Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

That’s it?  That’s it?  A common urban myth handled well (I love “I made that part up”) and J. Wallace has a hissy fit in public?

My mind is boggled.

This was very entertaining, and I appreciate the SB’s pulling all the threads together. 

And I’m still mulling over “So while you may be thinking our pot may seem to be throwing glass houses at our kettle…”

That’s kind of like the man-titty, mulleted cover of mixed metaphors.  It’s a phrase for the ages.

“That’s it?  That’s it?  A common urban myth handled well (I love “I made that part up”) and J. Wallace has a hissy fit in public?”

I agree.  I thought it was funny.  Of course, I sometimes have the sense of humor of a 13 year-old boy. 

If J. Wallace is so uptight that this offended her, I have ZERO INTEREST in reading her book.  I’m sure it will be a snoozefest.  I am glad her review has actually helped the author. 

I was one of those who was very annoyed if not outright offended by Paperback Writer’s rant last year about how those who are not published authors should just shut the fuck up about those who are.  However, Jennifer LeBrecque is a better woman than I if she has the restraint not to call this ass-hat and say, “And you have published HOW MANY books?”

I got the impression from Alison Kent’s blog that she doesn’t know for sure if Jody Wallace has a submission on that particular editor’s desk or not. I think it was more of a “Payback’s gonna be a bitch if you’re ever in a position where the author and her friends can give it to you” kind of thing.

A few days ago when a friend emailed me about the storm that was brewing, I read the excerpt. This is supposed to be shocking? Amusing? Edgy? Color me underwhelmed.

I had a feeling there’d be a bunch of people piling on the reviewer. I’m guessing she regrets posting it under her own name.

What I find distasteful about this latest kerfuffle is the sixth grade girl feel to the “Oh, you’re gonna be at RWA National, are you?” comments. This mentality is one of the things I like least about RWA.

Wait.  Someone posted a scathing review over that?  Seriously.  No, seriously???  This person posted a review, using her own name, took a shot at author/editor/publisher while herself an aspiring author…. for a couple of sentences that are clearly an early throwaway bit??  My mind, she is blown.

***What I find distasteful about this latest kerfuffle is the sixth grade girl feel to the “Oh, you’re gonna be at RWA National, are you?” comments. This mentality is one of the things I like least about RWA.***

Celeste, I don’t really get what this means.  I think it’s a combination of no inflection, and I’ve had the day from hell, so my brain’s fried.

As for Ms. Wallace - everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and hey, this is America, where one can stand up and say whatever they like, so long as it’s not about a fire in a theatre.

Personally, I wouldn’t have posted a review like that, whether I was an aspiring writer or a nuclear physicist.  I tend to post reviews on Amazon and Barnes & Noble when a book really makes me wanna cry, it’s that good.  Sharing the good stuff is fun.  The bad stuff goes in the garbage, never to be thought about again.  I wouldn’t have thrown the book in question in the garbage, because I didn’t see anything bad about it - but as I said, we’re all entitled to our opinion.  Ms. Wallace clearly is offended by hamsters and anal cavities.  Or should I say, hamsters IN anal cavities?  Maybe, taken apart, these are not offensive? 

Me?  I’m offended by bigots and state politicians named Napoli.  However, if a book opened with a scene that had an x-ray of Mr. Napoli shoved up a bigot’s ass, dude, I’d be telling everyone I know to BUY THIS BOOK!

I agree, Stef. I’ve yet to read a book that so offended my sensibilities that I’d write a scathing review on Amazon under a pseudonym, much less my real name. There are MUCH worse things going on in the world, and to make enemies over something that’s very small, in the scheme of things, is a waste of a good rant, IMO.

I think things would’ve been better all around if the author hadn’t blogged about it. Her blog post reveals that it upset her enough that she went looking for information on the reviewer and then issued the “friendly” invitation to the reviewer to stop by at the signing.

Maybe MY brain’s fried tonight, but didn’t that come off a bit like the author was trying to intimidate the reviewer? What about the author’s friends’ comments as to what might happen to the reviewer’s manuscript if it were submitted to the same editor/house? THAT’S what I was talking about.

I got the impression from Alison Kent’s blog that she doesn’t know for sure if Jody Wallace has a submission on that particular editor’s desk or not. I think it was more of a “Payback’s gonna be a bitch if you’re ever in a position where the author and her friends can give it to you” kind of thing.

That’s also how I read it, although perhaps there’s more info on Wallace’s own website regarding this. 

So, since there were only two copies of LaBrecque’s book left at Amazon, I HAD to buy one (damn that Amazon Prime membership!).  I have never heard of or read LaBrecque before.  How did this whole thing become an issue to begin with? 

My favorite comment at Alison Kent’s site, though, is probably the one about how hamsters don’t have tails.  I’m not sure how that affects the ER “realism” argument, though.

As for the whole kerfluffle, I actually didn’t think that Wallace’s review was scathing so much as it was not very well crafted and blandly, dismissively negative.  I guess she made a pretty good example, though, for authors to make the “be careful who you criticize if you ever want to be published in THIS town” argument I suspect many have been dying to make lately.

Oh Geez!
(I just read the teaser over on Alison’s site) THAT’S worth a blasting by a reviewer? This gal, got all squeemie and then all outraged enough to leave a review on amazon.com about it? Is she kidding? MY sister is a nurse yes in the ER sometimes, and she’s got stories that would turn your hair white.
( Dear Ms. Wallace, don’t watch this!http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/buttrocket.html ) (not work friendly)
The stuff people well…uh, stuff in their orifice is creative to say the least.

*sarcasm mode ON*

I am deeply, deeply offended by the blurb posted from this book. I’m so offended that I will never, EVER buy anything written by Ms. LaBrecque as long as I live. How she, her editor or her publisher could let such a heinous piece of garbage out into the unsuspecting world I will never know. But unlike J. Wallace I WILL mention the part that offended me:

“Kate drained the rest of her double latte with the expresso shot…”

How dare they make such a crude mistake about the all important subject of high priced Italian coffee? How dare they! Everyone knows that a double latte already contains TWO shots of espresso, not one! For shame Ms. LeBrecque, for shame!

*sarcasm mode OFF*

And this, my friends is what happens when you spend a very long summer working at a coffee shop in your teens. You become unbalanced. And you develop a deep psychosis which makes you nauseas every time you open a bag of espresso beans, but that can be treated with therapy.

Here’s hoping everyone catches the sarcasm so I don’t endanger my possible future writing career. :-p

“Kate drained the rest of her double latte with the expresso shot…”

Not to mention - isn’t it espresso?  Minus the x?  Like in x-ray?

Just sayin’.

Stef~

I was actually going to comment on that, but according to Merriam-Webster expresso is a valid alternate spelling. *shudder* Those bastards. I probably should have checked the Oxford English Dictionary, they tend to be more picky about alternate spellings.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know what the hell this is all about and don’t much care.  But, having a hair-trigger link-click finger, I did go to ol’ Jen’s site. 

EEEEEKKK!  That picture in the upper left in the banner area, what gives with THAT?  At first I thought it was a mother cuddling with her child.  Then I thought—and, believe me, this process took a while and involved many potato chips—well, Hag, that CAN’T be the kind of picture it is, considering the touted drool-cup nature of the author’s output.  So I looked closer.  The larger figure seemed to have whiskers, suggesting it was a man—a man getting way too schmoodgy with a child.  But no, thought I, if that’s a man, his limbs are far more willowy than those of most women I know (but, then, most women I know live in Wisconsin).

Ultimately, I ran out of potato chips and resigned myself to not knowing what to think.

So, what’s my point?  Beats me, but I’ll give it a stab.  I don’t know what Jennifer’s book is about (I’m inferring it’s about something Scottish), but I HAVE learned it’s damned important that an author scrutinize the graphics she throws on her web site lest a jaundiced moomoo such as I mistakes the, uh, nature of that author’s erotic bent.

I guess I come down on a different side.  Like Robin said, it appears that you can’t say anything negative about another author’s work if you want to be published.  I guess the in crowd is sticking it to the wannabes but good.  What if it was an ordinary reader (not a wannabe author) who wrote the review?  Would we be up in arms then?

I think what we’re seeing here, Jane, is that some authors would like

to inflict harm on negative reviewers all the time, but it’s only when they’re temporarily in a position to do something about it (i.e., hurt a less established author’s career) that we hear about it. Ugly, no?

I guess we can learn from this that with any negative review there are going to be authors who will Google you within an inch of your life, not only looking for a way to get even but also to find something about you they can use to make your point of view less valid to

. People don’t want to hear negative stuff about themselves and will go to great lengths not to have to believe it.

i didn’t think it was that bad a review, really. people have different tastes.

and in fact, after reading the excerpt on alison’s blog, i agree with j wallace that “the humor is forced.” i wasn’t grossed out by the hamster, but the whole excerpt kind of made me roll my eyes.

definitely not good enough for me to buy, anyway. maybe it’s just my taste, but i found the writing really stilted.

which brings me to my point- though you might write reviews based on the plot, how would you manage to ignore- or not discuss- bad prose or forced writing or even just the author’s voice shining through too clearly?

(i’m not necessarily saying the author of “highland fling” is guilty of that, as i’ve only read a very brief excerpt).

When I read the excerpt of the ER scene, I wondered how many country music fans it would enrage.  Mr. Chesney has a rodent up the butt. Chesney is not a common name and there’s a lot of speculation that Keith Chesney (who was briefly married Renee Zwellweger) is gay.  (And hey, I don’t even like country music and know this). Perhaps this is coincidence, but it pulled me out of the excerpt (cardinal sin for an author IMHO).

As for the how did this get published comment, yes it is tacky and perhaps a bit too snarky (especially if you’re trying to get published), but let’s face it, we’ve all asked the same question before (usually in the privacy of our own home).

To be honest, I haven’t picked up a blaze or plan to anytime soon.  I am not sure what offended the reviewer at all but it seems pretty obvious she either lacks a sense of humor or has never been in medicine.  Perhaps she thought that Ms. LaBrecque was being offensive to certain communities. 

The excerpt in question seemed more anachronistic than anything else to me.  The way the x-ray was brought up was rather odd, it doesn’t feel like it would happen in a hospital ER in 2006. 

Being someone who has had the rather odd experience of a patient presenting with objects swallowed or placed up their bottoms, I thought she handled it well.  She gave the entire hospital staff much better credit than I would.  Because the last time I had a patient come in with a dildo stuck the entire nursing staff and physicians were ROTFL and had to restrain ourselves before we went in to talk to him.  And I would have spit out my coffee, thankfully we have our X-rays on the computer now to protect them from things like that.

As for the rest of the review there was mention of concerns with historical accuracy.  So while the last comment was inappropriate she did make an attempt to clearly indicate what offended.  I don’t see what was so bad about the review in the end.

I’m a country music fan, but I totally missed the Chesney thing…I found that to be a silly, throw away thing that was added to make it more “realistic.”  I wasn’t really impressed, but I attend a med school right now (not for my MD) and we have lots of doctor guest lecturers and the ones who work in the ER UNIVERSALLY discuss the stuff people put up their butts.  I imagine the hamster is not that uncommon. 

I think she was writing a fairly reasonable review until the end.  She did say she thought it lacked historical accuracy and the sex scenes were uninvolving.  And she was obviously quite offended.  But I’m not really getting why she even thought she needed to add the attack on basically everyone.It didn’t improve the review, it made me wonder if she had a personal beef with this author or the publishing company.  And take her less seriously.

expresso/espresso

Or being thrown out of a book when a character says Midsummer is the longest night of the year….

LaBrecque’s post has a feel of “I’m getting a flood of email/IM pings about this, so I should probably say something” added to amusement over how people respond to a negative review.

I don’t think it would have been nearly the kerfluffle it has become without that snark about the publisher. No industry is wide enough to toss personal insults around like that. Some of the reactions have a ring of “and your little dog, too!”, but there are just as many of the “I can’t believe she did that!” variety. I’m reminded of the reactions when editors and slush readers discovered Rejection Collection.

Will we Smart Bitches be brave enough to show our faces at RWA: Dallas?

Yes! You must! We will all be fighting to buy you appletinis. I’m only sorry there likely won’t be a Johnny Cash impersonator playing in the hotel lounge as there was at RWA: Reno.

Some may rush out and buy it, and any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income.

I guess I just don’t find this statement to be scathingly mean.  If anything, statements like that probably deter people from giving it credence.  It’s a poorly articulated thought and I wouldn’t normally be arsed to parse out its meaning other than to read it and summarize to myself - huh, I don’t think she liked the book.

I think the whole thing is Junior High-ish but then I find the romance writing community (at least online) to be very cliquish so this kerfuffle is in keeping with that attitude.

I thought for sure the rodent-harboring character’s surname would be Gere. (That urban legend’s been circulating for about 20 years, since Richard Gere’s heyday as an actor, hasn’t it? Time for a trip to Snopes.com ...)

Yep, indeedy, this story is available at Snopes.com, only I got my rodents mixed up. The favored rodent of the urban legend is the gerbil, not the hamster.

http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosexuality/gerbil.asp

Guess this means the next Romance that I pick up will feature a dead grandmother tied to the roof of a stolen car. Or hundreds of spiders hatching from a woman’s bouffant hairdo.

I just want to clarify. I don’t think the SB are cliquey but the romance writing community.  And I appreciate the heads up on the piece.  I think the discussion is humorous.

While certainly the line was crossed when Wallace spewed at the author, the editor, the publisher, and all the readers who actually like the book, I suspect there was a bit of extra venom from the peanut gallery because Wallace dared to be offended by kink.

If Wallace hadn’t included the last line of her review, I wonder how many people would have said, “THIS offended you? Get a grip you prude!”

Also: Allison Kent makes it clear that her scenario of Wallace’s manuscript on the editor’s desk is imaginary. “As I said, that’s totally hypothetical. I don’t know for beans what this person is writing…”

Also also: hamster, long tail? Er, not unless this story take place in northern China, or this fellow decided to buy an illegal import just for shits and grins. (Whoa, bad pun. Sorry.)

Amazon reviews are like that sometimes though. It comes with the territory. I LOVE it when someone bitches about one of my books having too much sex because without fail, my numbers go up the next month. 

I think the author dealt with it well and I wish her many sales.

And you know, sure you can put up a negative review of something and get published. But it’s like anything else, if you insult an editor you should be aware that may bite you on the ass later.

A simple - this book didn’t work and here’s why is always better than sinking to anything personal and trying to be funny.

I got the impression from Alison Kent’s blog that she doesn’t know for sure if Jody Wallace has a submission on that particular editor’s desk or not. I think it was more of a “Payback’s gonna be a bitch if you’re ever in a position where the author and her friends can give it to you” kind of thing.

Just to make clear, my comments weren’t intended in a payback sort of vein.  I’m doing quite fine *g*, don’t need to pay anyone back - not even my most recent Amazon reviewer who wondered if I owned a thesaurus!

I was simply shocked that an author trying to sell a book to a particular house would publicly question the taste of that house and an acquiring editor there.  That is definitely biting the hand that feeds you - and isn’t limited to the publishing industry.  It’s simply good business sense not to do it!

Some may rush out and buy it, and any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income.

I guess I just don’t find this statement to be scathingly mean.  If anything, statements like that probably deter people from giving it credence.  It’s a poorly articulated thought and I wouldn’t normally be arsed to parse out its meaning other than to read it and summarize to myself - huh, I don’t think she liked the book.

Yeah, I’m a little perplexed by the response to this line, too.  I think I’ve been pretty vocal about being uncomfortable with personal attacks on authors, readers, et al, but how is this statement of Wallace’s different from a comment like, “how did this cover get past the art department” or “where was the copy editor on this one” or even “De Salvo looks like he inhaled once too often on this cover” or “what are publishers thinking to keep putting out the same old, same old”?  Except, of course, for the fact that the review itself was not particularly well-crafted, which IMO may have been its real but relatively unexploited vulnerability.  No editor is singled out and/or criticized in this comment, the author is backhandedly praised as a good salesperson, and the publisher is characaterized how, exactly?  As one that will put out tasteless material?  Well, that’s a new criticism in Romance, isn’t it?  Like Felice, I think the key here is that Wallace is an aspiring author herself and the clunky, outraged review came to LaBrecque’s attention, and voila, and example and a warning were born. No wonder authors don’t publically review each other’s work if a promised rumble at the RWA is the result.

Like Sherry, I thought about the Richard Gere incident when I read the disputed scene (and I did have a moment’s thought about Kenny Chesney, too), especially since it’s gerbils that have tails.  It didn’t shock me or gross me out, but I do want to read the book before I make my own judgment about whether Wallace was too harsh or not in her general comments about the book.

Robin, would you please, please post your impressions after reading the book in question?

I would actually read this if ...

1) The heroine **redeems** the patient in the ER, so that he no longer sticks live rodents into bodily orifices—though he clenches his jaw & sweat breaks out on his forehead as he struggles with his inner demons whenever they pass the windows of a pet shop.

2) The heroine’s sensuality is awakened by the ER patient and she experiments sexually, in a series of extremely kinky sex scenes, until she, too, enjoys using live rodents as a marital aid.

3) A hunky veterinarian appears in the next scene, who briefly revives the traumatized rodent—and through his display of sensitivity, becomes the heroine’s love interest.

If the daydreaming heroine just meets some doctor or some generic hunky guy in the pages that follow, then I’m not interested. Great gimmick for an opening, but I want it followed through with, damn it!

I was simply shocked that an author trying to sell a book to a particular house would publicly question the taste of that house and an acquiring editor there.  That is definitely biting the hand that feeds you - and isn’t limited to the publishing industry.  It’s simply good business sense not to do it!

So if she had left out the line about the author getting the publisher to “run with it,” would your position on the review change?  In other words, are you saying that no aspiring author should negatively review another author’s book if she ever wants to get into that publishing house (because every charge of a bad book could be read as a slap against an acquiring editor, right?).  Or would it have been okay if she disguised her name, or waited until she was published, or written a more thoughtful and better expressed opinion—or should no aspiring author make negative comments about a book if they hope someday to be published by the house that put such a book out?  The implications of that make me a little uncomfortable.

Robin - You can read my feelings on author reviews at this link.

If the daydreaming heroine just meets some doctor or some generic hunky guy in the pages that follow, then I’m not interested. Great gimmick for an opening, but I want it followed through with, damn it!

LOL, Sherry!  As an animal lover who has done my share of animal rescue, I vote for #3.  And, of course, the matchmaking hamster will live with the happy couple and then have her own sequel in which she meets the hamster of her dreams.  How romantic is that?!

“...it appears that you can’t say anything negative about another author’s work if you want to be published.”

I can only truly speak for myself, but I don’t think anyone is objecting to J.Wallace’s right to give this book any review she wants.  My point was that as an aspiring writer her statements were politically unwise.  She did not only give a harsh criticism of the author’s work, but of the author herself, and the publisher of the book.  It was a classic newbie or “wannabe” mistake, but possibly a costly one. 

I remember 12 years ago when I was a newbie, fresh out of college and entering the business world.  I very quickly learned about “Office Politics.”  I am sure everyone here knows what “Office Politics” is and I am not defining it here to insult anyone’s intelligence, but to make my point.  My first boss explained that in order to be politically savvy in the office one must understand that just because something is legal, just because something is within the rules of the company, just because something is within my rights as a human being, and even if I SHOULD be able to do it….does not mean it is the smart thing to do for my career.  To do this thing, whatever it may be, is to take my career into my own hands and roll the dice with it.  I imagine the publishing world has a very similar political system.

I believe there are things in life that are important enough to commit career suicide over.  It is one of the reasons why I have left the corporate world and am now pursuing a career as a librarian.  I don’t think J. Wallace has ruined her chances for a career as a writer, but she may have made the road a little more difficult for herself.  She also made herself look like a fuddy-duddy with no sense of humor and an overactive sense of outrage.  I don’t imagine that will help her much either. I wonder if that review is worth it to her now.

Since when did posting a bad review merit a Google witch hunt and a personal attack?  Not everyone is going to love what you put down on paper, and yes, some may be offended.  Get over it.

And when did animal cruelty become an amusing gimmick?  As stated by a number of people, there are many items the author could have employed to get the humorous reaction she was seeking.  Live animals ain’t it in my world.

So if she had left out the line about the author getting the publisher to “run with it,” would your position on the review change?  In other words, are you saying that no aspiring author should negatively review another author’s book if she ever wants to get into that publishing house (because every charge of a bad book could be read as a slap against an acquiring editor, right?)

I don’t know about Alison, but I think my opinion of the review would have changed. I don’t think editors are so thin-skinned that “every charge of a bad book” becomes a slap, but any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income seems to have moved into the personal attack arena—not just about the author, but the publisher/editor. And that just isn’t smart.

It is possible to write a review that states one’s opinion—even of a book that one may not have liked as well as another—while still making it clear that it’s just personal opinion. I have recently discovered that while I will read all sorts of kinky erotica, there’s one particular word that just throws me out of the story every time I bump into it. (No, it’s not “the F word.”) I recognize that it’s my own quirk and that others don’t have it, and in fact may like running across that word. I can still review stories (I do short little one paragraph reviews that I so far share only on the Romance Readers Anonymous loop), while acknowledging that some of them don’t work as well for me as others—but they may work for others.

But while I think it’s wrong to go for the personal attack, I also am bothered by the tendency I’ve seen among many authors to slap back after a bad review. That’s kind of a “biting the hand that feeds you” thing too, IMO. This is why I do not read reviews on Amazon. If I don’t read them, I don’t get upset and I don’t get the urge to smack back. Besides, all I can really do is write the best book I can and offer it up to the world. Yes, lovely reviews are lovely, and bad reviews are sad, but in the end, it’s not going to change what I write, so…

And this is a way too long comment—congratulations if you stick to the very end.

<objecting to J.Wallace’s right to give this book any review she wants.  My point was that as an aspiring writer her statements were politically unwise.  She did not only give a harsh criticism of the author’s work, but of the author herself, and the publisher of the book.  It was a classic newbie or “wannabe” mistake, but possibly a costly one.>>>>>>>>> (italics weren’t working in preview mode)

I don’t doubt that what you’re saying is true, but I’m a little disturbed by two things:  1) the timing of this episode vis a vis the whole “mean author” and “mean reader” discussions, and 2) the fact that no one seems to question a writing/publishing culture that embraces these rules.

I read the conversation Alison Kent linked to, and while I was glad to see she really pushed for the legitimacy of (published) authors reviewing the work of other authors, the debate basically came down to two comments for me, one from Leslie Kelly and one from HelenKay Dimon:

Kelly:  “And finally, the romance fiction industry, despite the number authors, is an *incredibly* small community. Everybody knows everybody. Everybody talks. There’s a lot of loyalty between friends and catty backstabbing between enemies. Honestly, I think a reviewer-author can be shooting themselves in the foot if they rip apart the wrong book and offend that author and alllllll her friends. And, by the way, her editor! (Um, I have personal knowledge of this one. I know an editor who will NEVER buy a particular author because that author has publicly slammed the editor’s authors & basically said their books shouldn’t have been published. Uh, EXCUSE ME? You really think the editor who bought those books is going to buy you after that???)”

Dimon:  “I’ve gotten hate mail, two of which I viewed as threats. A husband of an author wrote me to complain about my review even though I liked and recommended the book! Two people wrote to tell me how I better watch out when my own books come out because they plan to not read them but then to say negative things anyway. Yeah, trust me, I think about this. This is the stuff I find personal and ridiculous. This 7th grade bully-on-the-playground attitude from these emails (not you or anything said here) convinces me reviews by authors are necessary. We have to be grown-ups about this. Every other genre accepts internal criticism. I truly believe it is the romance author community’s inability to do so minimizes us. We become easy targets of a “watch the little girls fight” mentality. No name-calling is needed. No nastiness is needed. I should be able to say the Anita Blake books don’t work for me and not suffer threats of retaliation. We’re professionals, not junior high girls trying out for cheerleading.”

From the comments I read during that discussion and others I see around blogland, I get the feeling that more authors are sympathetic to Kelly’s position and Dimon’s, and I think that’s unfortunate for the genre in a number of ways, not the least of which is a false sense of security that comes with pressuring authors to be publically quiet about the work that defines the genre.  Like that kind of pressure doesn’t inspire passive-aggressive behavior.

It’s not what she said but how she said it. I’m definitley pro-criticism in any genre, but that review went over the line.

My workshop background is poetry and SF/F, more F than SF, and a response like that would have earned the critiquer a private chat with just about every workshop leader/moderator I’ve worked with. It would also lower my willingness to take anything she said seriously, no matter whose work she had skewered. I’ve been in the position of having to tell someone that something offended me enough that I couldn’t offer any reader reaction on the rest of the piece. I managed to do it without offending anyone involved with one exception, a gal who turned out to be quite the primadonna. (And if I can do it, anyone should be able to.)

Were I an aquiring editor, I would certainly think twice about buying anything from her. Not from revenge, but from the impression the review has given me of her personality. The manuscript would have to be incredibly good for me to take the chance of working with her.

It is possible to write a review that states one’s opinion—even of a book that one may not have liked as well as another—while still making it clear that it’s just personal opinion.

I totally agree with this.  And as a lowly reader with no aspirations to be a Romance author, my POV on Wallace’s review is not so much that it’s a directed personal attack, but that it doesn’t necessarily reflect the values of professional honesty that one might hope to expect of an author, published or aspiring.  The review doesn’t scream, “I respect the craft of writing and the community of authors of which I hope someday to be a part;” instead it reads more like a slash and burn reader review.  In that sense, I can see how some authors might be raising their eyebrows at it, and I can even see how they are referring to it as a personal attack (as in, Wallace doesn’t seem to hold the community of authors and publishers in such high regard).  OTOH, I think I’ve become so disappointed lately in some online author behavior and in certain aspects of the Romance community as a whole that I forget that there are plenty of authors who *do* value professional behavior and who want that for the genre as a whole.  I think your reaction to her review may be similar to my reaction to readers who, IMO, undermine the idea that reader reviews aren’t competent or thoughtful.

Were I an aquiring editor, I would certainly think twice about buying anything from her. Not from revenge, but from the impression the review has given me of her personality. The manuscript would have to be incredibly good for me to take the chance of working with her.

This is an interesting comment because it intersects with some reader discussions regarding whether an author’s online personality should influence a reader’s decision to try their books.  From a human nature POV I totally get what you’re saying here, but I wonder if this is more a girl thing or a genre thing—that we have to like or respect the people whose work we support.  Interesting discussion.

This is an interesting comment because it intersects with some reader
discussions regarding whether an author’s online personality should
influence a reader’s decision to try their books.

Yep, there’s a bit of hypocrisy here.  Authors want to be able to say whatever they want when they are talking about readers, reviewers and bloggers.  But woe betide the author who makes a personal attack against another author. Or do we so soon forget Snarking the Snark and all the anon posters that came out in support of that?

If editors/agents could care less whether an author attacks a reader (the hand that does truly feed them) why would they care if the attack goes against an editor or another author?  Isn’t it the content of the book that always prevails and not the face behind the content?

RE: Should one go after a Amazon reviewer/isn’t it petty discussion…

Once an Amazon reviewer posted a review of a story collection featuring some of my fave authors, one of whom I’m very close with in real life.

But for one author, the reviewer went nuts saying that one story was a reprint from another collection and that it was dishonest, cheap and horrible that the author and publisher would do such a thing… and that they’d never trust that author/publisher again.

But thing is, the story wasn’t a reprint.  It did feature some of the same characters because it was a sequel to the other story the reviewer had remembered.

So I looked up ms. “real name” via google.  Learned she was a bigtime F/T pious church lady in the heartland.

And so instead of telling her off, I wrote her a nice email, in the voice of a concerned churchy-type lady, telling her nicely where she was wrong and yes, using my Google based knowledge of her churchy-ness to guilt her into seeing how she had committed a sin by making a false accusation.

Oh and did it work!  She was horrified and amended the review.  Mwah ha ha ha!

So, am I evil?  I don’t think so.  But I can take it.

I’m going to regret saying anything about this at all. I know I am, so here I go…

I find it interesting that so many people are jumping on this one lone woman who expressed an opinion on a book she bought and read. She didn’t like it and said so, so what? I’ve said worse things. I don’t see the one remark as that bad at all. And people have said mean things about books and authors I loved. I’ve recovered.

And if it is, it was her right to say so. Who’s been hurt? Sounds like the author is doing just fine. I’m sure the editor has dealt with much harsher comments than that. I don’t feel sorry for the publishing house at all. And unless somebody here has a crystal ball I don’t believe anybody can honestly predict what will happen to the reviewer’s manuscript in the long run. You may be surprised.

And the rodent….

I read something on the internet a while back about porn movies being made where mice are crushed under the foot of the actress for some kind of sexual gratification. Probably another urban legend, I don’t know, but when I read about it I got angry. This scene everybody’s saying is not that big a deal makes me angry. Animal Cruelty isn’t that funny to some people, I’m one of them.

And there are more important things to worry about than what this one woman does after reading one book.

Later

Is everyone googling the amazon reviewers?  I just never think to do that. That seems to take a lot of effort.

This is an interesting comment because it intersects with some reader discussions regarding whether an author’s online personality should influence a reader’s decision to try their books.  From a human nature POV I totally get what you’re saying here, but I wonder if this is more a girl thing or a genre thing—that we have to like or respect the people whose work we support.  Interesting discussion.

My hypothetical response has less to do with human nature than with economics. In my experience, people who write that sort of review tend to also be the ones who can’t handle being critiqued. I would expect Ms. Wallace to be the sort of author who has to be handled carefully during the editing phase of getting a book ready to print. Given two manuscripts of similar quality, I would opt for the one I believe will be easier to work with.

And no, the influence of an author’s personality on sales to specific individuals is neither a girl thing nor a genre thing. I see it all the time in SF circles, especially among military SF fen, a testosterone-laden bunch if ever there was.

The whole gerbil-up-the-butt urban legend exists as a way for gay people to be cast as perverts, and gay sex to be cast as perverted.

Seeing it used so cavalierly made me feel uncomfortable as a person, as an aspiring author of romance, and a reader of romance.

It’s not funny to make fun of the politically and culturally weaker among us.

Okay, I usually try not to piss anyone off over here and I am going to try to ask my question without doing that now, but I just have to know…why are people so upset about the gerbil?  I can understand if you don’t think it is funny.  I understand why SpecRom Joyce felt it was a cheap shot at gay people, even though it did not strike me that way. But we are talking about a fictional gerbil.  I am pretty sure no real gerbils were harmed in the writing or research of “Highland Fling.”  And this is in no way in the same league with some gross rodent snuff film (Jeez, I hope that isn’t real.)

I love animals and I would never condone the cruel treatment of an animal.  I love people even more, but I am in no way offended when some poor innocent human character dies in a horrible, gruesome way in a Stephen King novel.  I LOVES me some Stephen King!!!! 

I guess I just wonder if those who are so worried about the animal cruelty in this book are equally offended by cruelty toward human characters in fiction or if it is only the animals that bother them.

BTW, if J. Wallace had phrased her objections to the gerbil scene in the same way as SpecRom Joyce, I would have had more respect for her review.

I worked at an animal shelter for several years, and we were dedicated to the animals, but also developed a gallows sense of humor. We had to learn to laugh at some of the tragic stuff.

I’m not offended by a fictional, anatomically incorrect (tail), hamster. I’m more concerned about real animal abuse. Save the real hamsters—adopt them and knit tails and little sweaters. Oh, and get them a little wheel. They’d like that.

>>I guess I just wonder if those who are so worried about the animal cruelty in this book are equally offended by cruelty toward human characters in fiction or if it is only the animals that bother them.<<

Karibelle, the simplest way I can explain it is that it’s a turn off for me. Even knowing that it’s fiction, that’s how it works for me. I think about the fact that animals are completely helpless in this world and dependent on humans for survival. Don’t mean to get to heavy but you asked.

As for wondering if I get as upset about cruelty towards human characters - why you’re asking? I sense there’s something more to your question. Myself, I was dealing with just the facts of the subject when I mentioned it, nothing more.

And yes, I do get angry about cruelty towards people in the books I read and it’s a turnoff for me.

But really, the point I was trying to make is that this woman had a right to her opinion and to speak it and probably even to eat it if she had to, even if it wasn’t popular.

“As for wondering if I get as upset about cruelty towards human characters - why you’re asking? I sense there’s something more to your question.”

Acutally, I asked because I wanted to know.  No hidden agenda.  No attempt to start something.  It just occured to me that I don’t remember anyone here being as concerned and disturbed by the fate of a human character as several people seem to be about that gerbil.  Maybe it is because in MOST romances only the truly horrible people die terrible deaths and all of the good people get a HEA. 

I was curious so I asked and I appreciate your answer.

You know, the only thing that bothers me is that she used RESIDENT and INTERN interchangeably.

Because they aren’t.

My interest in this book has been repiqued.

Assuming I’ve been reading accurate summaries of Highland Fling’s opening, it IS cheesy.  First, because it’s a cheap and definitely unimaginative hook.  Second, because the specious humor in such a scenario is outdated, even to my old ass.  Third, because if an author can’t get her rodent characteristics straight, she should leave rodents out of her cast entirely.  Fourth, because even though many readers find humor in many things, bestiality usually ain’t one of ‘em.  I applaud the Amazon reviewer for risking the slings and arrows of the “prude” haters (like, how the fuck do her comments make her a prude?) and getting in that little snark about the editor.  Quite frankly, there are many editors—and I apply the term loosely—who deserve far worse than that.

Now, regarding the fourth point above, I don’t want to hear any crap about the scene not involving bestiality.  It did.  (Maybe I’m being too much of a literalist, but any time an animal is victimized by human sexual perversion, and I don’t care if it’s a freakin’ worm, the term bestiality applies.)  The only way LaBrecque could get off the hook would be to claim it was a mythological creature—a hambil, a gerbster.  That would also be the only way to get off the hook of her own dumbassedness.

Anybody gonna review this book anytime soon?

Keith Chesney.  Kenny Chesney.  See I said I wasn’t a country music fan. ;)

Anybody gonna review this book anytime soon?

Amazon informed me today that my copy just shipped (I have free two day shipping with every book), and as soon as I finish it, I’ll be happy to pass it on to Sarah or Candy if either of them wants to formally review it.

Hey, Robin, if you want to take a crack at reviewing it, we’d be more than happy to publish this as Guest Bitchery.

What d’you think?

My first reaction was to beg off, but after reading Alison Kent’s latest blog entry on this whole deal, instead I must say thanks and yes, I will ‘take a crack’ at being a guest bitch with my review of Highland Fling.

The cheerleaders who showed up, wagged fingers and said “Now, now, if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all” and the not-so-veiled threats about Wallace now being unpublishable makes me a whole hell of a lot more uneasy than the review ever did. Wallace had an opinion. It was a silly opinion, in my opinion, but by and large, she wasn’t horribly impolite about it. And now people are dog-piling on her. I can’t help but feel a bit sorry for her.

I think what I find unconvincing about Alison Kent’s latest blog entry arguing that she’s only interested in the lack of business wisdom in Wallace’s review is the way entries at both her and LaBrecque’s blogs have invited some ugly comments directed at Wallace.  Although I don’t think Kent was aiming for that, once she posted the “‘stomach-turning’ snippet,” IMO, the focus of her comments broadened substantially from the business etiquette issue.  Intended or not, IMO that seemed a provocative invitation to comment more directly and critically on the nature of Wallace’s outrage. 

But even if I take at face value Kent’s argument that this is all about the poor business decision Wallace made, it’s revealing that Kent compares the relationship between author and publisher to that of employee and boss in a corporate setting.  If that’s really how it is, I’m way more inclined to question the so called professional rules of an industry that it seems to be should built on the integrity of individual author’s voices.  Especially since the greatest offenses I registered in that “review” were those against the craft of writing, which does NOT, strangely enough, seem to be the focus of critique about an aspiring Romance author like Wallace.

Me thinks LeBrecque is fucking genius for inciting the riot.  Maybe she paid the commenters to get all Mean Girls on Wallace’s ass because she’s getting a whole lot of pub and blog time when I hadn’t even given her books a passing glance before.

Although I don’t think Kent was aiming for that, once she posted the “‘stomach-turning’ snippet,” IMO, the focus of her comments broadened substantially from the business etiquette issue.

Not exactly what you’re getting at here, Robin, since I posted the stomach-turning snippet last Friday, the payback post yesterday, four days later. 

Especially since the greatest offenses I registered in that “review” were those against the craft of writing,

Tomatoes.  Tomahtoes.  Most of the authors posting saw the greatest offenses to be the slam against the publisher.

This whole thing is leaving me scratching my head.  People chasing all over the internet searching for info on a person who wrote a nasty Amazon review.  It seems to me, the author of the review wasn’t familiar with that old, old, old urban legend, so she obviously didn’t get the joke.

I don’t think that review was all that scathing or controversial. Yes, Wallace crossed the line just a tad with her “any author who can convince her publisher to run with this deserves the income” comment…

I’ve certainly read much more scathing reviews and I’m not even sure she “crossed the line” because Ms. LeBrecque is obviously quite happy with all the attention.

The national heatwave must be frying peoples brain cells, because this is much ado about nothing.

It’s blog marketing 101.  Pick a negative review.  Label it scathing and mean.  Say something pithy to encourage the clique to come out in your support and watch your sales rise.  Would this be Trash Blogging?  (kind of like dumpster diving?)

SpecRom Joyce said:

*The whole gerbil-up-the-butt urban legend exists as a way for gay people to be cast as perverts, and gay sex to be cast as perverted.*

...And LaBrecque’s use of it in this context only serves to perpetuate this attitude. That neither the editor nor anyone else at the publishing house thought about this angle makes them fair game, in my book. There must have been another way for LaBrecque to achieve her comedic aim without giving people yet another chance to think, “Oh, those gays are sick!”

As for whether it’s politic for an author (aspiring or otherwise) to diss a publishing house and/or editor, well, obviously it’s not, since the Romance-writer community apparently can fit on the head of a pin and enjoys nothing more than using Google and snark to protect the backs of those in their clique.

Not exactly what you’re getting at here, Robin, since I posted the stomach-turning snippet last Friday, the payback post yesterday, four days later.

Right, and the way I read your second entry, with all the quotes from commentators like myself and Jane and Candy et al, was as a clarification that all you were trying to do is suggest that what Wallace did is poor business sense.  If that’s the case, why stir the pot with the “snippet”?  I’m not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting that you had no idea that would marshal the troops on LaBrecque’s behalf.  As I said on your blog, if LaBrecque knew what she was going with that Richard Gere urban legend, she could have predicted some negative responses.  And regardless of my opinion on those responses, and my belief that everyone is free to disagree with anyone else, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of belittling other readers for their hot buttons. 

Tomatoes.  Tomahtoes.  Most of the authors posting saw the greatest offenses to be the slam against the publisher.

I’ll repeat here the offer I made on your blog regarding your assertion that some of us are seeing and reading too much into all of this:

So how about we negotiate a deal? If I buy that all you folks are doing here is offering Wallace the benefit of your experience and knowledge of the publishing business, that is, helping her and any other aspiring authors out there, will you be willing to buy that Wallace’s review isn’t a hateful curse on Harlequin authors, editors, and publishers, but merely a poorly worded and personally outraged review? I’ll take the bullet if you will.

Robin:

But even if I take at face value Kent’s argument that this is all about the poor business decision Wallace made, it’s revealing that Kent compares the relationship between author and publisher to that of employee and boss in a corporate setting.

More like a contractor/client. You never know what forum someone you’re marketing yourself to is visiting. People often drop their “public place” manners on the net; that’s one reason why many people google anyone they’re considering hiring, whether employee or contractor.

Candy:

If there’s one thing about the review I think is a legitimate complaint, it’s that it’s not interesting—being entertaining while getting your bitch on goes a long way, I’ve found, and can sometimes lessen the sting of a criticism.

I think the environment plays a large role in that.

Amazon isn’t a gathering spot for friends to chatter and snark. It’s a business, and I think a lot of people expect others to be on their business manners there.

I have a question about the editor/publisher not buying the reviewer’s hypothetical work (which is what led to all the “friendly” warnings from pub’d authors).

How would any potential editor/publisher know that the reviewer was an aspiring author?  There’s nothing in the review to indicate Wallace is an author.  It seems to me that the only way to know is to google the reviewer’s name (which is apparently what blogland has done).  Am I really supposed to believe that editors/publishers google the names of each and every snarky and/or bad reviewer?  How would they have the time?  Do they even care?  And if e/p’s don’t seek out and destroy (as I suspect) then do badly reviewed authors who out snarky reviewers do it simply to “punish” said reviewer?

Also, isn’t it just as unprofessional for pub’d authors to bash this reviewer as it is for the reviewer to have bashed the book?  Seems rather pot and kettle to me.

On the contrary, Ostrea, I think of Amazon.com as a very informal sort of place, and the reviews to be off-the-cuff observations and gut reactions. The ones that are in any way honest, anyway. There are restrictions to expression on the site, such as no cussing, but other than that, anyone can post reviews.

It’s the difference between a group’s conversation at one table—or several—at a bookstore coffee shop and reviews posted on the shelves. But I’m just speculating on why Amazon reviews get people more upset than blog snarkery. I suspect it flows from the same phenomenon that gives us “It must be true—I read it on the net!” Blog reviews are more obviously opinion pieces; I think Amazon has more of an “official” atmosphere to a lot of people, whether it deserves it or not.

There are a whole lot of other Amazon.com reviews that are a whole lot more vicious—both to the book and to the author.

Oh, certainly. And they get their share of gossip time in their associated communities, too.

How would any potential editor/publisher know that the reviewer was an aspiring author?  There’s nothing in the review to indicate Wallace is an author.  It seems to me that the only way to know is to google the reviewer’s name (which is apparently what blogland has done).  Am I really supposed to believe that editors/publishers google the names of each and every snarky and/or bad reviewer?  How would they have the time?  Do they even care?  And if e/p’s don’t seek out and destroy (as I suspect) then do badly reviewed authors who out snarky reviewers do it simply to “punish” said reviewer?

Gossip. It happens in all genres, not just romance.

Some authors are trying to punish the reviewer. Some are just gossiping, reacting to someone else’s investigation, or simple recognition, of the reviewer. That, too, is not unique to romance.

Also, isn’t it just as unprofessional for pub’d authors to bash this reviewer as it is for the reviewer to have bashed the book?  Seems rather pot and kettle to me.

Yep. Ideally, an author doesn’t respond to reviews. (Think Anne Rice.) There seems to be an unspoken exception to quiet thanks, often with links. I’ve seen a couple of authors comment that they agreed with a reviewer who pointed out a weak place in the book and wished the reviewer could critique their next book before they turned in the manuscript.

It does seem to be more acceptable in romance. I’ll leave it to people more familiar with the community to speculate why.

Blue, there’s nothing in the review that reveals her (his?) identity. Someone likely finked to the author.

Candy, I’m with you on the threats. They say now that it’s just ‘advice’ but to me that’s a crock. Like someone said in an earlier discussion, say it, but

it.

Maybe the SmartBitches(TM) should start a Cafe Press shoppe and sell bracelets with WWND on them. ‘What Would Nora Do?’ We could take up a collection to send them to any ABB, including the most recent inductees.

Maybe the SmartBitches(TM) should start a Cafe Press shoppe and sell bracelets with WWND on them. ‘What Would Nora Do?’ We could take up a collection to send them to any ABB, including the most recent inductees.

Uhm, you’re not talking about Nora Roberts here are you?

Yes, that’s who I was talking about. If more authors acted like Nora, we’d have much less to snark and dish about.

I understand that the urban legend has been linked primarily to the homosexual community, but in practice I have seen a lot more “accidents” occur between heterosexual couples who are seeking marital aids to spice up their lives.  I find it interesting that everyone who is referrng to the gerbil up the bottom thinks immediately that it refers to gays.  I initially thought kinky people who don’t realize that having an animal up your bottom is more likely to kill you than give you pleasure.

And thank you, I think it was Victoria who mentioned the interchangeable intern vs resident.  There is a huge difference in status and responsibility.  I can see a newbie intern requesting assistance with identification and asking for help but a more experienced resident would have laughed, gotten the anoscope or GI consult and moved on.

Felice wrote:
***Candy, I’m with you on the threats. They say now that it’s just ‘advice’ but to me that’s a crock. Like someone said in an earlier discussion, say it, but own it.**

It just seems to be that the so-called threats are people asking the reviewer to “own it” as well. The authors have made it clear who they are, and where they’ll be—the only one who operated under a cloak of supposed anonymity was the reviewer.

J.Wallace can hate whatever and speak her mind, and I would fight for her right to do so, but in doing people do get to have a reaction. Either she wanted to be anonymous and screwed the pooch by leaving an easily followed trail, or she wasn’t trying to hide who she was, but either way she needs to now take a certain ownership of her opinion.
(And I just realized that J.Wallace probably hates the expression, “screwed the pooch.” )

I would have more respect for her if she walked up to the table, collected her $6.00, and held her head high. That takes a level of sass that can’t be watched under a (false) cloak of anonymity on Amazon.

I’m not in her head, and don’t know her motives.  Speaking for myself, and as someone who takes my writing seriously, has strong opinions, and wants people to be clear where I stand, I wouldn’t leave room for doubt of my motives on Amazon or anywhere else. I’m saying up front I write in the same genre, I’m not hiding who I am (professionally,) and I’m not bashing another writer while my own words look like ass.

Why are blogs different? Because you have a whole lot of history on the blogger. You can see where they’re coming from—are they writer or reader? Are they predisposed to like or hate a certain kind of book?

Anyhow, J.Wallace has the right to the opinion, and the writer and various others have a right to a response, and a curiousity as to her idenitity.

Thanks Nicolette for saying what I was thinking!  The right to say what you want doesn’t exempt others from responding.  If you’re going to say it, own it.  If you’re going to give your opinion on the WORLD WIDE WEB and leave a trail, don’t be surprised if someone follows that trail and responds back…and brings their friends too.  It’s no different that us readers telling authors that if they are going to put their words out there, be prepared for critics.

The authors have made it clear who they are, and where they’ll be—the only one who operated under a cloak of supposed anonymity was the reviewer.

If you check the Amazon page, it clearly states that the review is by “J. Wallace” with the “real name” label underneath.  Where’s the “cloak of anonymity”?  To date this has been an entirely one-sided “conversation” with Wallace’s review, because she DID leave it in a perfectly appropriate place, from whence it was somehow picked up and then picked apart by folks who apparently managed to figure out who she was and then raised all sorts of objections to what she did and how it might affect her career.  Putting aside all of the legitimate questions about how she was discovered and whether she’s the J. Wallace people think she is, etc., how is putting the review out there under her own name NOT owning it? 

Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with a) the idea that people are frantically Googling and digging for information on this woman because of a non-defamatory review on Amazon, and b)the idea that such a review could actually be equivalent to career suicide in Romance publishing?  If people want to talk about what constitutes acceptable professional behavior, I think we could have some interesting conversations about all of that, too.

Hey, I’ve said she has a right to her view, but a first initial, a common last name, and a state is not clear ownership in the same way as putting it on a blog, or mentioning you’re a writer in the same genre as the reviewed story.

People did go looking, but I’m confused as to what’s wrong with that. The information was Googleable. Sure, people had to go out of their way, but I’m just missing where it’s that horrible of a thing.

I have no true issue with the writer, and if the posted blog is really the same woman, she seems like someone I could actually like, but that doesn’t mean that the people who tracked her down are in the wrong. It’s not like a lynch mob showed up at her door.

IMO, her mistake was not in hating the book, but in thinking she was more anonymous than she was (that’s speculation) and not seeing up front that her words *could* be seen as a conflict of interest.

I agree with you,Robin. There was no attempt at anonymity on the reviewer’s part. She didn’t shout out her identity with DOB, SSN, and her phone number either. Why would she? She wanted to express her opinion on a book she disliked and now a hord of people are googling for her like she dissed the Gettysburg Address.

Yeah, I think there’s something wrong with people like that. Maybe they don’t have cable or they can’t get into ROCKSTAR:Supernova. I know I’m procrastinating.

>>“Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with a) the idea that people are frantically Googling and digging for information on this woman because of a non-defamatory review on Amazon, and b)the idea that such a review could actually be equivalent to career suicide in Romance publishing?”?<<

Hi Robin! :-)  I guess there are a few Katie’s here.  I’m the newbie.  Anyway, I wanted to say that no, you’re definitely not alone on this.  It’s not like this was a personal attack on the author.  The reviewer just hated the book. 

She could have easily left the review anonymous, but she did “own” it (lol, I “own” my unethical behavior having sold ARC’s and I’ll even “own” it when they get raffled off at a bookstore ;-) %-P ) and for that she might not get a book contract????  That is very messed up. 

I think the author of the book in question has every right to leave a scathing review of her critic’s book, granted the woman does actually get published and the author honestly dislikes her product.  However, no author should be prevented from being published because thier colleagues don’t like their opinions.  Readers can vote with their dollars, but the industry shouldn’t be keeping authors out because of politics. 

I have to ask, being completly ignorant on this subject, do Amazon reviews really have any influence on sales?  Besides, isn’t this kind of a non-issue since the review probably enticed more people to buy the darn book than not?

By the way, I read the excerpt and I wouldn’t read the book either.  It would take me right out of the story and make me think about the dead animal. :shut:  It’s not funny to me, but I wouldn’t laugh about a ridiculous death of a child either.

“The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest” -Henry David Thoreau

“To one whose mind is free, there is something even more intolerable in the suffering of animals than in the sufferings of humans. For with the latter, it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the person who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any person were to refer to it, they would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. That alone is the justification of all that humans may suffer. It cries vengeance upon all the human race. If God exists and tolerates it, it cries vengeance upon God.”
—Romain Rolland (from his 1915 Nobel Prizewinning novel, Jean-Christophe)

However, no author should be prevented from being published because thier colleagues don’t like their opinions.

Once again, this isn’t about what the authors think.  Let me repost something I posted at my blog today.  Readers may not like that the following happens, but the following happens:

From author Leslie Kelly:  “I know an editor who will NEVER buy a particular author because that author has publicly slammed the editor’s authors & basically said their books shouldn’t have been published.”

From author Alison Kent:  “I know personally of an author who was asked to never submit again because her publishing house found her too difficult to work with. So, yes. Money is important. But an author’s personality, how she meshes with corporate and editorial, and her way of conducting herself is also a consideration.”

Please note.  These were EDITORIAL decisions not to buy.  They had nothing to do with published authors’ opinions.  They had to do with the submitting authors’ conduct.

People did go looking, but I’m confused as to what’s wrong with that. The information was Googleable. Sure, people had to go out of their way, but I’m just missing where it’s that horrible of a thing.

Have you tried to Google her based on the information at hand in that review?  I couldn’t locate the website in question until someone else posted her whole name.  You REALLY think all that took was a Google?  And my next question:  Why?

I am surprised at the vehemence with which I disagree with almost every point you’ve made in your last post, but to explain why would simply be a repetition of all the points I’ve made previously. Suffice it to say that I’m incredibly disturbed by the fact that so many people don’t seem to see what was done to Wallace’s name (by others, not by her) as a violation on many levels, far far far surpassing anything in the review itself.  So before this interferes with my ability to read LaBrecque’s book, I’ll sign off debate mode and shift into reading mode.

Robin and the others are right.  There is no way you could figure this out just by the information in the review.  Someone had to know that the reviewer was an author or at least suspect it.  And I don’t believe that editors would have sussed this out unless someone is sending the link, the website, etc. to them.

“The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest” -Henry David Thoreau

Thanks, Katie, for reminding me of this one!  Thoreau was like the king of sound bytes before there were sound bytes.  Quotes like this almost make me forget that the whole time he was at Walden his mother was still doing his laundry.

Ah, the wonders of blogland.  I never cease to be amazed at how something that begins so seemingly inconsequential can get chewed up, spit out, poked, inspected and trampled upon, multiple times, until it grows into something seemingly very significant.  The best part is seeing all the different viewpoints, the beliefs and values brought to the table.

I’ve decided I’m as fickle as they come, because with each post, I think to myself, “Yes!  That’s right!”  But clearly, everyone can’t be right, can they?

Perhaps they can - it’s a matter of opinion after all.  Typically, I’m deeply opinionated, but on this subject, I can see where Ms. Wallace may have shot herself in the foot, and how others may have helped pull the trigger.  Bottom line?  No one can know for sure.

I’m probably way too naive at any rate - I only recently had someone who isn’t Harriet or a friend make a comment about one of my books on Amazon.

Stef, The Until Recently Amazon Virgin
(damn, that sounds like a good book - hoss woman loses her cherry!)

**I agree with you,Robin. There was no attempt at anonymity on the reviewer’s part. She didn’t shout out her identity with DOB, SSN, and her phone number either. Why would she? She wanted to express her opinion on a book she disliked and now a hord of people are googling for her like she dissed the Gettysburg Address.**

On one hand we have people saying she wasn’t trying to be anonymous, and on the other hand there are people saying the only way you can find her is by going to a lot of trouble.

I don’t know for sure that she was writing it, and thinking nobody would figure it out, but it seems right to me. It would take 1 or 2 lines to preface the whole thing with something about being an aspiring writing, and maybe giving a link back to the blog—if this is indeed the same woman. How about signing it with a first name?

I don’t know about you guys, but most writers whore out their information like their names should be Huggy Bear. Why wouldn’t this author do so? And not just for publicity, but just for disclosure? I would—both because it’s professional, and because of what has transpired here.

And if she was trying to fly under the radar, that is her perogative to attempt it, but the people who (allegedly) found her out—no matter how—didn’t do anything illegal, and nothing that bad, imo. Of course, I don’t think of their words as threats—if they were, well, that might change my take.

I’m continually surprised how much of your lives can be discovered through search engines, this aside from the suspicions that there was more to it. I won’t lie and say that I don’t use a pen name, but there is enough info here and there that someone who wanted it badly enough could track down all sorts of tidbits about me.

A couple months ago I was goofing around on MySpace, decided to search for people in my town, and stumbled upon a blog for a co-worker—no sooner could I say, *Holy Crap, I know that guy*—and I’m reading he just got laid off. This is info that was not supposed to be made official for days, the guy thinks nobody at from work is going to see it, and oops. And my only point in relation to this is that it really would not surprise me if J.Wallace just did not think people would figure it out.

I was saying that she used her name so she wasn’t trying to hide. Any other conclusions is pure conjecture and I’m seeing a lot of conjecture.

And do we know for sure we’ve got the right J. Wallace? Maybe we’re carrying on and giving unsolicited advice to some CPA somewhere?

And the google dogpile still troubles me.

**“The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest” -Henry David Thoreau

“To one whose mind is free, there is something even more intolerable in the suffering of animals than in the sufferings of humans. For with the latter, it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the person who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any person were to refer to it, they would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. That alone is the justification of all that humans may suffer. It cries vengeance upon all the human race. If God exists and tolerates it, it cries vengeance upon God.”
—Romain Rolland (from his 1915 Nobel Prizewinning novel, Jean-Christophe)**

I have no idea if it was this blog or another where I mentioned having worked at an animal shelter for years. The internet has seen enough of my rants, angst, and rage over the nightmarish things I witnessed.

This is where I work, and some of the fans of Animal Planet will recognize it:
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6665

The reason I left the shelter is that I basically was having a nervous breakdown after tamping down the pain of the job for years. I was sick of animals suffering, I was sick of people being ignorant, and I was sick of having to adopt animals out to dumbasses because it was a marginally better decision that putting the animal to sleep.

I actually didn’t find the scene in question funny either, but I took it as fiction, and as the writer saying that some crazy stuff happens in ERs. I have no issue with people saying they found that scene gross, just as I don’t think finding the scene funny means people are “Go, Go Animal Abuse!” There is a Stephen King movie where a dog dies that youcould not pay me to watch again because it’s just that sad for me, but I laughed when the dog flew out the window in There’s Something About Mary. Life can be funny and tragic, and is all too often both at the same time.

Robin,
Sorry we’re disagreeing on this—will endeavor to be less of a pain in the ass in the future. 

I don’t think your average reader needs to give name, rank, and serial number. I do think that a writer who is talking about a book by another writer working in the same genre should state this tidbit up front. I don’t think anyone should send a posse after JWallace, no matter if she’s a writer, or tupperware dealer.

In most fields a person is obligated to state if there is a conflict of interest or a possible bias either way. Good Morning America does a story about the latest Disney flick, there will be a statement that ABC is owned by Disney. And it’s not because people can’t be fair, but because not stating it is more damaging to credibility than ‘fessing up. Not stating this—if she is the author—doesn’t make her bad, it just doesn’t play as well as copping to being a writer, or taking the time to show some writing chops by doing a “professional” review.

It possible that she made an enemy who outted her, but can you be outted if you’re not hiding? If she is the writer in question, she made herself vulnerable to someone with an ax to grind.

I do think that a writer who is talking about a book by another writer working in the same genre should state this tidbit up front. . . In most fields a person is obligated to state if there is a conflict of interest or a possible bias either way. Good Morning America does a story about the latest Disney flick, there will be a statement that ABC is owned by Disney. . .  Not stating this—if she is the author—doesn’t make her bad, it just doesn’t play as well as copping to being a writer, or taking the time to show some writing chops by doing a “professional” review.

I have no idea why I’m jumping into this, but. . . Huh? Is there some sort of Writer’s Oath out there? Being an aspiring writer certainly doesn’t give a person any sort of special reading skills, just as it doesn’t give her any amazing perfeshunal reviewing chops. Frankly, I think it sounds overreaching when somebody posts, “I’m a writer, and I think blah, blah, blah,” on a frickin Amazon review. I’m not reading a review to find out what the writer inside you thinks. I want to know what the reader thinks.

The woman DIDN’T LIKE THE ANAL HAMSTER SEX. She was offended by it. Does that have anything to do with her being a writer?

As to conflicts of interest. . . I’ve never read, “I’ve been great friends with this author for years and I have a manuscript with her editor. AND I LOVED THIS BOOK!” That’s a conflict of interest. Aspiring to write in the same universe isn’t worth mentioning, IMHO.

No, there is not a writer’s oath. I merely think that it’s a good idea to be up front if you’re commenting on the writing of someone whose job you wouldn’t mind having. :)

Nicolette, you sound like Paperback Writer. I think HelenKay and others have debunked this quite thoroughly. A writer (published or not) can review a book fairly and critically without it being an attempt to get the other writer’s job. In genres other than romance, professional writers review each other all the time. It’s only in romance that there’s so much freaking out over it.

Believe me, if I ever get around to posting a review on Highland Fling, it won’t be because I want Jennifer Labrecque’s job. I like my job just fine and wouldn’t trade with anyone. Seriously.

A writer (published or not) can review a book fairly and critically without it being an attempt to get the other writer’s job.

Aside from that being a really ambitious plan *ha!*, there’s nothing to be done about that kind of heinousness anyway. If someone’s really out to harm the writer, they won’t post under their real name or anything close to their real name. It’s just one of those things we have to live with.

Ooo, was anyone around for that Amazon Canada debacle? I would’ve liked to have seen it. That was some good scandal.

Felice: I didn’t read that rund of discussions, but it sounds like I would agree with HelenKay. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone interested in a book, or reading, can and should discuss it. There is also no doubt in my mind that a writer/reader can just plain hate a book with no ulterior motives. FWIW, I do assume this to be the case with J.Wallace.

I’m saying I think that she—if she is the author in question—would have had an easier go of it if she would have stated she was a writer in the genre. It makes the reviewer seem honest, and there is no desire to track down someone who is right in front of your face, so people are going to be less inclined to even care. I can’t say she would have escaped all grief—but perhaps some.

The meat in this story was more that she was (possibly) tracked down than that she was a writer.

The day I say someone doesn’t have a right to her opinion is the day the pod people have converted me.

Rushing to get ready for work—forgetting stuff!!

My point was that disclosure allows the person to seem honest, and allows people to move on faster.

My point was that disclosure allows the person to seem honest, and allows people to move on faster.

Nicolette, I’m going to make you late! :cheese:

I agree with you on the idea of this (as far as stopping the gossip before it starts), but I don’t think it would’ve helped in this case. Seems like it would’ve resulted in, “She’s a writer? Well, who the hell is HER editor? *Google, Google* Oh, my God, she’s not even published! How dare she?!”

Nope. At work. :) It quite possibly would have been a something either way, but perhaps it could have been better. I could be naive. I just would have went a different way with it.

I’m barely published ;), but that doesn’t stop me from sharing my views, and thinking of myself as a writer. Maybe that’s just a difference in personalities, because it wouldn’t phase me if people complained that I was not a big time writer—I would assume most people would see it as the crock that it would be.

I would still state I write just to have it out of the way. And it’s not because I can’t judge a story fairly, but because I want people to see me as forthright, and I think it’s fair for people to know that. It might mean that some people see it as professional jealousy (shrug)but nobody could ever say I was hiding possible motives, or that they didn’t know I had a *possible* interest in the matter.

Anyhow, it seems like there needs to be scandal in these parts, I’m just saying that in theory some of it might have been mitigated. Maybe.

I still want to know if we really do have J. Wallace, the aspiring writer, AND if she knows she’s being discussed and counseled on her career. Seems only right she should be allowed to comment if she wants.

It would be pretty funny if we had the wrong J. Wallace….:-)

>>“Quotes like this almost make me forget that the whole time he was at Walden his mother was still doing his laundry.”>>

:bug:  LOL!  This is why I like to remain ignorant about authors/entertainers I like. :)

>>“I actually didn’t find the scene in question funny either, but I took it as fiction, and as the writer saying that some crazy stuff happens in ERs. I have no issue with people saying they found that scene gross, just as I don’t think finding the scene funny means people are “Go, Go Animal Abuse!” There is a Stephen King movie where a dog dies that youcould not pay me to watch again because it’s just that sad for me, but I laughed when the dog flew out the window in There’s Something About Mary.”<<

Hi Nicolette! :-)  Man, I couldn’t work at a shelter.  I just have way too much empathy for animals, but I admire people who can do good for animals while being subjected to seeing all that suffering and misery.

I see what you’re saying about being able to laugh about things because you can make the distinction that it’s just fiction.  I know I’m overly sensitive about animal issues.  I’m not thinking someone is advocating animal cruelty if they laugh at “Something About Mary.”  I just can’t watch it.  I think I’ll be less sensitive when practices like factory farming & animal experimentation are acknowledged as atrocities they are.  In the meantime ignore me if I get too preachy/sensitive about this topic.  I really do have a sense of humor. ;-P

Katie,
I understand about things hitting someone the wrong way. And I understand about thinking people don’t do right by animals.  No issue there. :)

I don’t think your average reader needs to give name, rank, and serial number. I do think that a writer who is talking about a book by another writer working in the same genre should state this tidbit up front. I don’t think anyone should send a posse after JWallace, no matter if she’s a writer, or tupperware dealer.

I don’t think we’re going to hit an accord in our opinions, Nicolette, because our fundamental assumptions are so opposed.  I think J. Wallace fulfilled her obligations simply by posting her review; in fact, I think she COULD have posted anonymously and been completely fine.  To me, what happened to her seems perilously close to stalking—I mean, think about it for a second.  Someone had to read that review, then set out intentionally to figure out who she is, a task that requires WAY more than a fine hand with Google.  Then someone informed LaBrecque, who, as someone put it, “rolled out the red carpet” by posting her humorous blog entry and inviting a ton of support from her friends.  The assumption you are making that Wallace had to announce herself IMO places blame and responsibility on her for doing what she IMO had every right to do unmolested (state her opinion of a book on a book-buying and reviewing forum).  And compared to the *acceptable* review Alison Kent just posted on her blog (explain the difference to me, someone, PLEASE), I still think Wallace’s was tame.  And, more importantly, I don’t think it earned an excavation, examination, and what ultimately amounted to an pre-emptive obituary on the part of those who think she signed her own professional death warrant.

To me, what happened to her seems perilously close to stalking

I agree that it’s just plain creepy. The woman posted under her own name, which is about as honorable as it gets on Amazon, “fellow writer” disclaimer or not. And she posted with just her first initial which says to me that:

1) She’s not hiding behind a fake name just so she can blast the author.

2) She’s not hiding from people WHO KNOW HER in the industry.

and 3) She’s not really looking to be contacted about the review by people she DOESN’T know. Perfectly reasonable and wise, IMO.

But then somebody had to go on a hunt for the woman, for reasons I don’t understand, or maybe one of her friends purposefully ratted her out to others, which is, again, CREEPY.

But then somebody had to go on a hunt for the woman, for reasons I don’t understand, or maybe one of her friends purposefully ratted her out to others, which is, again, CREEPY.

Most of my opinions are characterized by a greater or lesser degree of ambivalence, but in this case I think what happened to Wallace is just plain wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Robin,
I don’t think she *had* to announce herself—clearly she didn’t have to and clearly she didn’t. I merely think that had she things might have play out differently.(If this is indeed the right woman.)

Let me be clear thatI don’t think this woman’s career should be in jeopardy over this.

I don’t think she *had* to announce herself—clearly she didn’t have to and clearly she didn’t. I merely think that had she things might have play out differently.(If this is indeed the right woman.)

Maybe.  But don’t you find it ironic that the person(s) responsible for outing Wallace hasn’t(haven’t) stepped forward to “own” that act?  Since we’re talking about professional responsibility and all.

And compared to the *acceptable* review Alison Kent just posted on her blog (explain the difference to me, someone, PLEASE),

Uh, Robin?  Where did I say it was acceptable?  Quoting myself: “I’m not publicly posting the link because I don’t want to incite a lynching, but there ya have it. An author reviewing another author’s work without saying a word about the author.”

All I said was that the review addressed the work, not the author.  If you are assuming that equates to acceptable, then you are assuming without knowing what I feel, and are putting words in my mouth.  Again.  I haven’t said one way or the other if I find it acceptable or if I find it crossing the line.

‘I merely think that had she things might have play out differently.(If this is indeed the right woman.)’

Was she supposed to know in advance that such a riot would explode over a short little review? I never would have suspected anything so nonsensical.

‘But don’t you find it ironic that the person(s) responsible for outing Wallace hasn’t(haven’t) stepped forward to “own” that act?  Since we’re talking about professional responsibility and all.’

I’d like more information on that myself. Good point, Robin.

Hey! Whoever outed this poor woman step up and own your actions!

Also interesting how many other blogs are dealing with this same subject. Does this always go like this when the community gets excited? Wow!! This has been eye opening for me. Don’t like what I’m learning.

All I said was that the review addressed the work, not the author.  If you are assuming that equates to acceptable, then you are assuming without knowing what I feel, and are putting words in my mouth.  Again.  I haven’t said one way or the other if I find it acceptable or if I find it crossing the line.

Alison, as soon as you posted the scene in question from LaBrecque’s book because you “figured it would be fun” (quoting you directly), your actions moved out of the “strictly professional” realm for me.  You think that I and other readers have so misunderstood you, overanalyzed and overreacted to your words and apparent intentions.  You have spoken hundreds, if not thousands more words on this incident than J. Wallace has, and yet, with a wink and a nod, you invited responses to the scene Wallace found offensive (“Don’t say you haven’t been warned, LOLOL!”) and made an example of her as “an aspiring author [who] has committed a possible career-affecting faux pas online,” with an “unprofessonal” review.  I mean you no offense, Alison, but I feel that you are asking me for something you have not been willing to offer Wallace, and I’m not talking about professional advice.

All I said was that the review addressed the work, not the author.  If you are assuming that equates to acceptable, then you are assuming without knowing what I feel, and are putting words in my mouth.  Again.  I haven’t said one way or the other if I find it acceptable or if I find it crossing the line.

This wasn’t in reference to Labreque’s book, Robin.  It was in reference to you commenting on the review I posted to the OTHER book.  Keep up, please.  :)

I can’t keep up - I’m totally lost at this point.

And sort of numb.

But maybe that’s the frostbite.  It’s gettin’ damn cold in here, isn’t it?

I don’t think she could have known it would play out like this—no.

Sure, I think the people who found her or outed her should say so, but I’m thinking that several people now want it to go away.

This wasn’t in reference to Labreque’s book, Robin.  It was in reference to you commenting on the review I posted to the OTHER book.

Yes, Alison, I know. But since everything you offer on your blog regarding this incident centers on your insistence that you are simply in professional advisor mode, I thought I’d cut to the chase and respond to the larger issue rather than the smaller one.  Responding to the smaller issue, that of the second review you posted, would surely result in my intepreting your actions in a way you think is unwarranted, and well, we’d just end up back in the same old place.  So I decided to skip a step.  If you’d like to go back, though, and hash through whatever it is that prompted you to post that other review, I’d be happy to do that.

Wow. Talk about opening your can of worms and sticking a fork in it!

I’m just throwing this out there to think about, because every one seems to be throwing something at this point and I can no longer sit back and just read.

1) As a professional in the book industry for a day job, who also happens to be a writer, did anyone ever consider that her day job might be as a book reviewer? (That’s of course assuming the reviewer and the aspiring writer are the same person and it’s not someone else posting, because how could there possibly be more than one J. Wallace in the world.) Did anyone consider other professional reviewer’s reactions to this public shredding?

2) That perhaps RWA might have something to say if anyone goes to the national conference with the intention of “setting someone straight” as a possible grounds of membership termination if the person considered it as a threat to her career and went to the board about it?

3) That publicists are probably having litters of kittens by now, trying to decide how to spin this bitch-fest into a positive, so that someone in the media doesn’t get a hold of it right before the national conference is splashed all over the place and use it as a proof for the myth of how romance writers are all just housewives with nothing to do but shred each other?

Again, just throwing these thoughts out there.

When I’m not a housewife reading romance novels, I’m a politician. I get my reputation shredded on a daily basis. The teachers who teach my children are examined under a microscope to see if they are getting “special treatment” from the local politician. Every comment I make in public is scrutinized for larger meaning and hints of conspiracy.

However, when I’m annoyed at a colleague or at a political “enemy”, I tend to come out and say so, either face to face, in a letter to the editor, or in an interview to the papers. And there are certain repurcussions to those actions, ones which you have to be aware of before you open your mouth.

When posting about Romance novels, I use a nom de plume, because I’m really not interested in my local electorate confusing my personal interest in formulaic sexy novels with my educational priorities for the local school district.

So what burns me about this dust-up is the idea that authors are CONVINCED that J Wallace is an aspiring writer, and that it is their DUTY to “out” her as a means of offering her professional advice.

Pul-eese.

I’ve been professionally accused of having had an affair with another Board member, because he’s the only man on the Board, and well, obviously we must have been having sex for him to endorse my candidacy.

I have had parent volunteers offer to assist me in rewriting policies or interpreting Education Law, becawse I’m a wittle girlie who cannot understand the written word.

I have had administrators ask for public apologies from me after I publicly stated that my main priority was to ensure that a larger percentage of students Taking AP courses could Pass the AP tests.

And all of these were presented to me as constructive advice in order to help me advance my career, since it was clear that I was about to engage in professional suicide. And yes, “professional suicide” was the exact phrase used.

I believe that the author of the book in question took her “negative” review with a certain sense of humor. However, the rest of this just makes my stomach churn.

Please don’t tell me that the reviewer’s identity was discovered through Google (if indeed, J Wallace is the same person as that author who is not submitting to Blaze). Please don’t tell me that all of the discussions about what the editors will or won’t know about this person’s egregious behavior is only offered up as advice.

It smells wrong.

That being said, I’m not boycotting any author, or any such thing. But the thing smells like a witch-hunt, I’ve been part of those, and I don’t appreciate the “butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth” posters insisting that it isn’t.

I’m going back to lying down on the couch with my trashy novel, my silk shrug, and my bon-bons.

I’d like to post one more thing on this subject (even though I keep telling myself to stay out of it.

I looked at J. Wallace’s profile on Amazon.com. In addition to the Gerbil/Hamster/Mouse/Whatever book, she’s also got about nine other reviews there. This was the only bad review she wrote. The rest were 4 and 5 stars and a lot of those authors are known to this group.

Just saying…

So the moral of the story seems to be that one should always post Amazon reviews with a pseudonym… Good to know. 

I recall reading a lengthy discussion of ‘owning’ one’s opinions in the community, but from the level of petty vindictiveness I’ve seen in this thread it’s hard to imagine why anyone would use her own name.  I use a pseudonym on Amazon when I leave a review, even though I don’t often waste my time reviewing a book I don’t like.  Why?  There are lots of weird people out there and I don’t want to be pestered by somebody with a hyperactive aggressive streak.

I’d like to weigh in on the side of believing that using a helpless animal’s death by suffocation as humor is tasteless in the extreme, and for that reason I will not buy the book, nor anything else by that author.

And yes, I’d feel the same way about ill-treatment of a human.

And unless the book is an intentional satire on “Outlander,” the author deserves a couple of snarky reviews for lack of originality.

There are probably many readers who do not have very high standards when it comes to what they’ll read.  As a fussy bitch who cringes at the abuse of grammar and punctuation, I would like to see more genuine critical reviews and less middle-school hair-pulling.

Lia—
There have been other reviews of this book that are just as negative, albeit more impressively witten, than J,Wallace’s review. If anything, that makes those reviews more damaging.