a bunch of guys in white kilts carry you into the signing on a litter like Cleopatra.” That was Ronda. Always joking.

I respect the right of those who want to present a professional image of romance to a public that’s mocked it for so long. I surely think it would be tough to be called upon, time and again, to defend the genre.

But I also think swan hats are cool, and so are thigh highs. Are they suitable for the literacy signing? That’s a question best left to the powers that be at RWA. I do hope they give author guidelines at next year’s signing. It would be best for all.

Ten years ago I attended my first RWA conference. I was unpublished and awestruck at the plethora of authors and workshops on craft. It was cool, a professional organization that helped writers reach for their goals. I had a dream. I wanted to be a published author. I wasn’t sure I could do it, but I clung to that dream. I worked hard at it and achieved it. And to me, that’s what’s most important of all, what lies at the heart of each individual.

I say, follow your dreams, be it writing a book, wearing a swan hat, exploring Manga comics, or striving to make romance respectable.

Life is too short. Follow your dream and don’t let anyone stop you. Because the world IS filled with amazing possibilities and magic, and with a lot of hard work and belief in yourself, you can accomplish anything. Whether you wear a swan hat or thigh highs or a suit. Or even toe socks.

Lani, thank you so much - what a lovely thing to say.  If I’m delightful, you’re fabulous.

While I’m here, I thought I’d do my RWA thing and state for the record:  The board hasn’t discussed the dress of anyone at the literacy signing.  In fact, this entire subject hasn’t come up at all.  I’ll go so far as to stick my neck out and say - the chances of the RWA board discussing what authors wear to the lit signing are slim and none.  Unless someone shows up as Lady Godiva - but that woman would have bigger problems to deal with than RWA.  I think it’s illegal to walk around naked.  (And holy God, how could we NOT talk about a naked author at the lit signing?  Everyone would talk about that.  I’m not sure what we, the board, would do about it - but as I said, there’s that legal thing…)

We’re beyond thrilled the publishers generously donate books, and we’re over the moon that authors agree to sign said books.  I like to imagine a pair of human beings, one learning and one teaching - and a life forever changed by the education.  Imagine if you couldn’t read.  This event makes it possible for many people to receive the gift and joy of reading.

To me, all the rest is irrelevant.  I see both sides of the coin, and won’t weigh in with an opinion.  I’d merely be one in a sea of them.

But I will say, I saw Candy several times during the conference (Hey, Candy!) and not once did I notice her breasts.  My bad - I’m sure they’re simply marvelous, but I was too busy looking at her face.  She has lovely eyes.

The board hasn’t discussed the dress of anyone at the literacy signing.  In fact, this entire subject hasn’t come up at all.

That sounds exactly as it should be.  Like I said somewhere upthread, I think it’s added a lot of confusion that some commenters have confused blog discourse with “official” discussion.  People commenting here isn’t the same as RWA making rules.

regarding the question in the post:

Similar issues have been brought up quite frequently on liberal and feminist blogs that I read and the line is usually drawn thusly:

If appearance is under the control of the person in question, and relates to the issue at hand, such discussions should not necessarily be condemned.

IE - discussing the grooming habits of any candidate complaining about another candidates grooming habits.

If both of these conditions are not met, then such comments are not contributing to the discussion and should not be condoned.

On feminist blogs especially, this includes even positive comments (except in “fluff” pieces where bloggers are sharing pictures from parties, or conventions, etc.) because, no matter how complimentary the intent, when the topic is something else altogether it tends to reinforce the idea that women’s worth is measured first and foremost by our appearance.  (And this is mostly in reaction to comments about one’s worthiness as a receptacle for male desires, not how classy so and so looks.)

A lot of which is pretty much what a lot of other people have said - including Candy, Jane, and Sarah).

Plus, as others have said as well, discussions should stay about the topic in question, and not simply be gratuitous insults.

“Costumes at RWA are unprofessional” and “[blank] was acting unprofessionally” are different from “[blank] is unprofessional.”  Usually, you should have more than one instance to back the last comment up.  “[blank] is an unprofessional slut” - otoh -is just plain rude and not appropriate.

I’m completely bewildered by all of this.  The topic of writer professionalism seems to set a match to the blogging community. 
I’ve seen this same sort of “flame wars” when it comes to responding to reviews. 
It seems that when it appears the author’s professionalism (including how tough their skin is or how they are perceived by the public etc.) all hell breaks loose.
The mantra that keeps running around in my head is “Restraint of tongue and pen.”
And keyboard.

Oops, my grammar skills seem to have deserted me.
It SHOULD read “When it appears the author’s professionalism is questioned…”

*rolls eyes*  I need to follow my own darn mantra.

Okay, I must have been living in a cave for the last two weeks because I had no idea the costumes had caused such a big to-do.

If someone wants to dress up in a costume, more power to her. There are so many great authors out there, that it’s hard to stand out. If the authors thought the costumes might make them a little more visible, well good for them for being creative and thinking outside the box. I’m sure some readers got a kick out of it.

Would I do it? Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the event and what I thought was appropriate for it. (And money. Costumes cost money.) I wore a T-shirt with my book cover on it to a local signing I did. Was that a costume? Who gets to decide? And more importantly, who cares? To each their own, I say.

You basically have to do whatever makes you happy and whatever you’re comfortable with.

I define professionalism as turning in the best books I can on time, responding to my editor/agent’s questions/concerns, answering reader questions, and generally treating everyone the way I would want to be treated—with courtesy and respect.

What I wear or what I look like or if I dress up in a costume are all way, way, way down the list of what makes me a professional.

I, for one, was happy to see reviewers and bloggers at RWA. You know why? Because you guys *love* books. That’s why you have blogs and do reviews in the first place—because you love books. You create thoughtful discussions on books and the romance industry as a whole. I appreciate that and respect your right to do it, even if I don’t always agree with what you say.

And on the subject of reviews, every author will get good ones and bad ones. You have to treasure the good ones and take the bad ones with a grain of salt.

That’s another part of being a professional—being able to take *thoughtful* criticism without blowing up.

I think that attacking a person’s intelligence is a particularly nasty attack.  For example, questioning another’s reading comprehension skills because they don’t agree with you, is an attack.  Part of the fun of blogging is the off the cuff conversation.  There is many a time when I wonder if I was reading the same thing as someone else.  Does that mean it’s ok to go on another blog and talk about their intelligence?  Just curious.

As for the question of whether or not it’s ok to speculate about an authors’ personal life, that’s definitely borderline.  If I was disappointed in a book by an author I previously loved, sometimes I wonder if they’re overworked or stretching themselves too thin.  I’d like to think that’s not too personal, but I’m not sure.

One last reference to the RWA/costume thing, something was niggling at me throughout.  It was alluded to by several commenters, but I think Lilith Saintcrow put it quite well above.  There’s definitely something to the idea that woman are judging other women by a male idea of professionalism.  The whole power suit thing.  I’m that person who feels that a lot of why romance does not get the respect it deserves is because it’s primarily by women and for women and it is focused on mushy, girly things like love and emotion.  I’d kind of rather the romance community own it, rather than sweating what others think.  Then again, I’m not comiung from an author POV, and I did relate to what others were saying.

This is kind of an old saw, but to what extent is a person’s viewpoint on what constitutes an attack influenced by factors like age, author vs. reader, regional differences etc.?  For example, I’m an Irish/Italian/American girl from Lawn Guyland.  A loud breed to be sure.  Does that help account for why many things held up as attacks leave me scratching my head, and why I didn’t give a second glance to a swan hat?

What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all?

There most certainly should be a line and I think that the commenters on Cruciger’s blog definitely crossed it. 

Since I don’t read that blog, I’m not sure if the comments about Candy’s “rack” started there or not.  When I read comments on various blogs teasing Candy, it seemed that they were all made in good fun.  On Cruciger’s blog, it just seemed that they made it sound sort of trashy.  That is a personal attack.

Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?

That’s a definite gray area, imo.  Attacking an author’s behavior while she’s at the grocery store in her pj’s and has a less than polite reaction to a fan would be wrong.  Attacking an author who has attacked reviewers and/or fans for what they consider to be an attack on them is fair game.  But I wouldn’t call that “attacking”.  I would call it a public service.  Seriously.  There are several authors that I have no desire to read because of their behavior.  Maybe that’s wrong, maybe it’s not. 

I think DA does a great job of reviewing w/o critizing the content.  I know that I don’t do that.

I don’t think that Candy, SB Sarah, Jane, Nora Roberts or Jennifer Crusie personally attacked anyone.

What I do think happened is that people read more into the comments that were made based on their own prejudices and opinions (TeddyPig’s rant about Nora’s “normal” and that it was some type ofgay bashing).  Nora and Jennifer’s expressed their own personal opinions of a lack of professionalism in the wearing of costumes (which I happen to agree with…could you picture John Grishman dressing up as a character in his book to sign books?) 

If Liz and Marianne felt personally attacked perhaps they were also feeling like they did not make the best decision about dressing up like the characters in their books (despite their denials to the contrary).  Perhaps they should have thought WWND before dressing up ... after all, as was proven in Nora’s many posts here she is one classy lady.  And if you’re spouting off about being the “rebels of romance” than shouldn’t you expect that your message might not be accepted by the mainstream romance audience.

Keep up the great work Candy, SB Sarah and Jane…if there wasn’t some controversy on your sites you’d be doing something wrong.  Personally, I admire your intelligence, snarkiness and great attitude…in fact I wish I could be your next door neighbors so we could be snarky together.

Diane

I interpreted the comments about the swan hat and other forms of costumes at the RWA literacy signing as basically this:

The literacy signing is the biggest public joint event for romance writers. There are over 450 writers at this event and what you do during that event will inevitably reflect back on them. So you may be comfortable with a Swan Hat and that’s cool but perhaps some of the other 450 authors might not be thrilled with the idea of a swan hat representing them. And it might be common courtesy to leave it at home that one time.

Single singings, fan events, go for it. But just at this group event where your actions reflect on others, it might be prudent to not go too overboard out of consideration for the others who wouldn’t wear swan hats.

That’s it. I don’t see the feminism angle, I don’t see the ‘women are self-hating’ or the ‘you’re trying to stifle freedom of expression’ angle. I basically see a ‘common courtesy’ angle.

Now, the marketing question/author branding question kicked off by the swan hat is an interesting one and I found it very thought-provoking. It’s too bad during the course of that, a few (and only a few) comments veered into personal attacks and even sadder that this jumped to other blogs where the discourse eroded further.

Love the summer kerfuffle line, that sums it up.

Thought the two writers in stockings were very cute.  Had they wanted to look slutty there’s plenty of items at Fredrick’s of Hollywood.  Instead they were CUTE.  I wish I could still fit into cute things again!  Enjoy it, girls, enjoy!

The hat was Kenyon’s business, and if it made her feel good and pleased her fans, then more power to her, she wasn’t hurting anyone.  You griper-girls out there grow a sense of humor for goshy-goodness!

(I would not have anything with an ass sitting on my head though, too much opportunity for bad jokes, as has been shown in all those blogs, but that’s just me.)

Smart Bitches, I hope you turn up at every RWA & RT event that you like.  I will welcome you with smiles and drinks and give you the props you’ve earned.  You are awesome and way more interesting than many of the pros I met at that event.

YOU deliver real reviews, no sugar-drenched oh-we-lurv-them-alllll page fillers as seen in a certain romance-angled magazine.  Many’s the time I’ve been taken in by their gushes only to find the book actively reeked to the point that had to be flushed.

Of course I find those tree-killers to be an inspiration from the “If they bought that piece of bleep, they’re gonna love MY stuff!” school.

Love you, love your blog, don’t stop the signal.

Corrina, yes, yes and YES!!! Exactly!

Professional courtesy for your fellow authors during THE one big professional event that gives outsiders (press and others) THE public face of RWA—which, lest we forget, is a professional writers’ organization.

The debate is NOT, and it has never been, about whether MM/LM were cute or not, nor whether I or anyone else wishes she would look as good as they do in thighs and short skirts—it IS about whether costumes were appropriate at that ONE event.

Wearing “what you want” and “be yourself, don’t let them get you down” are all good and well until you step on someone else’s right to be perceived as professionals. Here’s where the courtesy should have kicked in.

(This is a clumsy parallel, but it works in my head: I can wear shorts and a tank top anywhere I want in the US, but it would be rather disrespectful if I were to stroll thus attired into a funeral home during a wake for a friend.)

And even though it’s been said and said and said… there IS a huge huge, humongous, wide ass range of choices between costume and “power professional bitch with huge shoulderpads” (to quote Lilith Saintcrow waaaaaaaaaay up there)

Azteclady, I think that’s the best summation yet.  I salute you.

LKH’s diatribes online make it waaaaaaaaaaay too tempting to indulge in such speculation—no matter what your professional/amateur standing.

I think the point with LKH’s diatribes is not so much that she identifies with her characters to an extent not all authors do, but the subtext between the lines: I love them so much, how can you be so mean an not love them (ie. write negative reviews); maybe you’re too stupid to understand them.  The usual problem of whether an author should defend herself? I’m sure LKH thinks she defends her characters, but since they are her creation, she defends herself.

Ok, back to topic. :-)

I think it’s the line from I to You/She that gets crossed with personal attacks. It’s fine to say, I don’t like threesomes because I think it’s bad moral, and I won’t read X’s books because of that. It’s not fine to say, X is a slut because she writes those immoral threesomes.

I didn’t read the original thread about the costumes here.  I love this blog, but since I struggle to find the time to keep up with Dear Author, where I am one of Jane’s blogging partners, I don’t make it here that often.

I did read the posts pertaining to Kenyon, Maverick and Mancusi’s clothes at Dear Author, and the discussion there seemed pretty civil to me.  Since I didn’t have a strong opinion on the matter, I didn’t comment.

I also read some of the comments on Cruciger’s blog.  Some of them I could overlook but I thought that the comments about Candy’s breasts were way too personal and that the comparison of Jane to a 40 year old WASP sounded, as Angela said, racist.  These and some others were, in my opinion, beyond the pale.

I didn’t comment on these posts because Jane felt that it was better if we didn’t diginify them with a response.

Now that the topic is on the table, I will say that as a friend of Jane’s, I really hurt for her when reading these comments.  She doesn’t deserve them. 

And to clear up a point—Jane is, as she herself has said, a “just the facts” person.  She is that way even with her friends.  I haven’t read Keishon’s thread, but I expect that her comment there was nothing more than an expression of surprise and of her personal relcutance to enter into a conversation that she feared might turn hostile.  I doubt her aim was to project disdain, she is just businesslike.  That’s Jane.  It doesn’t mean she doesn’t love the genre—she wouldn’t be blogging if she didn’t.

As for what constitutes a personal attack.  I don’t have a definition, but I personally reread what I’m about to post on open-to-the-public venues carefully to see if it could reasonably be construed as a personal attack.  So that’s one test, in my opinion.

Hmmmm…When I reviewed the links, the whole of the comments on Cruciger’s page seemed to be more of an exchange of emails amongst friends that somehow ended up posted on a blog.

I…I really can’t seem to explain what I’m thinking without making it seem like I’m either defending them or attacking them, but I’m not intentionally doing either.  I’m accusing them of bad judgement call.  They should have moved the discussion that was between (essentially) three people OFF the public forum into a private email.  When they leave a private discussion in the public eye, they have to realize that the personal (and I’m pretty sure that everyone agrees that they were personal) comments are going to come under attack. 

But, on the other hand, they feel as though the people they were discussing (or attacking, depending on your view) went after them first, so all’s fair and all that.  (And, to call it like I see it, this entire post seems to do the same thing.  “Well, she started it.”)

There seems to be back-story that is fueling a majority of the vitrol that casual blog readers don’t know and don’t care about.  (I’m labeleing myself as one of the casual ones.) It ends up making the vitrol-spewer look childish and mean.

I do believe that the posts started off observationally (mildly shit stirring, but nothing too bad) and decended from there. 

The moral of this stream of conciousness post is - I like to believe that most people can tell the difference between an emotional rant and an intellectual rant, and take both with a grain of salt.

...and, at the same time, should blog publishers be held responsible for the things that are said in the comments on their blog?

If a commenter is saying things like, “Obviously, author is a closet ass-freak who was sexually abused by their mother because of this passage,” and the owner didn’t delete it, then some people feel that they are endorsing that thought, when in reality they’re ignoring it.

It seems that some people think that it is the publisher/owner’s duty to keep everything civil, and if the discussion is NOT civil, it is the publisher/owner’s fault.

Must comment on the idea that one should go up to authors and personally tell them if they look bad.

This is so not a good idea. But I once did it.

I won’t give details, as I want to follow the rules set down for this thread, but suffice it to say that where and how something is conveyed often determines whether a comment is construed as a personal attack, shrugged off as meaningless, or taken seriously.

A forum like this is a good place to consider the appropriateness of professional attire. We know we are writing these comments for the universe to see, and those of us with an iota of good sense are thoughtful and careful about what we say.

As for those who are rash, at least that explains certain rather badly written books. And I am not pointing the finger at anyone by saying this. People who don’t think well don’t write well, either.

So I went home and asked my 22 year old son about cosplay (costume play for those unaware of the origin of the word), which he’s seen frequently at Comicon. And he tells me that is it a fan thing.

Those who write the comics, the industry professionals don’t do it.

So I say a couple authors were dressed that way at the RWA literacy signing and he kind of wrinkles his forehead and says. “Eh… not such a great idea.”

And then I tell him they looked pretty cute that way.

He shrugs. “Well, maybe that’s different.”

So, eh? Maybe not such a great idea if you can’t get away with it.

Cheers,
Janet/Cricket

I’m suddenly having flashbacks to my oldest sister wearing a black lace minidress (at age 40) to my wedding.  As azteclady said, I don’t begrudge her the right to wear it but my wedding wasn’t really the most appropriate place for it. 

What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?

IMO, comments and critiques about the *work* of an author or reviewer is fair game.  Just like anyone is free to critique my blog or one of my class lectures or my lecture notes.  I’ve put it out there for people to see/hear/use and it’s therefore fair game. 

When it moves from being about the work and becomes personal about the person creating the work, it becomes much easier to cross that line.  Frankly, I think that attacks of anything should be avoided.  It’s possible to criticize and offer opinions without being vicious and nasty.  There’s a difference between “That dress maybe wasn’t the best choice for your sister’s wedding” and “I can’t believe you wore such a slut dress to your sister’s wedding!”  Neither actually calls the person a slut but one certainly implies it and is much nastier than the other. 

People are free to think what they want about anyone and anything.  But those same words should not necessarily come out, verbatim, of their mouths.  Sometimes a little judicious filtering can get the same idea across in a much nicer way.  Which, IMO, Nora and others managed to do while some of those reacting did not.

(Almost 9 years later and I still haven’t gotten over that black lace minidress at my wedding)(I also have never said a thing to her about it)(although my father did and never forgave her for it until the day he died)

I think it’s all a matter of perception. Somebody mentioned above (can’t remember who, sorry) that when something is said on the internet, you miss out on body language, tone and facial expressions. And that’s a big loss when it comes tpo understanding something, especially as some people have very dry senses of humor.
I think a lot of comments on the linked blogs were distasteful. But then I also think that this blog and Dear Author and another couple of unmentionables which have turned into romanceland’s equivalent of Tabloid magazines, have also made me cringe in the past. But I rarely speak up because there’s also the possibility that I’m misinterpreting.
To me, there are a number of blogs that are controversial. There’s this one, Dear Author, Mrs. Giggles and a few others. I include Ferfe in that mix. The only difference is that she doesn’t apear to be part of this crowd.
My view of a personal attack could be another person’s idea of professional criticism.
A personal attack in my book is when I can’t make myself read the entire blog post/comment. It’s instinct for me. I don’t believe there is a definition that will suit everybody.

Thank you Jane for the clarification on libel.  I’d love to see that post one day!

*Hugs Deb on the black lace minidress*

I’ve only read this thread, not the actual trainwreck in question, or any other commentary than this post, but…

...to be unfortunately and horribly provocative, it sounds to me like that this was at base a discussion of what are the acceptable standards of female modesty even if not everyone saw it those terms.  That the standards of female modesty in question were the ones you fear are used by others outside the group, to judge whether said group of woman are worthy/professional doesn’t actually make it any less radioactive.  If anything, it makes it much more incendiary, because that makes it even more about power; power one might have no alternative but to submit to.

Add in a big ol’ dollop ‘I’m only pointing this out for you/our own good’ and hoooooooo, boooooy.

No surprise it all turns into a politics and religion level trainwreck, beacause fundamentally ‘modesty’ pretty much *is* a religious and political and power thing.

I can’t see how such a discussion, can ever escape from having a subtext of being a personal attack on any woman who feels she would fall afoul of such things, or her friends would fall afoul of such things, or any fellow human being who would come up against it —just due to the underlying assumption that there should even be such a thing as a standard of female modesty.  It pretty much invites being taken as a standing to accusation of immodesty against any woman who might feel they’re not ‘with the program’.

And ‘immodesty’ can get a person killed in some parts of the world, as I’m sure we’re all aware.  That those adjudged of it still get screwed over even in our supposedly ‘enlightened’ societies, makes exercises that smack of separating the modest sheep from the immodest goats —whatever the initial noble motives—not exactly things conducive to feminist or feminine solidarity, or popular with those who are threatened by the process.  Where the set of those who are threatened is the set of every woman alive or dead.

Or at least it seems to me.  And I’m just a guy…

So, I’m afraid this all sounds utterly doomed from the start, even when the genesis of it was likely innocently, if naively, meant, and even if you did manage to hold it to being superficially civil for a while. Because the underlying assumptions of such a debate are I think inherently uncivil regardless of the form, even if getting judged to a modesty standard is indeed the way of the world (as alas it is).  A red rag to everybody who hates that freakin’ stupid game, and frankly who doesn’t?

...

Having now lit the match over the gasoline, cue another 600 post thread, whilst I run for the hills in stark abject terror at y’alls response to me having got completely the wrong end of the stick :)

I really am not seeing the female modesty portion of the issue. Had it been a male romance writer wearing the the now infamous hat, then I think people would still have remarked on it and some would have been uncomfortable with it representing them at an RWA multi-author event.

As someone said, fans dress up at San Diego Comic Con and some companies hire actors to walk around in costume and it’s great fun but the creators do not dress in costume. And it’s not because they don’t look good in them, stereotypes aside, some of them are pretty damn hot. It’s because they want to present themselves, not a character.

Not everything is a feminist issue nor should it be.

I think Candy’s rack is great, btw, and don’t see any problem with bloggers or journalists attending RWA national.

“...and, at the same time, should blog publishers be held responsible for the things that are said in the comments on their blog?”

Well, as far as that question goes, again, it depends on the comments.

I think that blog owners have a responsibility to delete comments that venture into threats.  (see: Kathy Sierra)

I admire bloggers that delete or admonish commenters for certain abusive comments, but - as a fellow blogger - I understand that isn’t always practical or even helpful.

“Not everything is a feminist issue nor should it be.”

Of course it isn’t - is anyone here saying that everything is?

“I really am not seeing the female modesty portion of the issue.”

My impression was that the modesty comments were in regard to remarks like those about Candy’s appearance.  Comments like those are really beside the point.  Unless you want to make the point how cool or not cool looking she is - which is either a compliment (in which case it doesn’t include half of what was said) or is very much a juvenile insult - often packaged with a whole lotta sexist assumptions about women’s bodies.

Which does relate back to what is professional and what is not.  There should be a middle ground between “costume” and “power suit” but that middle ground isn’t always easy to determine - in part because when people hear “professional attire” a lot of us tend to think of men in suits.  In a world in which the media spends even a millisecond on Clinton’s cleavage (can we see to much of it? Not enough?)  there’s often going to be a bit of sexism flitting through discussions about what constitutes professional attire for women.

To me the difference is whether you are discussing an issue versus a specific individual.  I felt that the initial issues were whether costumes were appropriate to the specific venue and the marketing idea of “rebels of romance”.  Discussing the issues didn’t seem to be a personal attack.  Compared to a direct comment regarding an individual independent of any issue-the 40 year old WASP comment.  Or well the people who don’t approve are just jealous old hags/old guard.

I’ve only read this thread, not the actual trainwreck in question, or any other commentary than this post, but…

...to be unfortunately and horribly provocative, it sounds to me like that this was at base a discussion of what are the acceptable standards of female modesty even if not everyone saw it those terms.

I really think people should read the initial discussion first before commenting, because no, the issue was not “acceptable standards of female modesty.” At all.

It was: Is wearing a “costume” of any kind acceptable in that particular venue, and whether or not authors should consider how their “costume” will reflect on other authors, most especially since this particular genre has a very tough time being taken seriously. Does an author of this genre damage the credibility of others when she wears a big ol’ swan on the top of her head to a RWA sponsored event open to the public and press.

The issue directly at hand is whether or not authors are allowed on a public forum such as this to voice their opinion on a big ol’ swan hat, as it relates to the issues of credibility and respect for the genre and other authors, without being accused of personally attacking other authors.

Having read most of the discussion from the original thread, much of it very enlightening and intelligent, I tend to agree with those saying the big ol’ swan hat and/or micro-minis does have a negative impact on how people perceive romance writers in general. And that’s really all I’m going to say about that.

As far as the subject at hand in this particular post, I think authors have a right to respectfully voice any opinion they might have on any subject that affects their industry. Even in a public forum like this. They also have the right to bring up other authors if they feel it will illustrate their point, as long as it’s done respectfully.

Way upthread, megalith said (in response to my LKH crack),

I think this brings up another interesting question. With the “plogs” (or whatever the hell they call them) now on Amazon as well as the growing number of personal author blogs, some authors are choosing to share personal info with readers as well as to respond directly to reader criticism. Personally, I think some authors overshare in this context. And I also question whether LKH, for example, is wise to go mano a mano with some of the crazies who stalk her on line. What do you guys think? Does this kind of direct contact just encourage the crazies and their vicious attacks or is it a mostly effective marketing tool?

Speaking only for myself, obviously: as much as I enjoy interacting with authors online, and as much as blogs, forums, websites, whathaveyou, seem cool to me, what I pay good money for are books that I enjoy. Books I think are well written—characters I come to care about, plot that makes sense, a world I can picture clearly, vividly, in my head. There are authors out there who don’t even have a website of their own (Linda Howard comes to mind) and yet their books sell and sell and sell.

Marketing is important, yes, but the product is what, in the end, matters. I may buy one book because I like the author’s online/public persona, but s/he wont’ become an “autobuy” unless his/her writing deserves it.

On the other hand, some public/online behaviour may put me off an author completely—it’s gotta be rather extreme, it’s true, but it can happen (and has, for me).

==============================

Somewhere above, Vaughan Williams said,

I think all the brouhaha about swan hats or hoochie outfits to promote books boils down to people being cranky they didn’t think of it themselves, so they put on a front about how OMG SCANDALOUS it is for others to do it. Major, major sour grapes.

The comment ends with a “

<---sarcasm", but I'm going to reply here taking the quote at face value.

Considering that there were at least two

major bestselling authors in agreement that costumes at that particular venue weren’t such a good idea—and I honestly can’t recall reading anything indicating that either Ms Roberts nor Ms Crusie were scandalized by the manga-esque attire nor the swanhat—well, claiming their opinion stems from sour grapes because they—mucho money muchos books authors that they are—“didn’t think of it first”?

That’s facetious at best, or else disingenuous.

And that’s not even going into the “hoochie” thing.

==============================

Darlene Marshall, thank you *blush*

==============================

AJArend, you beat me to it! skapusniak, there really was nothing about religion or ‘feminine modesty’ involved there—overtly or otherwise. Please do read the thread, and check out the pictures posted in a previous thread, and you’ll see how far off the mark that observation is.

azteclady quoted me, so I’mma quote her back.

The comment ends with a “<---sarcasm”, but I’m going to reply here taking the quote at face value.

It hardly seems sporting to take something out of context and then insult me for a supposed slight I never actually made. But let’s go with the fallacy that I was serious when I said that those griping about the swan hat and hoochie outfits were expressing “sour grapes”—is it impossible that even extremely popular, well-sold authors could be capable of jealousy for a marketing ploy they would have liked to utilize, had they thought of it first? Not to disparage either Ms. Roberts or Ms. Crusie, both of whom were used as examples by azteclady, but in the interest of playing devil’s advocate, popularity is not a promise that the popular author is beyond such petty things, just that what and how they’re writing has hit the “kink” of the masses at the time. I mean, author “Jane Doe” might well be a fabulous writer and have sold more volumes than God, but she could still be a 24 carat biatch. Amirite?

This is just out of curiosity, but have male writers ever been known to dress up as their main characters for a book signing or other writing event?

That is the main question for me. If the answer is yes, then the costume debate is just so much kerfuffle, but if the answer is no, then maybe Nora had a valid point.

To answer one of your questions, I think a personal attack would be defined as someone saying, Candy, your blog really stinks, you’re a goddamn liar, and I hate your guts. Something completely rude and in your face mean and nasty.

I was the recipient of a thirty minute “intervention” to get me to give up my “addiction” to that “trash”—romance novels.  Some respect for the genre would be nice.

On line behavior does kinda matter to the readers who visit SB. I started reading Jennifer Crusie after a neat comment she made here and alas, I an now an RFG.

I bought Kalen’s book, just because she is always so nice here at SB and liked it a lot.

Other authors—not so much.

~Not to disparage either Ms. Roberts or Ms. Crusie, both of whom were used as examples by azteclady, but in the interest of playing devil’s advocate, popularity is not a promise that the popular author is beyond such petty things, just that what and how they’re writing has hit the “kink” of the masses at the time.~

Perhaps none of us are above ‘petty things’, but if the comments by myself and Jennie had been read, I think it would be extremely hard to find any sour grapes in the mix.

And I think with a career spanning 26 years, maybe I can claim to have done just a bit more than hit the ‘kink of the masses at the time’.

And to claim petty behavior or sour grapes, imo, dilutes the ISSUE. To ascribe motives or feelings underlying very clear, very articulate, very specific opinions is reaching.

Costumes have been around for other events and venues for years and years. I could have chosen to wear one at any time. I haven’t, not because I didn’t think of it, but because I don’t care for the ploy.

Plain, simple, factual.

I think we should all be allowed our opinions, and others should be allowed to agree or disagree—without assigning motives not expressed.

I guess I’m kinda baffled by the—if it looks good on you, it’s okay. But that’s the opinion held by others—and they’re entitled to it. And I don’t assume they have underlying motives or biases for holding that opinion.

azteclady said”

On the other hand, some public/online behaviour may put me off an author completely—it’s gotta be rather extreme, it’s true, but it can happen (and has, for me).

I agree with this. And it is equally true of reviewers and bloggers as it is of authors. There are online communities that I no longer feel comfortable visiting, either because the blogger’s mantra when faced with dissenting comments seems to be “You will assimilate; resistance is futile”, or because the forum moderation is so passive that it verges on encouraging personal attacks and intimidation. For example, I no longer post on the Amazon threads because there simply is no discernible moderation there, and it leads to unbelievably abusive threads.

I think this kind of bad behavior is ultimately self-defeating because in the end no one feels safe. And if you don’t feel safe, you’re either going to leave or you’re going to feed each other pablum rather than engage in insightful discussion. That, I learned from teaching art, where everyone’s ass is constantly hanging out there, or you’re not doing it right. heh, heh

So, where comments have the effect of bullying or intimidation, or stifling someone’s right to argue their point, that also reads to me like a personal attack.

I think Sarah and Candy do a good job of wrangling posters who cross the line, but I have also seen the SB community act effectively to police itself—which I find very impressive, frankly. As for the Ferfelabat/Cruciger threads…no comment.

So, where comments have the effect of bullying or intimidation, or stifling someone’s right to argue their point, that also reads to me like a personal attack.

Sorry to double post, but a bit of serious clarification seems necessary:

1) The above quote was meant as a general comment and was in NO WAY directed at anyone here.

2) By “safe” I did not mean “walking on eggshells” or treating each other like delicate little flowers.

Uh, okay. Think that’ll do it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled…stuff.

Vaughan Williams, you are right—it is unsporting, and it’s no excuse that other people have done it.

I apologize for quoting that paragraph out of context. It’s no excuse but upon reading it, I wasn’t sure.

On the other hand, and as long as the comments are about the costume debate, I’d beg people to read the thread before pronouncing it ridiculous/ironic/trivial/shallow/catty/whatever to have such a long discussion on (insert misconception of choice)

Ai, ai, ai, Jackie L. Are you serious about that “intervention”? Sounds like torture by condescension.

As I was piffling about earlier, online behavior matters to me, too. I just checked out a couple blogs by members here the other day, with the intent of checking out their books next time I’m in the bookstore or library.

Also agree that “female modesty” was extremely tangential to the previous costume thread, if not entirely irrelevant. But I digress.

Yeah, the intervention was real.  My 14-year-old daughter talked about my romance “addiction” to her favorite teacher.  So the teacher read me the riot act for 30 minutes. 

Unfortunately, I really, really, like this teacher.  She has been wonderful to all three of my children.  (And if you knew my children!) 

So I did the same act I pulled with the irritated highway patrolman who pulled me over a few years back.

“Why are you driving 90 miles an hour in a 55 zone, doc?”

I was slowing down from 95.  Keep silent, try sheepish smile.

“You coulda killed somebody.”

I saw him and a cow.  No, really, I was in far from anywhere Colorado—the eastern plains.  Think Dances with Wolves without the romantic camera filters.

“You sped through town!”

There was a town?  Must have blinked.

Mind you, during his whole rant, I just did variations on the sheepish thing and kept my big mouth shut.

“Well, doc, I wouldn’t even write you a ticket, except I chased your sorry ass for five miles.”

The ticket was a whopper.  I just wanted to see how fast my mini-van would go. Just an experiment. I didn’t even laugh at the image of the poor guy chasing my mini-van for 5 miles.  And how did he know what I do for a living?  I don’t use my title in my private life.  What kind of info do they have on those computers about us supposedly law-abiding citizens anyway?

Since I really respect the teacher who explained earnestly that wasting my brain on romance is tantamount to alcohol addiction in the sheer number of brain cells killed—I’m only exaggerating a bit—I just did the sheepish thing.  But I wish I could have grabbed hold of her shoulders, sat her down and made her read, oh, I dunno, Northern Lights by LaNora or Fredericka by Georgette Heyer, one of the greats of the genre.

But since she taught my children that magic lesson that I haven’t been able to instill—RESPONSIBILITY—I just smiled a lot.  I wonder what she would do if I were a drunk, or something.

Honestly, when I saw those two authors at the book Literacy Signing I didn’t know they wrote books. I didn’t think to ask why they were dressed like that and if I passed them at their table I couldn’t see the outfits. And that’s what the whole point of the discussion should have been.

How they were dressed didn’t perpetuate what an “author” should be dressed like at a signing. The “gimmick” didn’t make them stand out to me so what was the true point.

Now if I was a fan of their’s and could recognize them buried under all those other authors then yes. I might have found there get up amusing.

The big a$$ Swan Hat speaks for itself.

My opinion has no malice intended.

Now where does the line cross?

Saying they were dressed inappropiately doesn’t cross the line.

Saying they were dressed like sluts. May be on the line. Depending on your view.

Saying they are sluts. Crosses it.

And really it’s just cowardly to dish out your opionion and don’t leave others to have their say. The worst thing about all of this is many people may be turned off from RWA or dressing up like their characters because of the whiplash when all of it is based on view point and/or personal opinion.

Now if an author shows up for a signing wearing a Little Kim nipple tassel . . .

Nora Roberts said:

Perhaps none of us are above ‘petty things’, but if the comments by myself and Jennie had been read, I think it would be extremely hard to find any sour grapes in the mix.

And I think with a career spanning 26 years, maybe I can claim to have done just a bit more than hit the ‘kink of the masses at the time’.

I hope you don’t think I was denigrating you, in my post—I definitely was not. In fact, in my initial post, I specifically put a note that I was being sarcastic to emphasize how I certainly did NOT mean that you or Ms. Crusie were expressing sour grapes.

My subsequent post was mostly replying to azteclady, and me playing devil’s advocate. I was just saying that the only thing we can be sure of, with popular authors, is not the quality of their personalities (never an issue with either you or Ms. Crusie—to my knowledge, you’ve always dealt with others fairly and respectfully) but the quality of their output.

I’m sorry if you took any offense to my post.

As a veteran of usenet, bulletin boards and a cantankerous web site or two, I have to note that there are lines a writer does not cross unless he or she is trying to start something.  The rule against ad hominen comments is probably the most often cited and the frequently broken rule on any discussion site. 

The conversations here have remained for the most part civil.  I do not agree with removing posts.  That just rewards bad posters because it sanitizes their history.  While new leaves can be turned, thousands of bank loan offices are not wrong when they note that the best predicator of future behavior is past behavior.

Last, I have to say that reading Jane-from-Dear-Author’s posts are a pleasure.  She fillets with a very fine blade (and also does a nice legal analysis) paring away the emotion to the facts of the case.

I do believe this whole discussion was started with the best of intentions, but I also think discussing people’s clothes (and in connection with this, their perceived or real lack of professionalism—whatever *that* might be) will be taken personal. Clothes are, after all, our second skin.

In addition, I’m absolutely appalled how this issue has been blown out of proportion and has been stylized into the scandal of the year. Not only do I find the idea that A) people might be embarrassed/insulted/what-not by what somebody else is wearing at a conference, and that B) one big hat and two short skirts might damage the combined image of romance fiction and RWA, utterly ludicrous, but it also bears no resemblance to what happened in Dallas: we didn’t get any sort of bad coverage because of the hat and the skirts—on the contrary! The picture of Sherrilyn Kenyon and Julie Kenner and daughter was used to tell people there was this fun writers conference in town, and the next day this was followed up by an extremely positive article about the conference.

Yet what would have happened if the article had been full of stereotypes—housewives with literary aspirations meet in the depths of Texas to celebrate trashy books with half-naked people on the covers? Would anybody’s sales have dropped? Would we all have been ashamed to show our faces in our hometowns ever again? NO! Nothing would have happened—apart from the newspaper getting several hundreds of e-mails and letters from annoyed romance authors (after which they would have probably thought of us as *batty* housewives with literary aspirations).

As to the “professional” dress code, I have yet to attend an academic conference after which people discuss what other people have been wearing and whether their clothes were really appropriate for the setting in question. I’ve been to conferences where people wore jeans and wrinkled tee-shirts, yet nobody seemed to take this as a sign that the world of academia as we’d known it was coming to an end. And I’ve been to conferences where people (or to be more specific, a senior editor from TOR) wore the most eye-catching clothes you’re ever likely to see, and nobody thought this spellt the doom of fantasy fiction.

I don’t have a stake in this discussion, and apologize for speaking OT, but I would like to point out one thing that seems to be continually overlooked:

This whole deal had nothing to do with a bunch women cattily picking apart other women’s choices. It’s insulting to reduce it to that level. It’s business.

Liz Maverick and Marianne Mancusi themselves say that the outfits were a publicity stunt. They were meant to attract attention and buzz.

I personally don’t see anything wrong with the outfits, don’t even think they qualify as costumes because they look like everyday wear. BUT the authors themselves considered what they wore to be props in an act.

They put themselves out there to be talked about as part of a marketing plan. Just because not all of the talk is positive, that doesn’t mean that those comments are any less valid than “Ohmygod SO CUTE!” (which is what I’d say).

And frankly, with due respect to the authors, you lose style points for calling yourselves the “Rebels of Romance,” and then wringing your hands when the establishment disagrees with your choices. You want to have it both ways and you can’t.

The idea that we shouldn’t talk about their clothes—because that wouldn’t happen at other conferences or because it plays into stereotypes about catty women—is flatly wrong. And it misses the whole freaking point.

Arguing the merits of a marketing strategy is not being catty or petty or being a big meanie. It’s business.

What happened at that other site, however, does indeed play into all the worst stereotypes about women. I think that’s gross, ironic and delicious. But it’s far from the moral or ethical stance they were trying to take.

That’s how I draw the line.

Okay, I tried to read all the comments.  Had to give up before I got to the end.

I just don’t get any of this.  I loved those “little girl” outfits and my first thought was, “I’m so jealous.  Twenty years ago, maybe.  Then again, I probably never had the thighs for it.”  And frankly, I laughed when I saw SK in that swan thing.  That’s about how how important I thought the whole thing was.
Kinda fun.  Kinda funny.

I’m with Nora in that the whole costume thing as a PR ploy is a personal choice.  Period.  Even when I was in my 20’s, even if I’d had the thighs…probably not.  But that’s just me.

I suppose there’s the whole “here at RWA, we’re professionals.  We don’t wear costumes like they do at RT” rap.  Now someone wore costumes.  Horrors.

But come on.  Doesn’t anyone remember Sister Krissie’s nun outfit?  Most of us thought that was charming and funny.  Why not the little girl look and the swan hat?

It’s okay to do a takeoff on a nun, but not on a hot young girl or a big black bird?

I do think that Sister Krissie’s objective with the nun getup was different, that it wasn’t so much about selling books as it was about getting us all to lighten up and be the goddesses we are, fer cryin’ out loud.

And I don’t recall if she ever wore the habit to the literacy signing.  Maybe it was just to the RITAs…

But I still like the idea that I’m a goddess.

I like it a lot.

Jane said: Libel is a written factual untruth.  Someday I’m going to do a whole blog post on this because it is easily misunderstood.

I would love to read this.  I’m particularly curious if in your opinion it would count as libel if, for instance, along with his or her opinion of a book, a reviewer claimed that a book had poor sales?  That seems to be more of a factual statement that would need backing up.

Re: libel

Taking something out of context isn’t libel, but it could give rise to a false light tort - i.e. while factually true it paints the person in a false light and damages her reputation.

Saying someone has poor sales could be defamation (libel or slander) if it’s a) untrue and b) damages the person’s reputation, say by causing people who would normally buy her book to think she must be terrible and they thus decline to buy.

Jane is correct though, defamation is a tricky subject that can quickly get confusing.

Oh, and I should point out that what I said above is a *huge* oversimplification of the issue.

Defamation and public disclosure torts are fascinating (to me anyway, I’m a huge communications/first amendment law geek) but somewhat complicated and confusing.

I guess I disagree with Liv.  I don’t even think that a majority of legal jurisdictions recognize the false light tort and even in the ones that do, the publicity must be false in order to give rise to the tort itself. 

In a review where the reviewer says that sales are flagging, if she bases that on two bookscan reports or differences on a bestseller list or something akin to that but the real truth (ie., royalty statements) show differently, I doubt that would be viewed as defamatory because the standard is quite high (reckless disregard for the truth).  I think it is arguable that a jury could find that the basis of a reviewer’s statement on bookscan or even bestseller lists could be defensible.  Even then, the person claiming defamation has to show that the defamatory statement has a causal connection to the lost sales.  I.e., in the law there truly is a sense of NO HARM = NO FOUL.

I recall that there was a really interesting defamation suit filed by a woman’s college basketball coach against a newspaper that defined the coach as a loser.  The coach lost the defamation suit because the coach did have a losing record.  I think it was more detailed than that but that is the best I can remember off the top of my head.

I think, personally, false light torts are very dangerous and moves too far over the line in protecting people v. free speech but then I am a free speech nut.

Nope.  False light is a privacy tort, not a defamation tort.  Included in false light is the publication of true information that gives a false implication.

Many jurisdictions don’t recognize false light, but many do.

I don’t really agree with it either, but it does exist.

“And I also question whether LKH, for example, is wise to go mano a mano with some of the crazies who stalk her on line. What do you guys think? Does this kind of direct contact just encourage the crazies and their vicious attacks or is it a mostly effective marketing tool?”

LKH has had people waiting in line to cuss her out, has had books and even BLOOD thrown at her. One cannot blame her for going into defense mode and having people around to watch her back with loonies like that about.

But for all that, her online diatribes against the Blue Meanies are not wise or professional.  It pulls her down to their level and just gives them more ammo.  They poke until they get a reaction, which validates them, so they poke some more. 

Marketing tool?  Hardly.  I’m sure her publishers wish she’d belt up and ignore the hecklers.  She’s a very nice person at heart and should be above that kind of schoolyard scrapping.

Rice’s infamous Amazon rant against the very fans who made her freakin’ wealthy did her no good, either.  Seasoned pros in my circle still shudder over that one.

If a fan gives wank, it’s best to ignore it.

Some fans, on the other hand, seem to forget that if you don’t like the writing, DON’T BUY the book.  Borrow from the library if you’re that curious.

When I interact with my fans I say THANK YOU.  A lot.  They don’t have to buy my books.  Danged straight I’m grateful!

I keep a blog.  I don’t discuss my personal life, but focus on my books and the craft of writing.  Sometimes I will do an Erma Bombeck-style piece if something amusing has happened.

No politics, no religion, I post when there’s something of interest to share, never “just because.”  There’s no fun in listing what’s on my desk, how many words I wrote that day or the nature and intensity of my last hotflash.

A good rule of thumb for blogs?

Be cheerfully professional and NEVER post ANYTHING you’d want a crazed stalker or serial-killer to know about you.

~The idea that we shouldn’t talk about their clothes—because that wouldn’t happen at other conferences or because it plays into stereotypes about catty women—is flatly wrong. And it misses the whole freaking point.

Arguing the merits of a marketing strategy is not being catty or petty or being a big meanie. It’s business.~

Thank you.

Yes, false light is a privacy tort but even courts have a difficult time parsing the difference between defamation and false light (different restatements of course, but still the same idea with a lower standard. In essence, a lower bar for defamation claims). 

* * * Skip for re hash.  Sorry Candy and Sarah * * * *

Nora, I have a question for you.  Let’s assume for the sake of argument that romance had the same degree of respectability that mystery or science fiction has and you were no longer questioned about the validity of romance as a literary sub genre.  Would costumes (regardless of the type of costume - just any costume) be an issue for you?  The reason that I ask is I am trying to get a sense of whether it is the existence of costumes because it erodes movement toward respectability or whether it is an issue of raising one’s self above others in a group charity setting.

The problem that I have with the argument regarding “existence of costumes eroding movement toward respectability” is that it seems inconsistent to be for the right to wear them on an individual signing basis or for their to be entire COSTUME BALLS at RT (along with naked men, but I guess that is another story altogether) but not to be for the right to wear them at the RWA Literacy Signing because doesn’t a romance author stand as a romance author all of the time regardless of time, place, location?

Imo, it’s not the point either, to say she looked so cute. The same as it wouldn’t be to say, she didn’t have to legs to pull that off, or she was a little too old for it.

That, imo, IS personal.

Discussing the appropriateness or various opinions on the wearing of costumes, is entirely different than saying she looked good, but her? Not so much.

For me, it’s costumes outside an event where costumes would be called for. Or where their use—a launch for a line, a workshop or seminar for that specific line would make that marketing ploy specific.

I can’t say how I’d feel if the perception of the genre were different, because one of the reasons I think it’s not (and maybe small potatoes, but still potatoes) is due to issues like this perpetuating the impression we’re flighty or silly.

I don’t participate in RT. Nothing against it, or those who do, but there are reasons I don’t. Still, the costumes balls held there are billed as such, and it’s much more a party for readers.

Some of it goes back to what I just posted. If we open to costumes, is it just the cute ones, or the funny ones? The pretty ones, or the ones that suit the wearer—and in whose viewpoint? If we open it for the literacy signing, wouldn’t it then be okay to wear one at any time during the conference?

And maybe it would be, in some opinions. Just not in mine.

But again, this particular event is RWA’s biggest public event, and involves hundreds of authors—and the media.

If an individual author elects to wear a costume to her own signing, it’s just none of my business. I might certainly hold the opinion, jeez, that’s goofy, but it’s her signing, her media, her presentation. I’d shrug that off the same way I have to shrug off those authors who giggle for reporters and talk about how much WORK they put into RESEARCHING their sex scenes with their husbands.

As has been mentioned before, whether the outfits are cute is not the point. And I think the original thread went off the rails because people tried to make it about that. After all, if you’re defending these ladies on a personal level, I think it implies that the original comments were attacking them on a personal level—which is simply not true.

I didn’t see the costumes, but it’s totally possible that I would have thought they were fun and that the ladies looked super hawt. That wouldn’t affect my opinion of the clothes professionalism or lack thereof, nor should it.

(As an aside, I also think defenses like this are where the whole “are we judging women through a male lens” questioning comes in. There seems to be a sense of, if you didn’t approve of these costumes at the signing, then you don’t think women can look pretty and be professional, you think they should be de-sexed and manly…which, also, isn’t what this was about.)

work77…exactly what I’m not doing.