Bitchin' Blog Posts
Making Progress
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | October 09, 2011 | Sunday at 2:28 pm | 170 Comments
I spent much of the last day in synagogue, because it’s Yom Kippur, better known as “The day of atonement,” and known in my house when “the day you spend a lot of time in a big room with people who didn’t brush their teeth that morning.”
Apparently, Emily Veinglory, Mrs. Giggles and Kate Garrabrant think that there’s something I ought to have been atoning for.
The short story is, I am part of a small consulting company called Simple Progress. Simple Progress was originally Mollie Smith’s company, and she’s brilliant at web management, design, and author website administration. Most of the client list she built herself. She’s pretty badass. Recently she invited me to join her company because over our semi-regular breakfast meetings (we are also neighbors) we would discuss social marketing needs for her clients, and I’d pitch ideas that would work for the authors to run for themselves or for Mollie to administer with programming, plugins and other magical things.
We think of it like languages. Mollie is extremely fluent in technology and in author promotion needs, especially since authors need to take on more of their own marketing responsibilities. I’m pretty fluent in social media and in how campaigns might effectively reach readers online in a way that isn’t an aggressive hard sell.
In other words, I speak social media and reader and author interaction; Mollie speaks tech and author, and the two of us work together to come up with social media campaigns that speak as many of those languages as possible, and that an author can run on her own. Most of what we do is web administration, mailing list management, and a small amount of consulting.
Given the accusations about my integrity, I want to make a few corrections:
We did not come up with or administer in any way the recent JD Robb New York to Dallas Facebook scavenger hunt. If we had, I wouldn’t have participated. That campaign was concocted by some really smart marketing folks, including the marketing and publicity team over at Penguin, and run by Nora’s team - and it was pretty freaking spiffy. I think it was brilliant in the way that it involved readers and visited so many diverse web sites.
Another point: it seems that my involvement with Simple Progress has caused festive accusations to fly that I must be being paid by my clients to promote them here.
At no time am I paid to promote authors in reviews here on this site. What appears in this space is my opinion.
In fact, in our proposals and contracts, we state the following:
Promotion on any website owned or operated in whole or in part by Mollie Smith or Sarah Wendell is not included in the scope of this project.
I am not ever paid or compensated for my opinion here. I don’t know how to say that more strongly.
There are authors on the client list whose books I really, really enjoyed, and there’s books by those authors that I haven’t liked as much. But it’s an insult to them and to me that they’d need to pay for mention here or anywhere else.
It hasn’t escaped my notice that the people who have the most interest in my ethics and morals are other bloggers, bloggers with whom I thought I was on good terms. Honestly, that makes me ineffably sad. I wish that if someone had a problem with me, they’d have brought it to me, rather than talk about me online or obliquely on Twitter (hell, Katie is my neighbor, too. She’s been invited into my home and met my family. She could have rung my doorbell to talk to me).
Everything is changing online and off: agents are publishers. Bloggers, like me, are authors. Bloggers are freelancing for publishers and media outlets. Readers and reviewers are in all sorts of different roles, from copyediting to critiquing to beta readers for publishing houses. We all switch places when we ring the bell, I think. The online community is a pretty close and intermixed neighborhood, and we’re all doing new and different and amazing things - sometimes hourly.
If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it. But the good thing is, there are so many amazing romance review blogs now, there’s no shortage of opinions about the novels we love, and I hope you find excellent books to read in every genre you like.
But I also trust that if you personally thought I was up to something funny, that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes and deceive you, you’d call me on it here so damn fast my head would spin.
I presume that’s still true. I hope it is, anyway. If I wrote a review or a comment in favor of a book that you thought was incentivized in any way, I trust entirely you’d call me on it immediately. But I would never do that to you because I value your opinion and your presence here.
There are few things I am more in awe of than the community of readers at this site. You’re as honest with me as you are with each other, and I value that more than I can say.
Filed: General Bitching
Tagged: wtfery, mrs giggles, katie garrabrant, emily veinglory
Brian O'Leary said on 10.09.11 at 03:02 PM • [link]
Your description of the way that roles are changing, blending and playing off one another is very helpful. There’s always the potential for conflict of interest, and it seems to me that you have done the right things to protect against it. Now, go brush your teeth.
SB Sarah said on 10.09.11 at 03:16 PM • [link]
Dude. I always brush my teeth. THAT I am VERY paranoid about.
Darlene Marshall said on 10.09.11 at 03:23 PM • [link]
*sigh* Sucky way to start the new year.
I think what annoyed me most when I looked at the vague allegations was that they were vague allegations. If someone has proof that there’s collusion between review sites and authors, present the evidence. If you do not have proof, hold off until you do, or drop it.
When bloggers act as news outlets, it’s a good idea to recall some basic journalism school teachings:
“Getting it right is more important than getting it first.”
“If your mother says she loves you, check it out”
“If you ever spell judgment with an ‘e’ again, you’re fire—” (Sorry, that’s from my own early reporting days. I still have nightmares about those ‘e’s.)
Hang in there.
Brian O'Leary said on 10.09.11 at 03:27 PM • [link]
Meticulous more than paranoid. The good news is that this little dust-up reminded me to order your book.
corina said on 10.09.11 at 03:41 PM • [link]
Seems to me this whole kerfuffle is another lesson in internet business best practices: disclose. Disclose early, disclose often, disclose everything. (God that word really quickly lost all meaning with repetition. Is it even a word or did I make it up?)
I really don’t doubt your motives or your ethics in this or any other instance. I believe you when you say that you are not compensated for reviews. You have built up an enormous store of goodwill in your readers and followers, but I don’t KNOW you, much as it feels I do because I read your website and follow you on twitter. You sound surprised that this raised any eyebrows, which in turn surprises me. Conflicts of interest are mostly in the eye of the beholder, and I’d think that you, with all your savvy, would have known that any undisclosed (by you, on your blog) business link would lead people to ask questions. You’ve answered them, and that’s great. (Look out, strained metaphor ahoy!) But I hope this is a lesson for others out there that no matter how comfortable you are changing hats, people are more likely to trust you when you say you are only wearing one when they can see all the others lined up in your closet.
Brian O'Leary said on 10.09.11 at 03:59 PM • [link]
I differ that Sarah sounds surprised that it raised any eyebrows. A blogger who writes a “no coverage” clause into every contract is very aware of the potential for conflict. She sounds sad that people who know her didn’t ask her before posting allegations.
Kismet said on 10.09.11 at 04:19 PM • [link]
I agree with Brian’s observation… and the fact that it is sad. It’s not high school anymore, we don’t have to run to our lockers and whisper behind our hands. We are adults, and the bloggers mentioned are considered to be professionals (you know, as opposed to the actual teenagers that use blogs as Dear Diary entries) so, then act like one. If you have a concern or issue, ask someone directly involved rather than dropping vague allegations on the internet.
Penelope said on 10.09.11 at 04:23 PM • [link]
Oh, the drama!
I just gave a talk to the Rhode Island Romance Writers group, and we discussed this very topic. Book bloggers and review sites are morhping from “old skool”-style blogs to “commercial” sites. Bloggers now receive free ARCs for review, promote authors via advertisements on their sites, and tweet/facebook about them. There is a murky line drawn between giving an honest opinion on a book, and promoting authors who are repeatedly giving you freebies, buds with you on Twitter, etc.
I agree with Corina. Full disclosure is always a good idea. I help authors come up with promo strategies for their books….free of charge. I have a heading on my site that discusses this. People know I am an author, a reviewer, a “promo consultant,” and a lover of bearded men. :^) It’s always a good idea to upfront about all of your “hats.”
Carolyn said on 10.09.11 at 04:24 PM • [link]
Or just providing links only. Shame when your left hand doesn’t know what your right hand is doing.
Cris said on 10.09.11 at 04:24 PM • [link]
I’m a regular romance reader that also reads a lot of blogs, so somewhere along the way I knew about Sarah’s business and it never occurred to me that there was a problem because I have never once been misled by one of the positive reviews on this site. Never once have I read a DIK and thought ‘WTF? This must be a promotion because it stinks’.
Sarah has earned my trust as a blogger and reviewer and for people to suddenly start tut-tutting about this issue when they don’t name one single instance of ‘That book sucked and Sarah gave it a great review AND the author is a client of hers’, then I’m just not interested in their opinion on anything.
Show don’t tell.
Sarah Frantz said on 10.09.11 at 04:27 PM • [link]
Sarah, I’m wondering if you had a similar reaction when you started taking advertising? Did people assume that taking on advertisers meant that you’d give good reviews if you reviewed the authors who were buying advertising? Because if not then, why now?
Anonymous Reviewer said on 10.09.11 at 04:33 PM • [link]
Am I the only one seeing the irony of this statement?
“I wish that if someone had a problem with me, they’d have brought it to me, rather than talk about me online”....
And the author just did the exact same thing.
Del Dryden said on 10.09.11 at 04:39 PM • [link]
I’m gobsmacked they didn’t contact you and just, you know…ask. And FFS, my eyes rolled so hard at the “I’m just posting a link, I’m like Switzerland, so neutral” claims. Please. When you post a link, and say “oh, looky. HMMM. INTERESTING.” everybody on the planet knows exactly what that means.
I do love your point about the increasing fluidity of everybody’s roles on the web these days. Easy to get confused about who’s doing what for whom, I guess. But it still comes down to good faith and clean hands, both of which I believe you have.
Las said on 10.09.11 at 04:39 PM • [link]
I’m also surprised that Sarah’s surprised. It just seems pretty obvious to me that it’s a conflict of interest, and I think it’s disingenuous to ask people to not make those kinds of assumptions and act hurt when they do. I mean, come on, you’ve been around way too long…are you really telling us that it never occurred to you that this would be an issue?
I’m not objecting to your role in Simple Progress, really, just because I think that that line has long been crossed all over Romancelandia with bloggers being obvious online buddies with authors, etc. To me Simple Progress just sounds like an extension of that.
Silver James said on 10.09.11 at 04:55 PM • [link]
And you are remaining anonymous why? Seems to me the names she mentioned have already “brought it to the yard” and she’s using this forum to reply. How is that the same thing?
I’m way behind the curve here because I hadn’t heard about the new consulting enterprise, the kerfluffle on social media, or the accusatory fingers being pointed. Frankly, I suck at social media and read only a handful of blogs (I can write or I can blog hop but don’t have time to do both) but I have had the opportunity to meet Sarah and while we aren’t BFFs by any stretch of the imagination, I’ve found her plain-spoken, sincere, and not one to play internet troll. She’s savvy at what she does, happy to express her opinion and give advice when asked, and while I don’t always agree with her reviews, I trust her insights because I trust her. IF and that’s a great big bold IF, she ever had a conflict, I have no doubt that she would err on the side of caution and walk away from one side or the other of the conflicting project.
Just my two cents worth.
anonymous said on 10.09.11 at 04:56 PM • [link]
@anonymous reviewer: it is not the same thing. Sarah was accused of something publicly. It is entirely appropriate that she respond publicly. She linked to those who questioned her, so it isn’t as if she is being surreptitious here. Had she been called out privately and responded publicly, that would be different.
Melanie said on 10.09.11 at 05:01 PM • [link]
Sadly, in today’s internet world, people post ideas, information, and accusations without doing research all of the time. You would think that since some of these bloggers have a relationship with Sarah, that they would have at least asked her directly. I do think it would have been nice to have posted information about Sarah’s affiliation with this company earlier, just to help avoid the confusion, but this does not make vague (and pretending to be innocent) accusations are the way to go. As others have mentioned, Romancelandia is fraught with conflicts of interest. Its a small community, and like a small town, people KNOW each other. Bloggers and reviewers go to conventions where they meat and befriend the author’s they review. They get to know publishers and agents and it creates a complicated web where really anyone can be accused of being biased. We have known that Sarah knows these people personally (which, maybe I’m naive but I find it harder to give a friend a bad review than someone who’s offering me money) and that she is a part of the business through her advertisements on this site as well as her interactions at conventions and her own publishing. Simple Progress is another facet of an already tangled web that exists all over the industry. While it was perhaps a mistake not to disclose on it sooner (as a question, she says recently she joined the company, how recently does in my mind—perhaps incorrectly—on whether there should or could have been more disclosure to this point), but this does not make her suddenly a bias/compromised source. If she was a compromised source, she was one long before and so are some of the biggest names in romance bloggers and reviewers.
likely78-there will likely be 78 people who disagree with me.
Jane said on 10.09.11 at 05:05 PM • [link]
@Las - a lot of people suspect relationships that don’t exist such as one of the commenters believing that Sarah’s site thought up the Nora Roberts blog tour. I’ve had others accuse me of relationships with authors because I engage with them on twitter when I have no other relationship with those authors that I engage with on Twitter. In fact, I think that there are some authors that try to cultivate relationships with bloggers believing that can lead to a positive review. I’m actually very leery of this and find friendships with authors for those reasons problematic. But I don’t view interacting with authors as creating relationships guaranteeing them positive reviews and if authors think that, then they are sorely mistaken. I also dont believe most authors think that. The challenge is that when someone accuses you of having a relationship you don’t have, how do you disprove it short of opening up your email box?
These vague rumors point out vague accusations, but there is never anything concrete and that’s probably because there are plenty of examples showing how Sarah (and other bloggers with purported relationships with authors) are being even handed. Frex, Toni Blake is one of the Simple Progress clients. In the same podcast that Sarah recommended one of her books, she also admitted she didn’t like one of Blake’s books. I commented at length how the Blake book I read did not work. If Sarah is being paid to do promo as part of the SP deal, then she’s not delivering a very good product for Ms. Blake.
Do readers really believe that bloggers would piss away years of goodwill to pimp one or two authors? And if those authors were true friends of the bloggers, would they want to use that friendship to destroy a blogger’s reputation? The only way a blogger maintains a readership or grows one is by having an authentic and consistent voice and that authentic and consistent voice cannot be maintained if is is purchasable by contracts or friendships.
The blogger’s reviews work only to the degree that the people who read them find them helpful. If the review is no longer driven from the same source (honest response) then readers will move away from that blogger. Pimpage isn’t going to work with readers of the blog if it isn’t authentic.
JamiSings said on 10.09.11 at 05:13 PM • [link]
@Darlene - Problem is, bloggers are taking from the examples of today’s “journalists” who publish opinions, not facts, or don’t do their research at all. So if the professionals don’t bother, the bloggers probably feel why bother?
@Anonymous - Grow up. This is more like a press conference to address every false accusation and accuser at once. If you’re so brave then what’s your real name?
Las said on 10.09.11 at 05:31 PM • [link]
@Jane,
Just to be clear, I really don’t mean to accuse bloggers of bad behavior when I mention conflicts of interest and such. I just think…it is what it is. Of COURSE there’s going to be some blurring of the line, especially when a blog crosses over from just a reader writing reviews to an actual business. I doubt that bloggers are outright lying in their reviews, but I do believe that their various connections to authors and publishers can affect how they write those reviews to some degree. You might give an F to a book by an author you love and interact with a lot online, but the tone of that review is going to be a lot different than the F review of a book by an author who’s work you usually dislike or who you don’t know from Adam.
The last time this issue came up, a commenter on one of the blogs said something like: all the obvious connections between publishers/authors and bloggers (like promos, giveaways, etc. makes what’s supposed to be blogs for readers feel like just more cogs in the publishing machine. That really sums it up for me. It’s not a bad thing, but it does mean that I don’t treat all blogs equally. Some I read for the reviews, some for the commentary, some for the information.
What does bother me is when bloggers act surprised/upset when the line-blurring is brought up by readers. Your intentions might be pure, but you have to know how it looks.
Lisa J said on 10.09.11 at 05:38 PM • [link]
I have to agree with Jane. If a reviewer I trusted suddenly changed the tone of their reviews and became inconsistent in their reviews, I would stop trusting their reviews and no longer visit their site. Why would someone want to ruin years of building trust and relationships to shill for someone else?
Theo said on 10.09.11 at 05:59 PM • [link]
Seems to me, if Sarah was involved in any collusion at all, she’d never post a review that was less than stellar about one of the books she’s read. Since that’s not the case and she posts reviews that are both complimentary and not so, including often to the same author on different books, the accusations without irrefutable proof are senseless and without merit.
As to taking this “public,” she was accused publicly, she has every right therefore to dispute publicly.
RebeccaJ said on 10.09.11 at 06:04 PM • [link]
Ahh jealousy rears it’s ugly head now that the book is out:)
A Deb said on 10.09.11 at 06:21 PM • [link]
I would never in a million years, believe any of the authors on that client list would need to buy a positive review. That is what this implied conflict of interest is all about. I mean seriously, Nora Roberts would feel the need to buy a positive review?
If Sarah was a former blogger of a highly respected site, turned venture capitalist for the start ups featured on said blog, then yes, I might raise an eyebrow. Disclosure of the venture capitalist would be important. Big money in this instance. But a review of a 7.99 book is no where near the VC league.
Those who raised the issue sound very petty to me.
Tina C. said on 10.09.11 at 06:41 PM • [link]
Friends don’t spread gossip through vague accusations and innuendo. Journalists and “journalistic-bloggers” don’t print something without actually speaking to all of the parties involved, if at all possible. Emily Veinglory, Mrs. Giggles and Kate Garrabrant have proven themselves to be neither. However, perhaps they never considered themselves to be either of those things.
As for Sarah’s involvement in Simple Progress, she is savvy enough that she should have realized that this could cause the appearance of conflict of interest, even if there is none. She should have disclosed the relationship, if nothing else, because there are a few people that she’s outed for things like plagarism and unethical business practices. Consequently, there are a few people looking to take her down or, at least, wanting to bask in the Schadenfreude. People like that will always be looking for something that they can smack her with. Why hand them the bat?
That said, I do not believe that she’s ever gave a review that she did not feel was deserved, good or bad, for friendship, money, or any other reason. In fact, one of her clients is Anne Stuart and I absolutely shredded one of her books in a guest review. She never once hinted in any way that it was a problem with it or my opinion and posted it in full. In other words, if she’s taking money for good reviews, she’s doing it wrong.
sugarless said on 10.09.11 at 06:44 PM • [link]
Sarah, your site has retained the integrity it has had since it first started - or at least since I first started visiting it 3 years ago. I’ve found your reviews consistent - you only give good reviews to good books and bad reviews to bad. If that had changed, I could see where the allegations come from, but it hasn’t.
You consistently post (and publish!) things that celebrate the romance novel community and it upsets me to to see parts of that same community turning on you.
Mireya said on 10.09.11 at 07:00 PM • [link]
I am 100% with Las on this. She expressed it clearly enough, at least from my perspective, so I don’t think I need to say more.
Las said on 10.09.11 at 07:04 PM • [link]
I don’t think Sarah would write a dishonest positive review. Would she write a snark-filled negative review of a book by, for example,
Loretta Chase, though? Guest posts don’t count. Would Sarah herself write that review? She might comment that she didn’t like it, but would she dedicate a post to it? There’s no way for us to know that, of course, because the absence of a review can’t be considered proof of anything. But I don’t believe that there’s any way for this new business to not affect how she runs this site. Maybe it’s not deliberate, but it has to happen.
I find it pretty disturbing that the focus here is how mean those bloggers are being to Sarah. Way to deflect, there.
Lakaribane said on 10.09.11 at 07:19 PM • [link]
I don’t think that Sarah’s integrity is in question. I don’t believe the tone of her reviews has changed.
BUT
The perception of conflict of interest is bad, not matter the person’s personal ethics, because all we know of Sarah is what she posts here.
Also, even if it is a new venture, SB Sarah posts every day or almost so…
I have to agree with Corina: disclose, disclose all, disclose early. Don’t leave it up to others, friend or foe.
Laura said on 10.09.11 at 07:26 PM • [link]
This whole thing feels like a plot from a Regency Romance. Sarah was caught in the moonlit garden with the very sexy Consulting. Nobody saw anything, but they’re trying to ruin her anyway. Stay strong! Be the romance heroine we all know that you are!
Tina C. said on 10.09.11 at 07:32 PM • [link]
Las said:
There’s no way to know that, but you just can’t help but throw out that unsubstantiated, unprove-able accusation, right?
I don’t think the bloggers are being mean, perse. I think her friends (at least one of them being a neighbor and a friend) are, however. Who the hell finds something potentially damaging about a friend and then posts it to the internet without at least talking to said friend? I’m not saying that you don’t then post what you want, but if you want to be considered a friend and/or a journalist, you are honor-bound to at least say, “Yo, what the hell is going on?”. Then post it any and everywhere you want. You don’t do that, you’re neither a friend or a journalist. If you don’t consider yourself to be either of those things, so be it.
darlynne said on 10.09.11 at 07:40 PM • [link]
For me, SB Sarah, your reviews speak for themselves. The thought, effort and detail you put into each—positive and negative—say all I need to know about your integrity.
I don’t see a conflict of interest between what you do here and what you offer your clients because they aren’t the same things. Honestly, even if they were, my panties still wouldn’t be twisted because of how you talk to us, what you say and your efforts on behalf of all things romance: none of that has changed in all the time I’ve come to this site.
@Las: And we’ve got Gennita Low over at Mrs. Giggles saying:
Really? She knows this? A little speculation, a lot of vagueness, downright error and you wonder why people are concerned about what’s being thrown around out there? That’s not mean, it’s completely irresponsible. Way to muddy the waters, there.
SB Sarah said on 10.09.11 at 07:41 PM • [link]
@corina:
You’re right - earlier would have been better in retrospect. Part of why I didn’t discuss Simple Progress here was (a) we weren’t taking on new clients at that point, (b) it was irrelevant to anything I was doing here, and (c) the two are separate and connecting them seemed counterintuitive. But I like your analogy: hat collections are good for display. Point taken, and even I, with my horrible eyesight, know that hindsight is 20/20.
@A Deb:
I love your analogy, especially the idea that I’d turn venture capitalist. THAT WOULD BE SO FUN. Throw money at other people’s ideas? WOO!
Almost as awesome as the time there was a rumor going around that I was a porn star because half my domain used to be owned by someone in the adult film industry. I laughed so hard. Do you have any idea what kind of amazing physical shape I’d be in?! WOW.
@Las:
You’re right that the lines between bloggers, reviewers, authors, etc have been crossed. I am that blur, now that I think about it, since I’m all of those things. But I disagree that a relationship with an individual is going to influence or affect my evaluation of their book. It does not.
For example: I am friends with many other bloggers. Some of them did not like the Bosoms and said so, and pointed out perfectly good reasons why they didn’t like it. It’s my book, not me, that they were discussing. So it wasn’t like I took that review to be a personal affront, and I didn’t presume that they liked me less because they disliked my book. And it wasn’t like I was rude or angry at them the next time I saw them. It’s a book, not me.
So if I chat with an author online, and then I dislike a book she wrote, that is two separate things: I’m talking with a person, and I’m evaluating a book that she wrote, and those two are distinct. I don’t do myself, the people who read this site, or even the author who may have asked for the review any favors by lying or softening my reaction.
You pointed out that as blogs become businesses, the lines are blurred. That one remains pretty clear for me: reviewing honestly IS my job. I try to do it as best I can, as honestly as I can, every time.
Merry said on 10.09.11 at 07:47 PM • [link]
There’s a simple way to deflect any and all issues that people might have regarding favoritism to authors you work with: sign up Cassie Edwards as a client.
Seriously, I was troubled by the woman who put up the link with “hmmmn” as her only comment. If you read the comments, she has a pattern of engaging in discussion with people who agree with her, and laughing at anyone suggests alternate ways of dealing with the issue. She’‘s supposed to be ‘neutral’ on this?
Las said on 10.09.11 at 07:52 PM • [link]
@ Tina C.
Um, yes, because I’m describing my perception of certain blogs when these issues pop up. I’m not a journalist, and this is a book review blog that asks for readers to comment and give their opinions.
And when the hell did bloggers become journalists, anyway? It’s book reviews, people. Unless a blogger describes herself as a journalist, because she actually studied journalism and has worked as a journalist, SHE IS NOT A JOURNALIST. I find it absurd that people are upset that bloggers aren’t acting like a professional journalist should. As if complaining about how your friends are treating you when you’re posting about being called out on an apparent conflict of interest is the height of professional behavior. There might be a good point that the bloggers should have contacted Sarah first, I guess (personally, that sounds a bit shady to me, like bloggers are in this exclusive club and they have to present a united front in front of readers no matter what, but ymmv.), but going on about hurt feelings and friends is emotionally manipulative.
I wouldn’t have thought much of this Simple Progress thing on it’s own, but Sarah’s response really irks me.
mssarahb said on 10.09.11 at 07:55 PM • [link]
This blog is free for me to read. I read lots of blogs. In no way do I feel that I must slavishly believe or follow everything said here. I also do not believe that as a reader I have the right to know personal details about the author’s/owner’s personal life, including her job. THIS IS NOT journalism. This is a private enterprise created and sustained by the talent, goodwill and interest of one (or two) individuals. That’s it.
I’m not voting for Sarah W. I do not need or want full disclosure of her private business. And yes, her job falls under what I consider her privacy umbrella, along with her family, where she lives, and anything else she decides not to disclose. Unless she wants to discuss it, I would never presume that I, as a complete stranger, have a right to know. Even if there is potential for overlap—WHO CARES?!? This is a wonderful blog about romance books—no one will be injured or killed by it. Grow up, jealous people. Celebrate those who work hard to make good things in the world instead of trying to tear them down.
Kate L said on 10.09.11 at 07:59 PM • [link]
If you’re going to accuse someone of something, grow ladyballs, get some evidence and bring it to their notice. Don’t be superdouches and make snarky half suggestions. Just rude. I also think that Sarah has been extremely restrained in her answer. She stated the case, was open about what the truth is and said how she felt about it. The end. There would have been way more four letter words in mine.
And unfortunately due to the fact that most of the clients on her list are freaking amazing (Crusie/Chase Imma looking at you) there may not be a shitty review to “prove her integrity”.
Her blog has helped me discover new authors, some great books and most of all has made me laugh my arse off and I check it every day. So rather than end with negatives, I just want to say thank you Sarah and hang in there.
RebeccaJ said on 10.09.11 at 08:05 PM • [link]
I find it interesting that this business is bothering people, but they’ve never pointed out the very obvious problem of a review site—can they be objective when they’re accepting money for ads?
I am VERY leery of that because I was reviewing products for a site that insisted I say nice things that I wasn’t feeling because of the advertising dollars and free product. Needless to say, I quit. I didn’t want to hookwink people any more than I wanted to be hoodwinked.
When I first started reading this site, I found more than a few not so stellar reviews and that convinced me it was on the up and up. Is it a sticking point they weren’t written by Sarah herself? Nope, it’s on her site, she’s posting them, so I don’t care WHO wrote the reviews.
Katherine C. said on 10.09.11 at 08:15 PM • [link]
Holy kazoo. I love it when something simple blows up into something ridiculously huge. Should Sarah perhaps have posted some kind of disclosure about the new business venture before now? Perhaps—as others have pointed out, she (at least appears to be) savvy enough to know that to some parties it might appear suspect. That said, however, I think this is one of those situations where she had the clause in the contracts and then honestly didn’t think about it being a problem later—perhaps because she didn’t have any intention of getting paid to do reviews, and it didn’t occurr to her then and there that anyone else would think she did? Hmmm? Just maybe? And then somebody found out and exploited what they knew could be twisted to look like something shady. Awesome. I don’t for an instant—based, admittedly, solely on reading the blog, etc., not because I know her personally—believe that Sarah takes money for reviews. Have I always agreed with her reviews, positive or negative? No, but people have different tastes, book reviews are, by nature, subjective, and I don’t expect those tastes to match up 100 percent of the time. And regardless of whether I agree, I always enjoy reading them. I do see what Las is saying, that perhaps subconciously she might be less harsh on an author she knows/likes with a negative review than on one she doesn’t have any connection to (I can’t think of any examples, though, and doesn’t that say something beyond me having the memory of an 80-year-old woman?), but I don’t necessarily see that as a conflict of interest—aren’t we all inclined to be a little more tolerant of a bad book from an author we enjoy than from one we’ve never read before, and does that not affect how and if we recommend it to a friend? Also, as has been mentioned before, Sarah doesn’t give blanket positive reviews based on author alone—she’s done both positive and negative reviews for the same writer, depending on the book. I have never once questioned that a review on this site was genuine, and I don’t forsee that changing anytime soon. I think it’s unfortunate that there are those who now will, but there’s really nothing Sarah can do about it except continue to do what she does, knowing that there are plenty of others who do believe in her. Perhaps by continuing to be consistent in her practices, eventually she will convince the doubters of her honesty.
tc said on 10.09.11 at 08:25 PM • [link]
since when is this site or other site that are blogs are suppose to be journalism , this is the not newspaper or times or the nytimes or cspan or cnn . how wierd !
Katherine C. said on 10.09.11 at 08:25 PM • [link]
And please don’t take that last sentence to mean I don’t believe she is consistent in how she handles reviews now, or that I think she should have to convince anyone of her honesty.
Maili said on 10.09.11 at 08:32 PM • [link]
I just caught up with the whole thing. So late to the party. :D
Please note my response to Jane is not about Mrs Giggles, SBs and such.
@Jane
That’s true, but I need to address one thing about that. Or three, rather.
a) Transparency. That means disclosing your relationship with an author (or CP, or agent, or publisher, or printer’s dog). It’s not about reviewer’s integrity, or whether she’s consistent with her views. It’s about respecting a reader/potential customer’s right to know in context of assessing the value of a reviewer. Each reviewer is a brand in their own right after all.
It still doesn’t matter because what matters is the value of each review to each reader, regardless whether it’s a rave review or not. A disclosure would be appreciated (I always appreciate it), but not everyone gives a fuck because they can either figure it out themselves in the end through other means - let it be finding out from other readers, comparing it with other reviews or reading books themselves - or ignore it in favour of detailed information about the reviewed book.
b) It IS possible to have an authentic and consistent voice whilst promoting a book or author in form of a review. It’s called awareness. I know some reviewers strongly disagree with this, but in my view, each time we review a book, we’re raising readers’ awareness of said book. That’s promotion. We however have to offer something in the review to keep readers coming back for more. We do that by providing, as you say, an authentic and consistent voice - as well as having our own reading taste. You know that’s called stickiness.
c) “[...] that authentic and consistent voice cannot be maintained if is is purchasable by contracts or friendships.”
I call BS on that. There are some reviewers who do let friendship affect their reviews without sacrificing their authentic and consistent voice. Some did it subtly, and some did so awkwardly that it had a flashing neon arrow sign pointing at it. But I’m not talking about the “I wanna be your friend so will you let me if I write positive reviews of your books?” extremity. We all know who those are, so they don’t count (rude of me, I know, but I can’t stand ra-ra reviewers).
I’m talking about wording a review in a way that it wouldn’t affect friendship without compromising so much that regular review readers would notice. Again, it’s not about integrity. It’s about our desire to show respect - especially if the author is widely regarded and well respected - and we have been victim of that sometimes, right or wrong.
Not all were aware of doing it, though. Some reviewers trusted certain authors to be sincere when interacting and they reacted accordingly, including taking more care with writing reviews of those authors’ books, negative or positive. They found out too late that they were used. In other words, they were purchased without their knowledge. We all have been there. What I’m saying is that there are many forms of purchases and with or without our knowledge. Not so black and white, I’m thinking.
Overall, my view:
The romance community is so incestuous that it’s rather impossible to have strict boundaries like the so-called professional reviewers have in that big bad world. So we rightfully allow certain compromises - such as reviewers hanging out with authors and readers with reviewers - but IMO, reviewers still need to disclose their friendship or relationship (the “I’ve roomed with this author at this convention” or “I’m a CP of this author” kind) in reviews for the sake of transparency. Not essential, but it would be nice.
Back to the Mrs G / SB thing:
Come on, there are people here who have been around long enough to know that there’s an invisible law that there are always consequences when one “hides” something (whether it’s “I didn’t think it was that important” or “it has nothing to do with with what I do here”). This happened how many times last fifteen years? 100s of times, I’m willing to bet. It’s a tired old song.
Both Mrs G and Sarah know this. They should if they didn’t. Sarah should have disclosed at the start but she didn’t. Mrs G should have been less coy about it all but alas, she couldn’t resist poking a stick at a hole Sarah left behind. She’s the watchman of the watchmen after all, so we shouldn’t be surprised that she would take this opportunity to check a major blogger like Sarah to make sure all’s in the order. Naturally, Sarah isn’t happy to have her integrity questioned. No surprise there, both ways.
I do think it’s healthy to have this kind of thing, though, because it can help us all not to be complacent and be pro-active by recognising, acknowledging and highlighting the changes we make along our journey from what we were to what we are now, and what we will be. And why not?
While Mrs G’s handling is very Mrs G, it’s still a fair call. (Ideally, Mrs G would be less coy but alas.) Sarah still has nothing to worry about because, as she says, her conscience is clear. Mrs G questioned. Sarah explained. End of the story. Let’s move on. No need for anyone to get upset, is there?
Sorry for being so long-winded and for being such a black sheep. Thanks, Sarah, for letting me have this space to ramble without you being so ready to shove this keyboard into my face. :D Cheers.
Kim in Hawaii said on 10.09.11 at 08:43 PM • [link]
Aloha, Sarah! It’s still early in Hawaii so I hope this is coherent (I am sipping caffeine as I write). After skimming your post, my first thought was, “OMG, is she from Krypton?” Because you seem to have super powers to accomplish so much more in the same 24 hour day than I do!
After rereading your words (and the links), these random thoughts came to mind:
- It may seem personal but don’t let it get personal. The authors of the three links had something to say, you responded to them, and now it’s out in the open. Perhaps we can all learn from each other’s perspective.
- I don’t know what was the intent of the bloggers who posted the link or the commenters who responded. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and assume that they intended malfeasance. But let’s remember that they, too, are romance readers. Per your new book, romance readers are awesome. But they are also human and speak their mind. Something about your business relationship and/or your blog success bothers them. I think it is healthy to explore what bothers them rather than dismiss them.
- Dr. Sarah Frantz defended Sarah W. at the other links, “Can we perhaps trust that Sarah, who has done more for the reputation of romance than most anyone else and is one of the most ethical people.” Trust is a two way street - if you want it, give it.
- I would agree that you have become a significant influence in promoting romance. But that makes you a bigger target, no matter how unjustified. It is what it is.
- I have no doubt of your integrity. I believe you still write like a grass roots blogger. Likewise, I believe you (and others) can have personal relationships and business enterprises with authors, editors, and publishers without compromising integrity. But this issue has been debated here, there, and everywhere. Clearly, direct communication is preferable to making assumptions.
I end with a Hawaiian proverb:
He lawai’a no ke kai papa’u, he pokole ke aho; he lawai’a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.
Translation: A fisherman of shallow seas uses only a short line; a fisherman of the deep sea uses a long line.
Explanation: You will reach only as far as you aim and prepare yourself to reach.
riga said on 10.09.11 at 08:47 PM • [link]
I don’t know about the other two, but Mrs. Giggles’s raging hateboner for apparently everyone who has anything to do with SBTB and DA has made me discount almost everything coming out of her mouth these days. Kind of a shame because I found a lot of keepers from her reviews, since her taste in books is very similar to mine.
She does love criticizing other bloggers, doesn’t she, but when people disagree with her or just ask her to back up her claims and insinuations, she frequently responds with nothing more than a “LOL.” Yes, that certainly is thought-provoking commentary you’re providing there. Very convincing stuff.
Vicki said on 10.09.11 at 09:05 PM • [link]
A couple things: First, I’m sure I heard about simple consulting from Sarah, maybe on twit or somewhere, and maybe without the name. She just mentioned that clients were referral only. Didn’t bother me enough to even remember the context, just an, oh, yeah, she’s a busy woman.
This has come up in my (completely different) line of work. People will suggest I am doing something (often something I am not actually doing) due to a conflict of interest. Generally, I invite them to take their business elsewhere. I am not the only game in town.
I read this blog because it is entertaining and, over the last several years, has proven reliable. If someone feels elsewise, no one is holding a gun to their head to make them read it. Read another blog. If you have questions about conflicts, you can ask Sarah. It turns out that there’s a contact link at the top of this page. It works. I know. I’ve used it.
Terrie said on 10.09.11 at 09:28 PM • [link]
I think comments here have covered most of what I would want to say on the issue: that perhaps disclosure up front could have prevented this hoo-ha and Sarah herself has responded to note that might have been best. Comments about the blurring of lines in the industry make good points.
That said, I think the creation of this drama (“Hmmmm”) was snide and unattractive. No, Mrs. G is not a journalist, and I don’t hold her to journalistic standards. She is a blogger, and I do have standards that I expect from bloggers who will earn my (precious) time. She doesn’t meet them.
And I just think it’s a shame that in the excitement and thrill of having a new book out, this muddies the waters. So, I really hope for Sarah’s sake that this brouhaha disappears quickly and she can go back to enjoying the heady experience of having a new book out herself.
So, thank you, Sarah, for shaping a community that is a consistent pleasure to visit. You have created a dynamic, fun, thought and grin provoking website that cheers on a genre that is dear to my heart. I appreciate it.
Melanie said on 10.09.11 at 09:43 PM • [link]
@riga
a little off topic here, but you make me so happy. LOL is NOT a response/rebuttal to someone’s argument; and in my world, if you don’t actually respond to the argument, you concede the argument. I will end rant now.
tc said on 10.09.11 at 10:15 PM • [link]
she is an author now , dont that make a difference too? i think it does. to me it a conflict of interest , but i still read here mmm. oh well there goes the blurring .
sweeks1980 said on 10.09.11 at 10:17 PM • [link]
While this kerfuffle hasn’t made me question Sarah Wendell and Smart Bitches, it has made me reevaluate some of the bloggers I follow. Mrs. Giggles - I’m breaking up with you. And it’s not me - it is all you.
It always annoys me when someone stirs the pot (so to speak) and then tries to backtrack and proclaim innocence. I have read and enjoyed Mrs. Giggles’s reviews for years, and I deleted her from my bookmarks (and shook the virtual dust from me feet) after reading her posting on this topic, her asinine defense of her actions, and her nonsensical (and vaguely insulting) “LOL” responses to readers who disagreed with her. If she had been more upfront with her original post OR admitted that she could see how the original post might have been interpreted as passive-aggressive sh*t stirring OR had the civility to concede that readers who disagree with her have a valid point, I might have let this go. However, her lack of grace and her inability to take any responsibility (or even acknowledge that this issue has more than one side) was too much for me to handle.
I would have posted all of this on her blog, but I knew that if I received an “LOL” response from her, I would throw my computer through the window. Thanks for letting me rant here!
Lynne Connolly said on 10.09.11 at 10:24 PM • [link]
it’s a very slippery and very tricky subject. That’s why, when I decided to review, a slot kindly offered by Sybil, I decided I wouldn’t review books put out by any publisher I write for, or any writer I consider a friend.
That’s where it gets tricky. Because when is a friend a friend rather than an acquaintance? So I decided subsequently that I’d mention my relationship with the author, if there was any.
But how far do you go? For instance, I’ve met and like Miranda Neville, and we’ve even done some joint promo, but I loved her book when I was sent it for review. What to do?
It’s slippery. And I agree - full disclosure is always the safest way. if you can.
jody said on 10.09.11 at 10:33 PM • [link]
For crying out loud. The heavy hitters on Simple Progress’s client list need no pimpage from SBTB.
I don’t know of any other blog not subsidized by a publisher or a bookseller that does so much to promote obscure and lesser known authors, as well as informing and protecting authors and readers alike.
Thank you, Sarah, for all you do. Congratulations on the book. Let the rabble eat cake.
Maybe it would be more productive to make wine from those sour grapes, hmmm?
kkw said on 10.09.11 at 10:37 PM • [link]
I suspect that I’m lacking integrity myself. I don’t see a problem. Even if Sarah were being paid to write the reviews here I’d say good for her. I just can’t see how it would ever damage me any. So I read Bitten and did not care for it in any fashion, at all, even a teensy bit. Whether the delightful review of it was motivated by errant taste on Sarah’s part (which I’m sorry to say I’m quite certain it was) or because she was being paid to advertise it seems irrelevant. I found the review thought-provoking and inspiring. I’m glad it existed even if I didn’t have the same reaction to the book that she did. I enjoyed being witness to the exchange of ideas the post(s) provoked. I consider this website a public service. If she was paid to bring Loretta Chase to my attention, then everyone wins even more than I knew. If somehow everything she’s writing is a tissue of self-serving lies I still hope she never stops.
Magsg said on 10.09.11 at 10:53 PM • [link]
@sweeps 1980: Good post. You said everything I was thinking.
Merry said on 10.09.11 at 10:57 PM • [link]
@sweeps 1980, I agree with Magsg. That was what I was trying to get at, only the way you wrote it was much clearer and more forcefully put.
sweeks1980 said on 10.09.11 at 11:15 PM • [link]
@Magsg - Thank you!
@Merry - I think you put it very nicely as well!
Pam said on 10.09.11 at 11:36 PM • [link]
This whole business really saddens me. I don’t really want to restate the arguments in support of Sarah that others have presented so well. Suffice it to say that if there was an error on Sarah’s part, it was not so much an ethical issue but more a case of underestimating the persnickety nature of some members of this neighborhood in the online community. Success breeds jealousy, sad to say, no matter what kind of sly self-righteous tone it takes.
Unfortunately, the elephant, no matter how petty, is still swinging its trunk pretty wildly. And no, I don’t think that’s feigned surprise in Sarah’s post; I think it’s tightly restrained hurt, because it hurts like hell when someone, apparently out of malice, grabs ahold of a tiny thread and attempts to unravel years of hard work. And, yeah, she covered the relevant points, and that should be the end of it, but I think, as a reader, I have an obligation to respond.
I only know Sarah from her online persona; she has a voice and vision that seems crystal clear to me. I am less a consumer of reviews than a fan of her hard work, great humor, humanitarian values, and excellent writing. Anyway, Sarah, I just want to offer my whole-hearted support and thanks for all the wonderful things that you do.
Elyssa Papa said on 10.09.11 at 11:46 PM • [link]
Hindsight is always 20/20. I mean, if I could go back and change some things (what was I thinking applying to colleges as a pre-med when I didn’t like cutting up things?!) I so would.
But here’s how I look at it. I’ve never met Sarah in real life. But from what I know of her online—on this blog and on Twitter, she’s pretty damn awesome. She’s been my gateway drug to some authors and books. (Jennifer Estep, Sherry Thomas, and Jo Bourne, I’m looking at you.) She’s also been one of the best advocates for romance. And I so would hire her in a second if I ever sold. Sarah, I could pay you with my first born book, right? Damn, I didn’t think so. ;)
And, you know, I’m still not sure if I brushed my teeth before falling asleep last night and it is bothering me.
Regardless, Sarah, despite all the hoop-la there are a ton of people who support you. This venture sounds fabulous and totally something you’d rock at.
SB Sarah said on 10.09.11 at 11:52 PM • [link]
@Pam: “Suffice it to say that if there was an error on Sarah’s part, it was in underestimating the persnickety nature of some members of this neighborhood in the online community. “
YES. That is my error. If there is a lesson here, I have learned it: never, ever underestimate the “raging hateboner” to find something to kvetch about.
@riga I will love you for the rest of my life for that phrase. Thank you.
Las said on 10.10.11 at 12:01 AM • [link]
Good grief. Criticizing one thing about a person doesn’t mean that she’s being called a horrible person. I find all these “We know what a wonderful person you are Sarah!” and “They’re all just jealous!” and “I’m on your side on this blogger war that I’m imagining!” responses over-the-top. How about discussing the actual issue at hand instead of getting offended that you’re “leader’s” honor has been impugned. You don’t think Simple Progress is a big deal from a blogging standpoint? Say that, and argue why you think that’s so. But please don’t accuse others of being mean girls (and that’s some rich irony right there) because they have some legitimate questions/criticisms.
Theo said on 10.10.11 at 12:07 AM • [link]
@las
You’re right about legitimate concerns/questions, but they should have been brought to Sarah, not aired in innuendo and veiled criticisms on a blog since these people were supposed to be more than a passing acquaintance in at least one instance. Had it been done that way, we might have simply seen a disclaimer go up somewhere on this blog and that would have been the end of it and I doubt most of us would have even notice.
No, I’m sorry, but I have to agree with the others. There are far deeper motives here than just bringing this to light. If these bloggers were in fact journalists, this would flash a bright yellow in my book.
snarkhunter said on 10.10.11 at 12:09 AM • [link]
I’m with kkw and mssarahb. I honestly do not get what the big deal is. And, actually, I’m confused on two fronts. First: I just resurrected myself here a few weeks ago after a 2-year hiatus, and I swear to God I knew Sarah was part of Simple Progress. I don’t know HOW I knew that, but I knew. So I figure it must’ve been disclosed somewhere. Second, and more important: even if Sarah was being paid to give good reviews to “bad” books…I wouldn’t see the problem. As we all may have noticed when we had the “it didn’t work for me” thread a few weeks ago, people’s tastes differ. A delightful, wonderful book to one person is a piece of crap to another person. Sarah gave Midsummer’s Moon an A review. I hated that book. Yet I didn’t assume Laura Kinsale paid her for the rec.
As for subconscious bias…um, yeah? And you’re likely to be gentler on an author whose first six books you liked when their seventh turned out to be crap.
I don’t know. I think this is yet another manifestation of the notion that all blogging/art must be done for loooooooooooove, and woe be upon you if you accept payment for it, you whorey little sellout.
(Psychic captcha is “money44.”)
snarkhunter said on 10.10.11 at 12:14 AM • [link]
Just to clarify—the reason I don’t see a big deal about paid reviews? Is because at the end of the day reviews are purely subjective. And I try to bring enough awareness of my own taste (and, if possible, of the reviewer’s likes, dislikes, and biases) to decide whether that means the book is worth reading for me or not.
So even if there is a conflict of interest here, and I’m honestly not seeing one, it doesn’t matter to me. I’m genuinely confused by the kerfuffle. Paid to give a good review? That’s fine with me. As far as I’m concerned, free copies of books (even ARCs) are practically payment anyway, but that’s because my money is usually converted into book form quite quickly, so books are rather like currency to me.
JaniceG said on 10.10.11 at 12:19 AM • [link]
I think there are two issues being conflated here: whether there is indeed a conflict of interest, and how people raised this issue.
Las said:
The fact that some people are bothered more by the nature of the accusation than its truth doesn’t mean that they don’t think the truth is important.
Maili said:
The problem as I understand it is that Mrs G didn’t question Sarah directly: she chose to make public accusations without first trying to get a response directly. That’s not good “journalism” and it smacks more of witch-hunting than concern for the truth. The way to handle this would have been to directly question Sarah, get an answer, and then, if necessary, report on that answer.
JaniceG said on 10.10.11 at 12:23 AM • [link]
SB Sarah said:
Actually, that doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the women who douse themselves with perfume in the morning because they can’t shower! Had a nightmare YK one year in an unairconditioned synagogue due to this phenomenon, and I’m not fond of strong perfume at the best of times…
Elisa said on 10.10.11 at 12:28 AM • [link]
Wow, sadness. Part of why I read romance is to get away from petty bullshit. I am definitely not someone all in the know of bloggers and reviewers and promotions and all that stuff, I mostly just like to read spicy books and laugh until I pee my pants which is why I am a big fan of SBTB. However, I do have a big problem with people trying to “innocently” smear another’s reputation with oblique accusations of impropriety.
I know I would be pretty offended and hurt if someone I considered a colleague implied that I had no ethics. I mean if I had recommended a student for an award, I would be mighty pissed if another teacher went around saying you couldn’t trust anything I said because I was paid $15/hour to tutor the kid on long division laat summer. I would also hope that my other colleagues would respond with a resounding WTF?!?
I am sure this is very flawed analogy, but I would like to say that I for one am saying, WTF?!? REALLY???
Also, in the interest of the “full disclosure” so necessary these days, I did enter into the drawing for the super amazing prize Sarah is giving away, but the random number generator made me no promises in exchange for this post. Or did he? Hmmmmm . . .
sweeks1980 said on 10.10.11 at 12:34 AM • [link]
@Las - I see your point and agree that this is an issue that should be addressed (and some people have eloquently voiced their thoughts regarding this issue in the comments). I am all for raising questions and engaging in civil debate on an issue, and I am a big supporter of full disclosure.
However, what I find troubling is not the fact that the other bloggers brought the issue up (the concerns are legitimate and should be addressed) but the way they choose to broach the subject. Rather than raising some questions in a straightforward way and inviting an explanation or further information, they opted to address it in a passive-aggressive and indirect manner, which can certainly be interpreted as juvenile.
darlynne said on 10.10.11 at 12:36 AM • [link]
No, but her credibility, ethics, reputation and fairness are being called into question with nothing more than a link and a “hmmm.” It is the glee with which this has come about that I find so unsavory; piling on through innuendo—and then acting surprised at the fallout—isn’t the same thing as looking someone in the eye and asking the hard questions.
For the record, I don’t see a conflict. Sarah has responded. That’s enough for me.
Billie D said on 10.10.11 at 12:39 AM • [link]
I don’t have a dog in this race, but I think it could have been
handled in a much more up front manner. I have never read
a review here that I found suspect or wondered about the
source.
Mostly what I find hard not to suspect is the timing of the
questions. If no jealousy of Sarah’s book is present it sure doesn’t
look it.
Las said on 10.10.11 at 12:46 AM • [link]
Can you tell me why the other bloggers should have contacted Sarah first? I’m not trying to be difficult, I just really don’t understand why that seems to be the bigger issue for so many. I understand why Sarah would be upset about that (and I would be, too, in her shoes), especially if she considers those bloggers friends, but what does that have to do with us, the readers, and why should that affect how we view this? And why are we being pulled into this personal conflict? This is personal for Sarah, sure, but not for us. Am I just overly compartmentalizing this?
For the record, while I’m fine with Mrs. Giggles’ initial “Hmmm,” I think it’s ridiculous for her to claim that she’s just putting up a link without comment. As ridiculous as Sarah claiming that she’s shocked that people think there’s a conflict of interest with Simple Progress. I don’t think either of them is that naive.
Melanie said on 10.10.11 at 12:53 AM • [link]
The reason that people would have liked for the bloggers to question Sarah first has to do with doing research to make the post more than rumor-mongering. As others have mentioned, if someone would have contacted Sarah, she would have said, ‘huh, I didn’t think it was an issue but let me post a disclaimer on my site.’ Also, I think the reason Mrs. G has gotten the most backlash in this discussion is because she was most vague about her purpose. While I think attempting research is still the best first approach, if that failed, using your blogs to ask questions, instead of casting vaguely concealed aspersions would be the “right” thing to do. Just my perception on the problem.
ChrisZ said on 10.10.11 at 12:55 AM • [link]
We come to SBTB to be part of a community of similar interests. It’s not our job, it’s not our life, it’s our entertainment. Sometimes reviews are positive, sometimes the reviews are negative, always the reviews are entertaining. If we have the time, we read all the comments. People from all over the world chiming in to agree, disagree or just commiserate over the brilliance of the sentence structure.
Sara has chosen to live a portion of her life on the public stage. The majority of us are very grateful for that decision and the talent that keeps us coming back for more. I don’t think that people are defending their “leader” when saying that they support Sara. It seems that she feels her integrity has been questioned and she has decided to defend herself to her community. Sometimes we get a false sense of familiarity by reading the words of someone else in this community-like setting. I want to defend her. She doesn’t need for me to defend her. After reading a review, I am not in any way obligated to purchase something. I generally go to other sites and compare reviews before deciding on a purchase. If I don’t enjoy the book, I don’t blame Sara or any other reviewers.
I think what is more important here is that Sara, who is not my leader but rather a very talented writer who brings laughter to the lives of many, has been made to feel like she must defend herself. She is a human being. If someone you think is your friend dangles bits of your private life in front of a crowd and says “look, look!”, it is upsetting. While we sit over our daily caffeine and debate who was right, or what should have been done, this person who has spent a lot of time trying to make our days brighter is having a seriously craptastic day.
I’ll paraphrase here because I know if I go look it up I’ll delete everything else I’ve typed but in the FAQ area of this site one of the topics is Will you review my book? Sara’s response is yes but be prepared because even famous writers get bad reviews. We don’t take it easy on anyone.
I have found this to be entirely true and frankly get the most enjoyment out of the bad reviews and general WTFery that follows.
eggs said on 10.10.11 at 12:57 AM • [link]
Good gravy, talk about a storm in a tea cup! I agree that it was kind of dumb to not have a link on the SB site to the new promo business, for what are now obvious reasons. That being said, I would not have expected Sarah to make a specific “coming out” post about the new venture unless/until a conflict of interest presented itself. That would seem to be the natural progression of things to me, and that is how I’ve seen it done on other book blogs where a conflict of interest arose.
Expecting every book blogger to declare any conflicts of interest that may (or may not) arise at some unspecified time in the future seems a little ludicrous to me. This is especially true of publishing where the readers, publishers, editors, bloggers and authors often change hats. I would expect a heads up in instances where the hat change actually takes place, but not before. They say you can’t ride two horses with one arse, but I see it done every day of the week in publishing. At this point, Sarah seems to be riding three at once - spectacular achievement, Sarah! I hope you have some tiger balm handy.
I read a lot of publishing blogs by authors, agents and editors where they regularly pimp out books they have a commercial interest in, and also many, many more books that they have no connection with what-so-ever. And guess what? I still only buy those books where the review/promo sounds like a book I would like, no matter how much I love reading the blogger, and no matter how high (or low) a grade they give a book. For example, I love Janet Reid’s blog, but our book tastes are completely divergent and I’ve never bought a book she’s recommended.
Mostly, I read book blogs as a form of entertainment in and of itself. The fact that it might lead to a purchase, is neither here nor there to me. Frankly, this whole thing sounds like a case of sour grapes. It would be nice if everybody would just remain calm and carry on - but I guess there’s no fun in that!
becca said on 10.10.11 at 01:01 AM • [link]
A good review, to me, doesn’t only tell me whether the reviewer liked the book, but why or why not, and gives me enough information that I can figure out whether *I* will like the book, I trust the reviewers her and at Dear Author to do just that. Some of my favorite books only merited Bs; some of the A books just didn’t seem like my cuppa.
So I don’t really care whether the reviewer is being paid or not. If it’s a good review (by my above definition), then I’ll follow the review site.
I trust the reviewers here and at Dear Author. The jury is still out for Heroes and Heartbreakers. Generally I don’t find the reviews at ARR useful, so I don’t go there any more. When/if the reviews here stop being useful (and loads of fun to read), I’ll stop visiting here.
M said on 10.10.11 at 01:02 AM • [link]
I am ordinarily a lurker on all the mentioned blogs, but in this instance I have to post a word of support (sorry to be anon, but these are still issues I’m coping with.) I don’t know Sarah and had never spoken to her until just a few months ago when I had to discuss a business matter via email. The discussion necessitated bringing up painful personal matters, something I didn’t like having to do with a stranger, no matter how well I feel I’ve gotten to “know” her from reading her blog. She responded with more sympathy and understanding and kindness than you would ever expect from someone you didn’t know, and certainly more than I’ve experienced before in similar interactions online.
Her actions speak loud and clear of her character.
The same might be said of the three bloggers on the other side of this issue. When you decide to publicly post information that you know perfectly well might be damaging to someone’s reputation, as opposed to seeking that person out and privately asking for an explanation, your motivation is crystal clear to everyone.
Mrs. Giggles et all might consider that if you sling mud hard enough, a lot of it tends to splatter back in your face.
Mrs. G and the other two owe Sarah an apology for not being upfront with her privately before posting. You don’t question someone’s integrity publicly without first getting all the facts.
Well, you don’t if you’re a mature, reasonable, fair-minded adult.
I think someone’s integrity *is* lacking here, and it isn’t Sarah’s.
Ann Bruce said on 10.10.11 at 01:14 AM • [link]
For the people who are questioning Mrs. G’s timing: I ASSUME she learned of Sarah Wendell’s connection to Simple Progress because Jennifer Crusie recently disclosed it on her web site where she interviewed Wendell about her upcoming book.
Frankly, I think people, especially the conspiracy theorists, need to take a breather. Go outside, take a walk, decorate your house for Halloween. For my fellow Canadians, remember that it’s Thanksgiving. There are more important things in life, such as the prospect of Rick Perry being the next PotUS, that require attention than this kerfuffle.
Caitlin said on 10.10.11 at 01:27 AM • [link]
I don’t know that it’s “bad journalism” so much as it is lazy.
Presumably, the process that led up to the assorted posts made by bloggers on this subject went something like this.
1. Find out that Simple Progress exists.
2. Notice “Sarah Wendell” is listed as a principal.
3. Make the connection to SBTB.
5. Post, with or without insinuation.
It seems to me that there’s a missing step 4: send Sarah an email that says “Hey, is this you?”
I’m guessing this would take about 5 minutes tops (assuming a dial-up connection and only the big toe used for typing). The main problem I see here is that there was no email or other contact. What if there was another Sarah Wendell? Possibly even an evil twin Sarah Wendell? Then, not only do we have insinuation, but we have incorrect insinuation. If, like most bloggers, at least one of your priorities is accurately informing your readers, that seems like a potential problem.
As a blogger, why not send that thirty-second email? Wait a bit. Find out whether that’s really Sarah. Then, if you have honest concerns, write about them. (Better yet, talk to Sarah, then start a conversation about the “lines” between author, blogger, etc.)
Of course, if it’s not laziness that prevented that 30-second email from happening, then it’s something else, as other posters have suggested—jealousy, etc.
Full disclosure: I’ve won one of Sarah’s faboo contests before, I’ve purchased books based on her recommendations, and sometimes I eat ice cream out of the box with a spoon.
Kristi said on 10.10.11 at 01:36 AM • [link]
I love reading Sarah’s views on romances. It’s one of the first sites I open up in my Reader every morning along with DearAuthor.
I think this (seems like) such a small community so it would have been nicer for Sarah to be asked about it first. Yes, there is potential to be conflict. I personally don’t think there has been at all. Along with the crazy kooky disclaimers at the end of so many of her posts, it should have been added in, or at least to the official page. It wasn’t. She said that. Done. Mrs G totally was snarky in her ‘hmm’ and should reflect that, but I don’t know her.
Anyway. I think it shows how loved Sarah is by all these people
coming in to comment and show their support.
I don’t have much to input in this post but I WANTED to post to at least show that little insignificant me who loves to read this site, thinks that Sarah is the bomb and her voice screams out of every post she writes, and I totally trust her input on what she is reading. I do SEO and SEM for a living and I think it’s great that she has also moved into that business, I’m sure she is doing an awesome job for her clients.
Kelsey said on 10.10.11 at 01:39 AM • [link]
The issue at hand does not seem to be about a conflict of interest. People who come here to read the reviews also are aware of the plethora of advertisements on the right side of the page. If you believe Simple Progress is a conflict, why not the ads that have been around for a while? There is a call for disclosure, but the people mentioned in the post above have no intention of doing this. From what I read over at Mrs. Giggles’ blog, I discerned that she believes this all to be one big farce and herself as the person who has removed the wool pulled over our eyes. I do not believe this is true. Bloggers have a lot of influence when they have large readerships, but it is a choice whether to read the posts or not. Sarah represents herself here as a reviewer of romance novels. She never hid that she had some relationships with the authors mentioned. The fact that she is being paid to consult for some of the authors and the correlation between those names and some positive reviews means nothing. As scientists like to say, correlation is not causation.
Booklover1335 said on 10.10.11 at 01:46 AM • [link]
Hey Sarah,
I can kind of see how all of this happened, but at the same time if any of the people who have read Smart Bitches for any amount of time, they should know that you don’t pull punches….so for them to automatically assume that you endorse the authors that you represent with the consulting firm, is frankly absurd in my opinion.
I was watching a TV show recently and it was talking about Hollywood celebrities and how once you achieve any sort of fame that other people try to cut you down, and unfortunately by making so many assumptions about your involvement as well as your success, I think that is what is unfortunately happening.
I for one could really care less. Even if you give a book a rave review, I don’t automatically go out and buy it. Honestly, I read your reviews more for the voice of your review, than your opinion about it :) They are fun, amusing, and often similar to my own tastes. I say keep up the good work, love Smart Bitches, so don’t let them get to you!
EbonyMcKenna said on 10.10.11 at 01:52 AM • [link]
I’ve been reading this blog since the days of the black footed ferret and I haven’t seen any evidence of advertising encroaching on editorial.
Lines are blurring all over the place. People perceive conflicts where none or plenty may exist.
I can understand some people thinking your opinions could be bought. Maybe you’re getting too famous and people want to bring you down?
Hang in there.
Colleen said on 10.10.11 at 02:04 AM • [link]
The whole comment section was tl;dr, but seriously, it’s up to Sarah to do what she wants when she wants how she wants. It’s her website. I’m not charged to view its contents, I’m not charged to comment, I’m not charged to partake in book chats (where she regularly gets the authors to pop in).
Frankly, I’m happy she’s able to make a bit of money off the blog and do her shit. Just think- without Simple/Making Progess/ whatever it’s called, we might not have so many give aways.
Sarah’s welcomed us into her domain and allows us to talk about what we like about books and what we don’t. I’ve never seen her tell off someone for disliking a book. Authors promote their books here all the time, especially in STA/GS posts. No one questions them.
Also, Mrs. G seems like a real bitch. “I DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING I JUST POSTED A LINK.”
Stfu and stop being a bitter bitch.
Jill Sorenson said on 10.10.11 at 02:30 AM • [link]
I remember this issue coming up at Karen Knows Best a few years ago:
http://karenknowsbest.com/2009/01/28/credibility-and-reputation-a-dilemma/
My feelings about reviewing ethics are complicated and I can’t call myself an unbiased observer so I’m reluctant to weigh in. I will say that I like Sarah, and have advertised here, and never thought I could buy positive review.
As far as Mrs. G goes, I agree that she has a total hate-boner (ha!) for DA and SB. But I don’t agree that she had any obligation to research, notify or otherwise fact-check before posting a link. Same goes for Kate G. and others.
Sarah, a few days ago I recommended a Julie James book to you on Twitter. You retweeted my rec and thanked me. That made me feel good. Now that I know she’s a client of SP, my perception of that innocent interaction has changed just slightly. Does that make sense? If I had known about that relationship, I might have tweeted differently. I’m not sure.
In no way am I saying that I think authors are buying positive reviews at this site. I don’t believe that for a second. But, as many have mentioned, disclosure is good.
Anyway, I know from experience that this author-reviewing business can be tricky, and I wish you all the best in finding the right balance for you. Mazel.
Courtney Milan said on 10.10.11 at 02:31 AM • [link]
This is how I break things down. It’s actually taken me a few hours to think it through, which shows you how much I was procrastinating the other things I have to do.
1. Is there a potential conflict of interest?
Yes. There’s a conflict of interest any time you wear two hats that can come into conflict. Reviewer is one hat. Consultant is another. Reviewing the people you consult for is a conflict of interest—just as taking advertising from the same people can cause problems.
2. Is this the kind of conflict of interest that can be cured by disclosure?
Yes. If you are upfront about the connection, it allows people to judge for themselves the honesty of the reviews.
3. So does this mean that Sarah used to have an uncured conflict of interest?
As of Feb 2, 2011 (the most recent version available), archive.org shows that simpleprogress.com lists Mollie Smith as the sole owner. So I’m guessing that when Sarah says she “recently” started working with Mollie, “recent” means “after 2/2 of this year.”
Sarah has not herself written reviews of any of the clients listed since February 2nd. There are reviews on this site for some of those clients, but they were obtained through the Reader RITA Reviews. Sarah didn’t write those herself and the choice of the books for review was not made by Sarah.
To my mind, that means that Sarah hasn’t actually entered into a situation yet where she would have anything to disclose.
I guess someone might think that there’s an inherent conflict of interest between reviewing authors period, and consulting for them at all, even if you do not review the people you consult for.
But that feels like saying that if you usually represent companies in HR disputes that you can’t take a case where you believe the plaintiff has been wrongfully terminated. So I think that as long as you aren’t wearing two hats as to the same person, there’s no conflict of interest. I don’t see any evidence Sarah has worn two hats as to the same person.
4. And it’s totally cool if agents become publishers, right?
Don’t get me started. That’s the one part of this post that sets my teeth on edge.
Lindlee said on 10.10.11 at 03:09 AM • [link]
@Courtney Milan Can I just say I love you? Just like when I read your blog, you state things so well it clears my head.
For me, this whole thing is a non-issue. I understand why it needed to be addressed and I don’t think situations like this should be ignored, but as long as I find Sarah’s reviews both helpful and entertaining I’ll keep reading. The funny thing about this whole thing to me is that I feel that reviews don’t even make up the majority of the posts here. But I guess as long as there’s even one review here Sarah needs to disclose, disclose, disclose!
And Mrs. Giggles truly did herself no favors by the way she wrote her post. Whatever her motivations really were my first impression was “Hmmmm…someone’s jealous.”
Amber said on 10.10.11 at 03:49 AM • [link]
Disclosure: I have met Sarah (and Jane from DA) in person.
I’m just going to state the obvious again. Yes, Sarah should have disclosed this because there is a potential conflict of interest. Even if it hasn’t happened yet.
Also obvious: Sarah hasn’t been “just a blogger” for a very long time. She wears so many hats, only those new to the site would be unaware of it.
The disclosure is primarily for those unfamiliar with SBTB and Sarah. I don’t see this issue as any more conflict of interest-y (not a real word but I like it anyway) than being an author. Or romance advocate. Or keynote speaker. Or moderator for a convention panel or three. Or website owner who collects advertising revenue. Or…
Those who know or know of Sarah shouldn’t need the disclosure because she crossed that line years ago. I think it’s the surprise that irks me, really. If you’re going to question her impartiality, why pick this issue instead of the dozens of other potentially conflicting things she already does?
I’m not saying that ethical considerations shouldn’t be addressed or debated. Just that the ‘surprised’ attitude of so many rings false with me. And that’s what seems ‘mean girl’ about it. Using the opportunity to poke at someone in the guise of something else.
Lastly, I loathe the tendency to equate bloggers with journalists. They’re not, even if some aspire to be. They are under zero obligation to fact check, get comments from parties involved, or any other journalistic expectation other than making sure they aren’t engaging in libel.
Rose May said on 10.10.11 at 04:36 AM • [link]
@sweeks1980
Unfortunately, I was not so smart as to post here. Instead I posted my response on her blog and got the typical, insulting, lol response (among other insults to my sexuality, etc). I did throw my pillow pet across the room, which luckily did minimal damage, but next time I’ll use this space as my rant space. Geesh.
I’m currently enrolled as a senior in high school. We have a word for Mrs. G’s unsubstantiated accusations and false declarations: gossiping. She has started a RUMOR. That’s petty. That’s low. We also have a word for people like Mrs. G - and it’s not nearly as flattering as bitch. The word for people like Mrs. G is ‘bully’. Bullies attempt to bring other people down and ruin other people’s reputations because of their own regrets, fears, and childish insecurities.
It’s really sad when I encounter adults that act like my peers did - in MIDDLE SCHOOL.
Mimi said on 10.10.11 at 04:41 AM • [link]
Storm. Teacup. Bleargh to unsubstantiated rumormongering.
Melanie said on 10.10.11 at 04:44 AM • [link]
@Rose
Today you had the unpleasantness to learn that many adults are as immature as kids. Its an unpleasant lesson as a child and it gets progressively more unpleasant when as an adult working with those types of people. I am glad that you have found acceptance and a community where you feel comfortable with yourself when your own home and community don’t foster that. The good news is that you will soon be an adult and out of the catholic school at which point I believe you will be able to find a real world group of friends who will offer the same acceptance you find here. I salute you for your efforts to have an adult conversation about what could potentially be a very serious topic and allegations. Don’t let those who are glib and insulting affect your attempts to be honest and upfront with your thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
M said on 10.10.11 at 04:47 AM • [link]
“They are under zero obligation to fact check, get comments from parties involved, or any other journalistic expectation other than making sure they aren’t engaging in libel.”
How about a common decency obligation? It’s rare, but not without precedent.
Meoskop said on 10.10.11 at 04:52 AM • [link]
Hm. If I wrote a blog (which I do) and I felt my visibility was lower than another bloggers, and if said blogger was having a book tour, would I
A) improve my blog
B) worry about my own blog
C) talk shit to get my name all over the place
Luckily, I don’t care about my visibility. If I did, I would accept advertising and stop changing my name, this junior high bullshit is exactly what took me out of reviewing for a few years.
It’s interesting how Sarah and Candy, when breaking open the piñata of Cassie Edwards work, were held to this insane standard of proof. Whereas that insane standard now? Is it only when crap plagiarists are called out that we have to jump through flaming hoops ending in the eye of a needle?
I care not at all about this teapot. I don’t care for the hands on the pot, I don’t care for what they are spewing out of it. I’m not even going to give them the blog hits of looking at whatever side they pony up, because it’s pretty asinine.
Bloggers, review bloggers, profit bloggers, author bloggers are not leaders. There is no purity test. Read them or don’t. I read this one because I like it. I’ve seen this story play out over and over, as Moz once said “We hate it when our friends become successful.”
Joanne said on 10.10.11 at 05:03 AM • [link]
I haven’t said a word about this on either site. People need to stop using my name. It’s copyrighted. Sort of. Probably not. Pick another one anyway. Like Johanna. Or Joannah. Joyhannie. Or anything with an ‘h’ and that might even get into a BDB book.
Anyway, I didn’t realize all this was going on because
I took the day off from everything and just finished EIKAL. Loved it! (this is not a paid endorsement, more’s the pity)
Steph said on 10.10.11 at 05:27 AM • [link]
Okay, so I commented over at mrsgiggles and, for the sake of fairness, thought I should post over here as well.
As I said at the other blog, I don’t really have a bone in this fight. I can see both sides, and think Sarah has adequately addressed the problem. I’m not going to try to defend Sarah simply because I don’t think she *needs* me to defend her.
I will say that, as an on-off (currently off) blogger, I don’t think there was a specific obligation to talk to Sarah first, although I do think they should have - simply because in any blog the author’s first duty is to the reader. Which means, yes, disclosing, but that also means these things: accuracy, transparency, information, entertainment. With as much breadth and depth as one can muster. What they did was not, in my opinion, good blogging (professional or otherwise). You can post conclusions or allusions to conclusion without substance; you *can* do that, but that doesn’t mean you *should.* Again, it doesn’t mean it’s good blogging or good business, or good stewardship for your readers. So there’s that.
There’s also this: if someone challenges you, or questions you, you have a right to respond in any way you please. You can be hostile, defensive, and otherwise trollish, but that won’t get you very far. It won’t communicate your message, it won’t generally build relationships with your readers, and it won’t further your reputation as a blogger in a manner that’s good for you.
I didn’t have a bone in this fight. I would have responded to good, solid information and argument either way, and did. But the info I responded to was from Sarah, because she took the situation seriously and provided as good an explanation as I would expect. I didn’t respond simply because I liked her, I responded because she was fair, considerate, and informative. To put it plainly: mrsgiggles wasn’t. She was hostile, dismissive, and offered no substantive argument whatsoever, despite having put forth a claim. I can’t speak to the other two sites (mostly because I have lost the will to care about this any further), but mrsgiggles’ site was the definitive point for me.
Having said that, I also want to say: this doesn’t have to be a big kerfuffle - we (the readers) make it so. Sarah has responded, and has put the issue to rest as best as it can be. There will be other issues that come up, because this is life and these things do, and I have total faith that Sarah will deal with those too. While I understand why people are upset (I definitely do), there doesn’t have to be more drama than is called for - let’s just move on, if we can.
Ridley said on 10.10.11 at 06:32 AM • [link]
@Rose
I’m gonna tell you a secret: If you’re gonna troll a troll, you better bring your A game. Whining after you get outplayed is just weak.
I said I wouldn’t comment on the shitstorm, but flame wars speak to my inner moth. 1. What Sarah’s doing is a potential COI 2. That doesn’t mean she’s done anything wrong. 3. That doesn’t mean she won’t do something wrong later. 4. SBTB posts links and snark ALL THE TIME. I find it hard to believe she vets every link, every time. 5. You can’t be a brand and a private person at the same time. SBTB is an entity. People are gonna talk about it without worrying about the author’s hurt feelings (kinda like reviewing books, amirite?) 6. Going to Mrs. Giggles’ site to tell her what a jealous tart she is is trolling. Don’t look surprised when she trolls your fangirl ass right back.
You kids are freaking out over nothing. Sarah should’ve announced this venture in the interest of full disclosure, but not doing so doesn’t mean she’s done anything wrong. Mrs. Giggles et al were just doing what bloggers do every day by posting a link to something interesting and letting people draw their own conclusions. Neither party has done anything wrong. Simmer down already.
Reader said on 10.10.11 at 10:26 AM • [link]
Oh, Ridley, you are so right!
Sharon said on 10.10.11 at 04:39 PM • [link]
Oy. After watching the back and forth over this these past two days, the one thing I’m taking away from it all is that it may be time to retire the word “awesome”. :~) Sorry, it’s just so overused at this point it’s becoming meaningless.
Yep, Sarah should’ve disclosed upfront and early on. It’s not like I think Sarah is giving someone like Nora Roberts a good review for money (like Nora Roberts is going to live or die at this point by Sarah’s review…really…nothing personal, but I don’t think Miz Nora is gonna end up on the welfare line anythime soon regardless of how many crap books she puts out there in the future), but I feel slightly bad that she didn’t trust her readership with the information. These comboxes are full of glowing praise for Sarah’s contributions to the genre and her personal integrity. Would’ve been nice if she’d felt the same about her readership. Just sayin’.
A note to Rose—on the one hand, you troll the mrsgiggles site by claiming you’re more mature than they are at the tender age of 17, and then, when the commenters at mrsgiggles slam your breathless fangirl rebuttal, you whine that they’re mean old ladies picking on a widdle 17 year old girl. Can’t have it both ways, hon. Also, as a devout, practicing Catholic, I find it highly unlikely that a teacher at your Catholic highschool called you a “whore” to your face because he or she discovered you were reading romance novels. That’s a serious allegation and if you’re going to misrepresent Catholic teaching through a specious allegation like that, you’d darned well better be able to substantiate it. Just sayin’.
Anyway, in general, I have to admit that all this social media stuff and these new, grey areas of “friendship” and interaction between authors, readers, bloggers, tweeters, FBers always brings to mind the notion that familiarity breeds contempt. As the industry sorts itself out the next few years, I hope lines of professionalism can be drawn so readers don’t feel cheated, writers aren’t stuck trying to please everybody, and the noisy minority doesn’t end up running the show.
Petra said on 10.10.11 at 05:11 PM • [link]
You know how romance reviewers also claim that there are too many stereotypical heroines in books? Stereotypical plots, etc. Well, guess what, this whole topic is sterotypical as well. Meaning that there are many people out there who think women cannot work together, they’re too back stabby, too bitchy, too snarky, they can’t get along without mud slinging. As for the topic on hand, sure, Sarah should have disclosed her assocation with the company, but she didn’t. She’s addressed it and I think she did it in a professional way. What is unprofessional though, is not recognizing that what is happening to her personally (on the personal attacks) is what she at times does to others. Karma and all that. But I’m sure she can take it, after all she is a self proclaimed mean girl and to use the word in the blog, a smart bitch. Just my few centes worth.
Kiersten said on 10.10.11 at 05:19 PM • [link]
“If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it.”
Nope. Not for one single, solitary second.
Actually, I already knew about SP b/c I do my own homework. Plus, I swear you did an announcement post at the time, but perhaps I misremember. Just last week, I was looking at the client list on SP web site and not once did I think COI, b/c it would never occur to me that that could be an issue. Tho I did think “holy shit, that is some list.”
One of the reasons I read SBTB (& Dear Author) every day (and convo on The Twitter) is b/c I know, whether I like and/or agree with your reviews/opinions/etc (and its prob a 65/35 split) they will always be balls out honest and forthright. This has great value to me because, lo, I loathe the bullshit.
This whole business just goes to prove one axiom: high school never ends. Take what’s yours, what you may in fact own, and flush the rest.
spamword: hot64
Petra said on 10.10.11 at 05:28 PM • [link]
“If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it.â€
You’re really surprised at this? This is where I have to agree with Mrs. Giggles Hmmmm. You never saw this coming? That perhaps other bloggers or people in romanceland would think there was a huge conflict of interest and something not right? I find that hard to believe, not calling you a liar, perhaps it’s a case of believing your own press, I don’t know. I do believe you feel real bad about people now questioning your integrity and honesty. That is how others feel when you snark them, tweet nasty things about them, blog about them. I don’t think you deserve this, but at the same time, I don’t think others who have been on the receiving end of a flame by you and your followers deserve it either. As I said in my previous post, it really does give women a bad rap that we can’t remain professional.
Petra said on 10.10.11 at 05:31 PM • [link]
@Kiersten your comment - “This whole business just goes to prove one axiom: high school never ends. Take what’s yours, what you may in fact own, and flush the rest.”
This is what is making people (many who are talking behind the scenes about this situation) sit back and literally laugh. DA and SMTB sounds high school many many times over. They even brag about being mean girls, a term I think that is used mostly among teens. Everyone needs to step back and see the irony in this whole thing.
Lala said on 10.10.11 at 05:58 PM • [link]
@Petra
Hi - Could you please provide specific examples of the personal attacks you believe S has tweeted/blogged?
Tina C. said on 10.10.11 at 05:58 PM • [link]
And the whiff of Schadenfreude becomes a full-on stink.
1. You people (and you know who you are) like to throw around the word “followers” and “leader” in regards to Sarah and the people who read this site. It implies some sort of cult or something, with Sarah (and Jane, if you include DA) as the heads and us as the mindless drones. Clue, this is a website that talks romance and Sarah is very funny and informative. Those of us who like to read the site enjoy the humor and the information. It doesn’t make us followers. It doesn’t make her our leader. It just makes us people with a similar taste in reading material. By phrasing it the way you do, you’re attempting to put negative connotations on something you don’t happen to like, personally. It’s a crappy way to make your point.
2. Granted, I have little Twitter interaction. I think I’ve been there, twice. Perhaps Sarah is insulting people left and right or people in her Twitter feed are or something. Considering that I see her tweets on Facebook, however, and that I’ve been reading this site for years and I’ve never seen her be gratuitously mean, I highly doubt it. Has she called out plagiarists and people who publish and sell books and then don’t pay their authors and the like? Sure, she has. That is a far cry, however, from how you phrased it, Petra.
They don’t brag about being “mean girls”. The only time I’ve seen them refer to themselves as such is when they talk about how other people think they are “mean girls” for pointing out that plagiarism sucks, etc. In other words, “Oh, we’re such mean girls for saying plagiarism sucks.” I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand that—not calling you a liar, perhaps it’s a case of not understanding sarcasm.
Well, I’m certainly seeing some irony.
Petra said on 10.10.11 at 06:30 PM • [link]
@Lala One particular situation comes to mind. The Mr. Romance trashing, making fun of him, calling him names. That was a personal attack on a person. There are many others, but listing them will only have this turn into a big flame.
@Tina C. Yes there is irony all around. At least people posting here and other places are talking about it for all to see and form their own opinions. The private lists, chat rooms etc, are being a lot harsher, but that’s their perogative.
I still find it unbelievable that someone as savvy as Sarah is surprised that people are now questioning the whole concept of conflict of interest and integrity.
Lady T said on 10.10.11 at 06:47 PM • [link]
Don’t let the player haters ruin your game,Sarah. Those who truly know you know the truth and the rest of them can just go off in a corner and share that saucer of mean spirited milk amongst themselves:)
Jan O'Hara said on 10.10.11 at 06:55 PM • [link]
A lot of emotion around this topic, and a desire for people to pick sides rather than principles.
In the world of medicine, drug companies jockey to provide pizza lunches to residents, because they know such a minor favor will alter the prescribing practices of some, though said physicians will absolutely swear that it didn’t. So yes, ads, friendships and income gained through other means will influence a reviewer. Such is human nature. It’s the whole point of social media and networking, after all; that we can influence another’s behavior.
But we’re capable of weighing another’s partiality, so long as it’s disclosed.
I didn’t know anything about Simple Progress until the Jennifer Crusie interview, and I’ve been a reader here for years. I still didn’t understand the conflict of interest bit until this article, and unless I go do an Internet search, I won’t know who those clients are.
Just make it fully transparent and then let the reader decide its important. But please don’t devolve the discussion into loyalites and motivation and who’s being mean. That actually undermines credibility for me. I just want the facts and then I’ll continue to enjoy this blog with an understanding of subtext.
Jan O'Hara said on 10.10.11 at 06:57 PM • [link]
“important”—> “importance”
Lynn S. said on 10.10.11 at 07:03 PM • [link]
Wow, we’re all human on this Columbus Day. The American holiday for the guy who didn’t discover America (vote Perry and he’ll put a stop to this sort of nonsense). To think that there won’t be conflicts, that people won’t make mistakes, or believing our best of intentions will somehow trump that tricky little subconscious is absurd and not worth arguing about. If a blog requires too much salt, I simply stop reading it. Blogs are free, the comments are free, and generally there is more to be gained than lost.
On a personal note, I fully sympathize with Sarah on this. I recently found out a former co-worker, a happy puppy of a former co-worker who I thought liked everybody, turns out didn’t like me, not even a little bit, and sent an e-mail to that effect to various individuals, myself included. Bitch-slapped me right through my internet connection. I still become verklempt if I think about it for too long.
Pam said on 10.10.11 at 07:44 PM • [link]
@ChrisZ
Yes.
@Rose May
I didn’t stay on mrsgiggles’ site long enough to see your post or the response. However, during the time I was there, I was much struck by the middle school dynamic, and I’m old enough to be your granny.
Thinking about your post made me recall my first job. I was 18 and working in a factory. I got really mad at a coworker, and I said I was going to do something or other to get them fired. I don’t remember who or why or what I was planning to do, but I’ll never forget the response of the older worker who ran the machine where I worked. He was horrified, and, when I asked him why, he said that threatening a person’s job was a terrible thing to do to someone. When I thought about it, I got it. There is something terrible about threatening a person’s ability to make a living and that part of their identity that is bound up with their job. That’s why I can’t quite dismiss this as so much drama. What these three people have done is attack Sarah’s ability to make a living—maybe not very effectively or even with intent—but it still feels horrible to me.
Petra said on 10.10.11 at 08:18 PM • [link]
@Pam
I don’t think Sarah’s ability to make a living is being threatened at all. If that were the case, then this site along with other review sites would be accussed of trying to stop an author from making a living when they give a do not read this book review, or have negative reviews that the followers then jump on and start attacking bad covers, editing, writing, etc.
@LadyT funny you should mention play haters, when this blog as well as other such review blogs are labeled as haters when the bad reviews are posted and a lot of people comment and reply.
It’s okay to support your favorite blogger, writer, fan or whatever, but you have to also look at the way the person who is being attacked has behaved as well.
I think there has been mud slinging on all review sites at one time or another, and if someone can dish it out then they need to realize that one day it may be aimed at them as well.
uioew said on 10.10.11 at 08:36 PM • [link]
Wow. I’m not sure how to take this exactly. No offense, Sarah, cuz I’ve enjoyed your work here but seriously.
It sounds like you have a wonderful new opportunity with your venture with Mollie Smith so why weren’t you shouting it from the rooftops, especially on this blog via a post and the about us page?
Will it be part of your disclosure with your other online reviews/recommendations? Because, yes, there is a potential conflict of interest here or at the very least an appearance of one.
And no offense but this blog post seems to be more about rallying support than giving a professional presentation of your new venture. Obviously I do not follow the blogs/tweets/etc. of online world but unless the three individuals you mentioned in your post did more than those short mentions then your response seems overly verbose and woe is me to me.
SBTB has handed out much stronger dishing than the links you’ve mentioned (much, much stronger), so is this a case of what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander or rather the bitches?
Perhaps we should simply trust you because of all you’ve done for the romance industry. On the other hand, why no proactive announcement to establish a new Sarah Wendell online personality reviewer/recommender/bitch extraordinaire baseline, online media savvy guru?
After all, Jennifer Crusie disclosed it about a week ago.
petra said on 10.10.11 at 09:09 PM • [link]
@uieow
SBTB has handed out much stronger dishing than the links you’ve mentioned (much, much stronger), so is this a case of what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander or rather the bitches?
That is exactly the point many people are trying to make, but get jumped on.
Brandy said on 10.10.11 at 09:18 PM • [link]
Just a couple of thoughts:
1. Thank you for your Disclosure, SarahW. (Better a smidge late than never.) I have been a reader of this site for years and have always found it entertaining, even when I haven’t agreed with the reviews.
2. Those who say the bloggers involved have no obligation to notify the person they are in fact questioning? It may not be required, but it is very bad taste. That in itself is not immoral, however I wonder how those bloggers would have reacted in the same circumstance?
May we now move on?
Lady T said on 10.10.11 at 09:58 PM • [link]
@petra-I find it interesting that once someone like Sarah does well outside of the blogosphere ,folks are quick to call him or her out on what they perceive as the ethics of their achievements and eager to slap them with the “sellout” label.
As for bad reviews,this site is well known as a no-holds-barred arena in that department and it’s one of the main attractions of the place. If you can’t take the well advertised heat,why are you even stepping into this kitchen in the first place?
As for the rest of this dispute,I didn’t know about Sarah’s consulting business before reading this post nor do I care about not being informed of that fact. Some things are none of my business and if you feel that the integrity of the site is now questionable,simply make your choice about whether or not to still read it and abide by that then.
Please keep in mind that being a blog reviewer is not like being an elected official-the man or woman who sets one up should have some boundaries but they are not beholden to the scrutiny of a select few.
Rose May said on 10.10.11 at 10:30 PM • [link]
@ridley
Outplayed? You think her saying ‘come back when you’re older and wiser’ is me getting outplayed? She acted immature. There was no out-playing by either side. I was simply venting, here, about my frustration for Mrs. Giggles to take anything at all seriously. But did you read her responses? There is no way I was ‘outplayed’ by her. She responded with short, petty, childish insults. I responded with coherent, logical points and arguments. I explained my logic clearly - and my comments, unlike hers, actually had to do with the issue at hand. Her comments were personal attacks based on my sexuality and age. My comments were on her integrity as a blogger.
I brought my A game, and I think Mrs. Giggles brought hers, too. And she failed. Miserably. Maybe you should go back and read my exchange with Mrs. Giggles because in the end she comes out looking petty. Clearly you didn’t spend enough time looking it over. Finally, what Mrs. Giggles did wrong was put down anyone who didn’t agree with her in a fashion that had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I also don’t think trying to protect an innocent person is ‘fan-girling’. If so, I’m totally fan-girling on several death-row inmates right now. How’s this for my fan-girling: “OMG, LETHAL INJECTIONS ARE SO… HAWT.” Yeah. I didn’t think so.
My response was written in irritation of Mrs. Giggles false claims of innocence and immature responses. I was attempting to strongly rebuff her for her idiocy and have a valuable debate with her. She ignored my attempts and responded with immature, personal attacks.
@Sharon
I can actually agree with you, that in part what I said was hypocritical and contradictory. I was more than a little surprised by Mrs. Giggles’ response, which seemed more a personal attack on my sexuality and age then a response to any of the points I made in my original comment. I concede that those two implications are contradictory, however Mrs. Giggles’ response is still childish and immature. I believe that she shouldn’t be picking on anyone - seventeen or otherwise. No matter your age, or the age of the person you’re picking on, it’s still wrong.
As far as the teacher at my school, she did call me a whore. Just because YOU are a devout practicing Catholic (and by the way, so am I) doesn’t mean that every person at my school who teaches is a) devout, or b) Catholic or c) acts like you do in any given situation even if they are also devout and Catholic. If you recall, many Christians participated in the Crusades and were devout practicing Catholics. They believed their attacks were doing the right thing for the religion. However I doubt that you, as a devout practicing Catholic, are going to go out and start killing as many Islamic people as you can tomorrow.
After taking my book away, my teacher led me from the hallway into her classroom, closed the door, and gave me a very strict lecture in which she told me anyone who read those kind of books was a whore. I was reading that book, ergo I was a whore. The teacher also got fired. I understand that it is a very serious allegation, and when I brought it to the dean she treated it as a serious allegation. Nevertheless, it was true. Not all of my teachers are like that, obviously. However the fact remains that the nun that teaches my theology class disapproves mightily and my math teacher got fired. Please don’t insult me by thinking I make up lies on the internet just to be dramatic.
Sharon said on 10.10.11 at 11:11 PM • [link]
@Rose May—what school is this? Sorry, but the story is beyond unbelievable. Can you substantiate with facts, please?
Your bit about the Crusades kinda proves you’re not really a good history student, especially of Catholic history, nor are you familiar with Catholic teaching.
Sorry, but you’re really just digging yourself in deeper here. ;~D
Also, as a devout and practicing Catholic, can you not understand why a consecrated woman might be concerned about what you’re reading? I personally read romance, but don’t read romance featuring sex-for-sex’s sake, or gay romances. My biggest concern, as a Catholic, is that romance is veering away from the notion of redemptive love to that of sex=love.
For the record, yeah, I do think you’re making this bit of drama up.
Sharon said on 10.10.11 at 11:13 PM • [link]
Also, when you go there and snipe at her, she’s not “picking on you”, as you claim, by responding as snarkily as she wants. It’s her blog, you were pretty snippy and whiny, actually, and she called you on it. Big deal.
Rose May said on 10.10.11 at 11:35 PM • [link]
@Sharon
I typed out a long reply that included sentences like “do you even watch the news?” and the like. However then I realized that, since I was not willing to divulge the name of my HIGH SCHOOL to a stranger online, and there would be no other way to prove my story to you, I would simply have to end the conversation.
We aren’t really discussing the issue, here. We’re discussing your ability to believe my story and that’s not what this post on SBTB is about. While getting into an argument with you about this seems like it could be a grand old time, I’d rather not attempt to argue with a woman over the internet about religion, sex, and my high school harassment. Therefore, I respectfully ask that should you wish to continue this (which I can’t imagine why you would care enough to do so, but it’s your prerogative) you contact me via my blog or email. Otherwise, I think we should both call it a night and leave this commenting space for other people to use up with comments pertaining to the actual post on SBTB and this ‘conflict-of-interest’ issue.
I think the one thing we both CAN agree on is that this space is not meant to be used for the discussion of a high schooler’s personal life.
Sharon said on 10.10.11 at 11:37 PM • [link]
And that Trammel Senior Photo 2012 link is a bit telling…just sayin’. If your photo shoot (obviously not done for a Catholic school) is online at the photographer’s site, and you’ve got the pics uploaded with the protective graphic still on it, well…I don’t know what to say. They’re clearly not done for a Catholic high school, and why wouldn’t you have the originals? Or are you posting proofs you don’t own?
Something’s not adding up. I’m calling BS.
Sharon said on 10.10.11 at 11:39 PM • [link]
Oh, and the list of Catholic high schools in your area is pretty short…I can call around easily enough. No biggie.
Jane said on 10.10.11 at 11:43 PM • [link]
@Sharon - Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are right and Rose May is making everything up. Do you really want to be the person that calls Catholic High Schools looking for information regarding a high school student so you can prove her wrong about a comment she made in a blog post? Start a google hunt to find out her real name, her high school, where she lives, who her teachers are? If that is something she wants to do I suppose that is her perogative, but is that something YOU want to do? Please reconsider this line of action.
Kristi said on 10.10.11 at 11:47 PM • [link]
Wow! @Jane is the voice of reason!
Jeez, that is a little freaky. I vote for ‘find something better to do’ at this point! Does it really matter?
Maggie said on 10.10.11 at 11:50 PM • [link]
Speaking as someone who reads this blog daily but rarely, if ever, actually reads the books Sarah recommends (sorry dude, we have different tastes but I love ya like a sister from a different mister) I really only have on thing to add and that is that whether you believe Sarah behaved unethically or couldn’t give a frack, posting disparaging personal attacks at either Sarah or (GOOD GOD!) other posters does not in any way, shape or form bolster your argument.
I’ve never read mrs. giggles before, nor had I ever heard of her, but just one 1/2 hour of perusing her comments on this topic and it is abundantly clear I never will. The disdain she shows for her readers (whether fans of hers or not) is bloody awful. Methinks Mrs. Giggles has less of a beef with the ethical/conflict ramifications of Sarah’s “side-job” but was sly enough to conclude that making such implications would get her more hits than she’s ever seen before.
As for Sharon, just because you don’t believe something does not make it untrue, see e.g. evolution. Rose May does not have to prove anything to you, she does not have to give you the name of her school or her teacher or even her g-damn state! Just because you are a good catholic lady does not mean that all catholic ladies are good. Rose May submitted a comment to a website that specifically solicited her comment on a particular subject, mrs. giggles specifically states that she reviews ALL comments before they are posted meaning that she could have ignored Rose’s comment and simply not posted it. But no, she chose to post it and unabashedly insult the very post she approved for posting.
Whatever your opinion re: Sarah Wendell as a person/blogger/businesswoman, she has never shown such douchey behavior towards a poster on her site.
Tina C. said on 10.10.11 at 11:51 PM • [link]
@Sharon - Whether she’s making it up or not, just the small amount of internet stalking you’ve already done and posted here isn’t making you look like the mature, rational one in this dispute.
Sharon said on 10.10.11 at 11:52 PM • [link]
Not particularly. But it can be done. I just hate it when silly little girls like that get up in everyone’s face, act like they’re soooo superior to all of us “old ladies”, make crazy claims that can be investigated, and then play the victim when people call them on it.
If a teacher got fired for calling a student a whore in a Catholic school these past few years, we’d all know about it. It would make the news even here. As it is, there’s no record of it ever happening. 17 year old girls shouldn’t be posting suggestive photos of themselves on their blogs, especially with the photographer’s name still on them. Really—how stupid is that?
And if I did choose to call, it’s to verify a pretty salacious and nasty allegation made against another person. Fair game.
Maggie said on 10.10.11 at 11:59 PM • [link]
Sorry, just read the updated comments since I started writing my last post.
I would like to withdraw my plea for online-commenting civility because, frankly, Sharon, you’re kinda loco-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs brand of cray cray. Just sayin’.
Sharon said on 10.11.11 at 12:01 AM • [link]
Ya, whatevs. Funny how freaked out everyone’s getting now, though…especially Jane from DA.
Tina C. said on 10.11.11 at 12:06 AM • [link]
Yeah, we get that (you’ve made that abundantly clear), but whatever she’s said, whatever she’s posted somewhere else, whatever she has or hasn’t made up, you need to let it go. She hasn’t done a single thing to you, personally.
I haven’t seen her do that with her posts, here, nor has she used the term “old ladies”. If she did it somewhere else, post on it there. Following and/or attacking her here makes you look like some sort of a crazy stalker—an impression that isn’t helped by the information that you posted above.
“Crazy”. You might want to reconsider that particular word choice for now. As for the “playing the victim” accusation, again, I only saw her ask you to drop it or take it off this comment thread. If you really are the “good Catholic woman” you profess to be, take a deep breath and turn the other cheek and let it go. Your blood pressure will thank you.
Hmmmm, having just seen your most recent post:
maybe you’re just trolling. In which case, nevermind.
Sharon said on 10.11.11 at 12:10 AM • [link]
Mmm, yes. Well. Of course the comment my last one was in response to isn’t trolling at all...
Right.
Rose May said on 10.11.11 at 12:15 AM • [link]
@Jane and the others.
Thank you.
@Sharon
I’d much rather be called a liar than continue this conversation, here or really anywhere. I don’t need to convince anyone of who I am. We all know that isn’t the point. I appreciate your time and consideration in responding to my comments. I wish you the best of luck in all future endeavors, seriously.
fran said on 10.11.11 at 12:57 AM • [link]
Ah, Jane. Something tells me if she were on the other side of the stick and Rose was attacking her BFF instead of defending her, she’d be doing the detective work. Frankly, I thought it overkill when Rose said she threw her pillow pet across the room. I don’t believe for a minute she is a high school student, but if she wants to pretend, knock yourself out hun.
Pam said on 10.11.11 at 01:11 AM • [link]
The only thing I wanted to say is in response to comments about bloggers. I really have no problems or qualms about writing a negative review of someone I am friends with on Twitter. I don’t think it blurs the lines or makes a situation murky. Integrity most of us HAZ it. And those ‘free ARCs’ they are just as much a pain in the ass as they are awesome things to have. You still have to read it, even if you don’t like it, and write about and spend hours vested in one book.
Sharon said on 10.11.11 at 01:30 AM • [link]
Well, her whole spiel over at mrsgiggles was about bandying about false allegations and slandering people, etc., so I figured she’d want to substantiate her own allegations. Oh well. Guess not.
The garbage about how she goes to an all girls Catholic school and how Sarah saved her from all that nonsense about being condemned to an eternity burning in hell, and never marrying and dying “cursed” being drummed into her head by those evil Cat’liks was just such an over-the-top caricature of what non-Catholics (heck, it practically reads like a Jack Chick tract) think Catholics believe, it’s clear she’s making it up. Oh, and I like how the same people who are teaching her that her romance novels will leave her a cursed, condemned, old spinster who’s going to hell in a handbasket also hired a photographer to take some pretty questionable glam shots of underage girls for the yearbook. C’mon!
I’m also thinkin’ anyone who thinks Catholics are shy about what they write about hasn’t read a lot of Catholic authors. She might want to start with Flannery O’Connor. Or Graham Greene. Or Evelyn Waugh. Or Sigrid Undset.
Who knows. Maybe “Rose May” is another Sarah Wendell production. /eyeroll.
Throwmearope said on 10.11.11 at 02:15 AM • [link]
Tried to read all of the comments here and at Mrs. G’s, but I have a bunch of stuff to clear off my desk, so I didn’t make it. Maybe later.
Regarding the potential for conflict of interest, of course it exists. That’s why DA and SBTB have the mandated disclaimers at the top of their site that we should never assume they actually went out and bought a book for review on their own dime. Did I think that mandating that was pretty stupid? Yeah. But the bureaucrats saw a potential for conflict of interest and wanted us poor readers warned about it. Okay, so we’re warned.
Sarah has a financial relationship with some of my favorite authors. And? I consider myself notified that there is a potential COI. Really, as far as I can tell, all Sarah owes us is a head’s up. Now we have it.
Sheesh, the bureaucrats think that if I’m given a handful of free pens that say Vi*agra on them, I’m gonna start writing scripts for the drug to underage teenaged girls, for crying in the beer. While it’s annoying I now have to buy my own cheap pens, so what? There was a potential for COI and the bureaucrats shut down my supply of note pads too. I have to buy my own post-its now, dagnabbit.
Anybody hitting Mrs. G’s site for sweetness and light is likely to be sadly disappointed. Mrs. G has never had a (dare I say) Rose-y disposition. As for Rose May’s over the top defense of Sarah (but remember Sarah, you asked for folks to defend you, so you got what you asked for), I have a daughter close to your age, and I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine her talking, er typing, anything like that.
Ridley said on 10.11.11 at 02:31 AM • [link]
I went to Catholic school in MA in the 80s and 90s and once had a priest tell 12 year old me I was going to grow up to be a prostitute. My crime? Saying the word “boobs” in a social mixer game at a CYO meeting.
Rose is totally a drama queen, but I’d buy that story, no problem.
And, that’s an ad hominem attack on the girl anyways. It no more debunks her position than saying what a lovely person Sarah is has anything to do with her actions. Good people can do bad things and head case drama queens can have a valid argument.
I mean, she doesn’t here, but going after her story doesn’t mean you’re proving her defense of Sarah is unfounded. Ad hominem attacks weaken your own argument, not your opponents.
Meoskop said on 10.11.11 at 02:36 AM • [link]
I don’t care if a blogger and authors are having wild sex parities for pay on alternate Sunday’s. I just don’t. I read the blog, decide if it has value to me, and continue or do not. The rest is personal destruction games, and I don’t get off on that.
I don’t care who or what Rose May is, although I am dead certain she’s not Sarah. I find that accusation more telling of the accuser than anything else.
A grown adult suggesting cyberstalking someone who might or might not be underage is a high level of cray cray and reminds me why I stay far away from certain cray cray blogging circles. Axes are obviously being ground here.
I will be laughing the rest of the night over the assertion that ‘we would all know’ if a Catholic school teacher got fired for calling a student a whore. I think I will still be laughing about that next week, some stuff is never not funny.
Sharon said on 10.11.11 at 03:17 AM • [link]
The Sarah Wendell comment was sarcasm, in light of the thread. Sheesh.
I’m hardly “cyberstalking” her. She linked her name to her blog, I thought her posts were bizarre and odd, I clicked the link, saw the pics, and then saw the photographer’s page where the pics are displayed. That’s not “cyberstalking”.
She’s making bizarre claims, her very, very odd posts at mrsgiggles, and her strange response here are just weird and creepy, IMO.
If an adult is posing as an underage girl in order to direct underage girls to her site, then that’s a real problem, but apparently me clicking on the information SHE linked is what bothers y’all. Really? Seriously?
SHE (he, it, whatever) implied it was a big news story, and if it was, it would certainly have been on one of the 24/7 cable channels because they LOVE those stories. As it is, the story, which “Rose May” mocked me for not knowing about because, OMG, “do I even watch the news?”, doesn’t show up on a LexisNexis search, so it’s total BS.
There’s something glaringly off about her posts, her site, the claims she’s making, and the pictures she’s posting. If you can’t see that, and if she (or he, for all anyone knows) develops a relationship with an underage girl as a result, are you still going to be so very deeply freaked out that I clicked on HER (his?) link?
As for the hearsay stories about what priests and nuns have said or done, I’ve heard them all.
I went to convent school in the early seventies, a very small, very conservative, all-girls, in-an-actual-convent, convent school. We got caught with Rosemary Rogers, et al., and, while the books were confiscated and we were chided for reading junk or trash, no one was condemned or damned or called names. I was educated by nuns all my life, I’ve worked with them, I’m around them all the time, and I have never met a single religious woman who was anything but amazing and nurturing and kind and loving regardless of the circumstances.
If you want to think I’m “cray cray” (what are you, 12…??), fine. Look at yourselves sometime—you’re mean and snotty and cruel and unkind and and snide and dirty mouthed and generally unattractive. Go ahead and laugh for weeks and weeks if you find me so amusing. That says way more about you than it does me.
Tina C. said on 10.11.11 at 03:49 AM • [link]
Considering that it had absolutely nothing to do with me and I just didn’t care, one way or the other, whether she was lying, delusional, or voted most honest of all honest people ever, I never clicked her links. As I said before, she’s done nothing to you personally. You appear to be taking it all very personally, however, and that is what bothered me - your almost histrionic tone, your inability to just let it go, the fact that you gloat about this fact you checked and that one (very stalker-sounding, yes), and that you sounded like you’re trying to physically locate her (even more stalker-y). Frankly, all of THAT creeped me out a heck of a lot more than whether or not she is who she says she is or whether or not what she says is true. Even now, you’re trying to justify doing all this to someone who did nothing more than post something that you didn’t like to someone you do. Don’t you see how over the top all of this is?
I suppose I could let that blanket condemnation hurt my feelings and go all “I’m rubber and you’re glue” about it, touching off yet another wave of “neener neener nuh uh” posts—especially since I don’t think I’ve been particularly cruel or unkind or dirty-mouthed (though you could probably tag me with snide in a couple of places). But that would mean that I really care about what you, a complete and total stranger, think of me or anyone here (including Sarah). I would point out that this no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and/or interact with anyone here, but given your previous posts, I’m afraid that is too rational of an observation to make must of a dent. (Of course, if someone is actually holding a gun to your head and forcing you to come to SBTB and participate, much against your desire and will, I take it all back. (Oh, dear. I think I hit snide again.)
snarkhunter said on 10.11.11 at 03:56 AM • [link]
So, Sharon’s known lots of awesome nuns.
Some people have different stories.
One story does not invalidate the truth of the other.
The Catholic Church, like nearly all institutions, has been part of some truly great evils. It has also contributed great good to the world. And its servants, like those of all institutions, are human and prone to human error and human evil. Not sure why Sharon seems so threatened by these truths.
Maggie said on 10.11.11 at 03:56 AM • [link]
“Generally unattractive”??? Everything I needed to know about you, kind gentle lady, has been revealed in that one comment. I will have you know I am devastatingly beautiful, with long raven tresses and violet eyes, even. No really.
This conversation is getting ridiculous and I am embarrassed that I’m still writing, but Sharon, you have an axe to grind like nobody’s business. And the person you have chosen to grind it against has done nothing (NOTHING!) to you personally, to anyone you know, nor even to catholics or nuns in general. You also have absolutely no reason to suspect that this person is lying apart from your own paranoid delusions. I just need to point out a couple things and then I am done, PROMISE!
You must realize that your evidence re: nuns is completely anecdotal. Just because you know good nuns does not mean that they are all good, loving, generous, non subject to severe lapses in judgment. I went to catholic school, too. And I was shown “A silent scream” when I was 8 years old!!!! Look it up, this movie should not have been shown to anyone, much less little girls. But it happened, due to a severe lapse in judgment by my NUN (Ursuline order) teacher. Just because you had good experiences with catholics is not a valid reason for concluding someone with a bad experience is lying
My law school dean was arrested for child porn. SOMEHOW, in our 24 hour news cycle, CNN failed to report it! GOD, WHY???? Because its only news to the law school and university community. Just because a teacher at a catholic school was fired does not mean its news. This is not valid reason to believe our precocious little poster is lying.
Your posts have been quite incindiary and I am actually worried that you are going to Sherlock your way to this person’s school and literally try to get her into trouble, because, GOD FORBID, you don’t seem to like her very much. ONLINE.
Good God.
bounababe said on 10.11.11 at 04:48 AM • [link]
I cannot believe that an SBTB comments section has degenerated to a flame war about the CATHOLIC CHURCH! I never, ever thought that I would see a flame war on this site. I’m not a writer or a publisher, or a blogger. I come here to read information on one of my favorite genres and some kick-ass reviews of books I might not otherwise pick up. It’s a BLOG in which the word “mantitty” is used frequently, not a frakking Supreme Court decision. Can Sarah, Red-Headed Girl, Nonnie, or Candy post a review of an actual book….please? Preferably one that does not involve nuns.
Holy crap on a crapcracker…
Rose May said on 10.11.11 at 04:57 AM • [link]
@bounababe
YES. PLEASE.
Finally, @everyone else. This should end it. Should you actually give a ... you know… about this stupid stuff that’s going on, take a look at my blog. There is a post entitled “You Caught Me”. It’s pretty self-explanatory, I think. And I’m pretty sure, @Sharon, that it’s near-irrefutable proof. Not completely, mind you. But I think it should suffice - and prove my age, gender, and that those picture you decided to claim I stole from someone - are mine. Exhibit D at the end of the post is the most important, but I encourage you to read it all.
I in know way meant to claim that the entirety of the Catholic Church condemns romance novels. However my school has an abstinence only policy and has, at least twice, hosted anti-sex talks where a speaker (Jason Evert i think was his name) came into our school and talked to us about why we should save sex until after marriage. My school is pretty uptight is all I’m saying, and I don’t get a lot of warm and fuzzies for reading romance. That’s not to say the Catholic Church is bad or uptight just that, in my particular situation, I have experienced some discrimination based on my genre of choice.
So, THIS SHOULD WRAP IT UP, Sharon. I think I’ve provided you with what you need.
Lissanne said on 10.11.11 at 05:15 AM • [link]
If my involvement with Simple Progress has caused you to doubt my truthfulness or to doubt my honesty in my opinions about books, that really sucks and I’m sorry to hear it.
FWIW, Sarah, not for one moment have I ever doubted your honesty or believed you’ve been paid to say anything on this website. It’s always felt like a labour of love to me, something you do because you love romance novels. I didn’t know about your link to SP before now, and even if I had, it still wouldn’t have crossed my mind to think you were being underhanded about anything. You’ve had this site a lot longer than you’ve been working for SP - I know I’ve been reading along for several years now, so AFAIC, there’s no conflict.
I will continue to read along and enjoy your posts. This is one of my favourite websites and will continue to be so.
MaryK said on 10.11.11 at 05:30 AM • [link]
Wait, I thought SB Sarah was one of the Mean Girls. Now she’s selling good reviews? Hmm. Anyway, she wouldn’t be selling good reviews. For maximum effect, she’d have to sell F reviews and authors don’t like those.
Seriously, though. Shill reviews aren’t usually that hard to spot, and if an established blogger suddenly started turning them out there’d be a noticeable shift in the authorial voice of the reviews. In my mind there’s a lot of ground between “online administration and consulting” and giving an “awesome review everywhere even if it sucks” which is lying, basically.
When I first saw references to this, I thought somebody had uncovered a reviews-for-sale scandal then it turns out to be that a blogger is a social media consultant. Okay. So why the allegation about lying? Why talk about selling reviews as if it’s a fact?
I bet SB Sarah is a great media consultant. I wish JAK would hire Simple Progress so they could tell her to put the reading order for her many series on her website.
Will said on 10.11.11 at 06:16 AM • [link]
Affordable Kindle Books, Please visit site below
https://sites.google.com/site/kindlebooksale/
Cakes said on 10.11.11 at 06:29 AM • [link]
yikes.
Sarah…I adore your website. I do wish you had somehow “disclosed” your new venture. It doesn’t bother me, but it would have been nice to know about.
I am disappointed that you posted your neighbor’s full name on this post when she has not done so. Her Facebook, her Twitter are under aliases. She writes under a pen name, for crying out loud and you have basically “outed” her. I also use an alias to protect my family and my privacy and think that out of everything, that was poor form. PLEASE remove that.
See you tomorrow.
erin f said on 10.11.11 at 07:05 AM • [link]
Wow… just… wow.
Delurking to just throw some perspective on the fire since I’m not emotionally charged about this…
I’ve been a regular visitor to this site for a couple of years now and I am neither a blogger, author, hotdog stand peddler, publisher, window cleaner, PR whatsit, or shoe shiner. I’m actually in the medical field. I come here for the book reviews, the snark, and the humor. I’m a reader and that’s exactly what I do… I read. I don’t care if Sarah is married to the mob or is in witness protection b/c she took money for a crooked politician. She writes/provides reviews of books. I read books, therefore, I enjoy this site. I also *choose* to visit this site. I don’t always agree w/ the reviews and I do sometimes think it can get a bit too snarky but that’s also a draw. To be honest, I don’t even really look at the advertisements. I kinda find them annoying. I have nothing to do w/ her business, I don’t care about her business (in so many ways). I appreciate that she believes in disclosure, but since it doesn’t pertain to me or to my books,I just skim and go on to the book reviews.
As to the big blow out, let it simmer down. I read the other blogs out of nosy curiosity and the back and forth that people are doing is just gasoline on the fire. No one is benefiting, the feelings are hurt, the milk is spilled and damage done. It’s getting a bit out of hand and waaaaaay too personal. The comments are doing more damage than good. Sarah wrote a thoughtful, thorough and pointed post addressing the situation. It’s being devalued by the comments.
It’s ok to disagree, it’s ok to defend, but sometimes it’s better to just not reply. and reply. and reply. People are getting a wee bit scary now and it’s spun so far off topic as to be ridiculous. Let the trolls be. They are settling in now b/c people are responding and they will not go away unless they are ignored.
OK. That’s my opinion. Thanks for reading. If anyone is as obsessive as I am and reads all the posts, peace be with you.
MaryK said on 10.11.11 at 07:11 AM • [link]
@Cakes - Um, no. I remember Kate Garrabrant’s name from back when I used to read her conference reports. I googled her to double check my memory. She regularly “outs” herself.
erin f said on 10.11.11 at 07:23 AM • [link]
I meant “reads all the comments” not posts. sorry.
and I’m not calling anyone a troll. Just to be clear and so I don’t get the pitchforks. I got a flat butt and the ends are way too pointy. Just whoever you might perceive as trolling and feel compelled to argue with. Go pet your puppy/kitty or whatever furred (or scaled) creature gives you happy thoughts. Remember, this is not real, it’s the internet and whatever indignities that are experienced here can be dissolved with the blue pill. or the red one. Whichever one that didn’t make Keanu Reeves turn into the silver surfer.
Cakes said on 10.11.11 at 07:52 AM • [link]
ahhh..see, I’m not a part of the industry, so I don’t know any conference stuff. I just know my experience of what she has out there for general readers. I figured if she wanted her full name out there it would be on those sites.
Yes, you can figure out what my real name is (it isn’t hard if you know me professionally.) but, I just like to keep it as quiet as possible. I noticed on the other blog she commented on her full name being used, I guess I’m personally sensitive to this.
MaryK said on 10.11.11 at 08:19 AM • [link]
@cakes - I saw her comment. It’s what prompted me to check. I’m not part of the industry. I just bounce around the Internet reading about books. And even I know her name so I thought it was odd. She has a LinkedIn profile listing both names for pete’s sake. And she’s given blog interviews and stated her real and pen names.
SarahT said on 10.11.11 at 10:14 AM • [link]
@Sharon
Well, Sharon, you obviously didn’t attend the same Irish Catholic school I did. A couple of the nuns were nice, but the majority were vicious bitches. The priest who came in to give us religious lessons showed us animal porn. His reasoning? To show us what he meant by the words “bestiality” and “buggery”. We were 12 at the time. And, no, that didn’t make it into the news. The priest was quietly removed and put out to pasture.
Ann Somerville said on 10.11.11 at 10:44 AM • [link]
Bullcrap. Giggles is nothing but an attention seeking shit disturber, and Emily Veinglory will happily stab anyone in the back if it suits her purposes. Both of them are perfectly happy to aid and abet appallingly unethical behaviour if they can get away with it, and Giggles does it purely for fun. Talk about someone not being accountable.
I wouldn’t hang a dog based on their accusations.
Ann Somerville said on 10.11.11 at 10:53 AM • [link]
Jesus H Christ on a bicycle. Are you aware that the vast majority of snark is either bad (or unethical) writing, ridiculous covers, or really, really lousy publishers and assorted businesses? These are all legitimate targets for attack. It’s not karma when a couple of obnoxious gossipmongers decide to take a pop at a successful and popular blogger because they’re jealous, and throw mud in the hope it will stick.
You sound stupid. Go away.
Ann Somerville said on 10.11.11 at 11:05 AM • [link]
Yup. The ones I had who weren’t mentally deranged, were just plain psychopaths. I can’t believe someone couldn’t believe that a nun would call a girl a ‘whore’. Trust me, there were nuns at my highschool who treated girls with a certain reputation much worse than that.
Kate Garrabrant is on facebook and uses her author’s pen name on that page. The two names are linked up on the same page. I knew the woman’s real name and I am *really* not her friend, nor was I looking for her real identity. It’s on Goodreader and so on too. It’s not how you hide your real name if you’re seriously worried about doing so.
Erin said on 10.11.11 at 03:15 PM • [link]
This kind of thing can be very hurtful, and I’m sorry you are having to go through it. I love this website and think you do an amazing job. I will always be reading!!
RebeccaJ said on 10.11.11 at 04:23 PM • [link]
Ok, I don’t know how this conversation went from Sarah’s business venture to nuns, but I will stand FIRMLY behind anyone who says the nuns were bitter b*tches because I was taught by SEVERAL of them in grade school. They ruined my school years and took a lot of my self-esteem right along with that. *shudder*
SB Sarah said on 10.11.11 at 05:57 PM • [link]
This made me snort water up my nose. OW. But thank you.
I don’t either, and I’ve read the thread a few times. I’m more than happy to leave the thread open to new comments, but can we move off the Catholic debate, please? That’s a big sticky difficult and painful topic for a lot of people.
Unless you know of nuns with violet eyes and raven tresses - and I’m going to stop now.
snarkhunter said on 10.11.11 at 06:15 PM • [link]
Only in Anne Shirley’s imagination!!
Ros said on 10.11.11 at 07:12 PM • [link]
My Catholic headmistress was called Sister Mary Mark and when I was four I thought she was a man. Or you know, something that wasn’t either man or woman. Nuns: the third gender.
LoriS said on 10.11.11 at 10:57 PM • [link]
Geesh! Pretty sure I agree with Wendy’s blog on jealousy.
Number one, you are totally entitled to participate in any business that you wish to, and in this horrid economy if you get a chance to do something you love and get paid for it? Yay you!!
Number two, I couldn’t care less even if you were getting paid for endorsements (though I believe you completely when you say you aren’t). It would just mean I wouldn’t read your reviews. There are plenty of other fantastic posts over here to enjoy. And/or plenty of other review blogs to read (which, let’s face it, we all read other blogs, too).
Number three, I’ll repeat. Geesh!! I think some people have way too much time on their hands and think way too much about what other people are doing. In the spirit of Yom Kippur (which you started out by discussing), petty jealousies and envy are what need to be atoned for - not participating in a business that is in a genre and medium you love.
@Ann Somerville said it all. And very well.
I say go you!
Liz L said on 10.11.11 at 11:20 PM • [link]
Meh. Ridiculous drama aside, the issue of review “neutrality” is really a stalking horse for more broad and structural changes to the online community’ orientation. I’ve been an obsessive reader of AAR and later the blogs since 04 and there certainly has been a shift in content/orientation in much of this media. Much of the by the reader, for the reader, all for one, one for all vibe that used to exist in many of these places is gone, or migrated to an increasingly fragmented set of niche blogs/communities. Fangirls have always been an issue, and a marginal one at best. What I am talking about is the orientation of the blogs/sites themselves, how they position themselves vis a vis authors, publishers, and readers, and who they define as the readership itself.
It’s not to say that the evolution of these spaces has been wholly bad, or should not have happened. But I certainly read and process online reviews much differently than I used to, and I increasingly find my romanceland google reader queue, with some awesome exceptions, to be a collection of industry news/gossip/buzz/trends and product placement. Some of that rough DIY vibe is gone. Indie bands are a good comparison- even if the band doesn’t jump shark it looses some of that homey, unwashed feel just by making good!
Reviews by definition are not neutral- they are the public expression of an opinion. So that one files out the window. And given the foten myriad conflicts of interest held by people who write for blogs, publications, ect in romanceland, this kerfluffle is incredibly marginal. But I will say as a general rule of thumb, many fun rebel corners of romanceland have accquired an unmistakable industry feel. Neither good nor bad, but different, and it changes the way I as a pure reader interact with the spaces and the amount of time/thought I put into posting, linking, ect. C’est la vie.
eggs said on 10.12.11 at 10:53 AM • [link]
Come for the reviews, stay for the comments thread! Sarah announced she’s got a new job and so far we’ve covered ethics, mean girls, trolls, nuns, child pronography loving academics and e-stalkers. All that’s left is for someone to say another poster ‘sounds fat’ and we can print this one out and put it in a classy faux rococo frame. Interwebs gold, I tell you, GOLD!!
Fat said on 10.12.11 at 01:49 PM • [link]
Eggs, it is too tempting. While I cannot insult another reader, let me say that I am feeling a bit fat.
Does that do it for you?
chrocs said on 10.12.11 at 08:24 PM • [link]
You can’t say you’re fat. You don’t understand fat. I was fat back when you were a twig. I and only I know all about the fatness.
Kim said on 10.12.11 at 08:35 PM • [link]
Wow - To post a link on her Mrs. Goggles blog, then claim she wasn’t making an accusation, defies credulity. At least have the nerve to state her complaint, which has some merit, and explain the conflict of interest. Too feign bewilderment is a bit much.
Although Courtney Milan makes a valid point that until Sarah reviews a client’s book, a conflict hasn’t been reached, a disclaimer would alleviated even the appearance. As others have said, it’s always better to err on the side of caution.
Finally, I thought Mrs. Giggles responses were chidlish. It’s one thing to be snarky, it’s another to be so mean-spirited and uncivil.
Madd said on 10.13.11 at 07:04 PM • [link]
@chrocs ... How very dare you! I’ve known fat since before fat was fat! lol
Also, you said fat back ... which made me think of food, but also of back fat ... now I am disturbed.
chrocs said on 10.14.11 at 09:05 PM • [link]
@Madd
I am all kinds of fatness. You should be disturbed, all right.
Yes, No, Maybe said on 10.18.11 at 04:55 AM • [link]
Sarah, I like you and I like your site. I get a kick outta of the snark and the funny and thoughtful topics and reviews. None of that stops me from disagreeing with some of your reviews But hey, that’s okay, different strokes for different folks and all that. Your blog’s reputation grew because you had some great stuff to offer me as a romance reader and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, good things in life don’t come free. Sites cost, hence the advertising. But I’m cool with that.The side benefit of advertising is the intro to new authors and releases, plus the eye candy!
I’m not your bf nor do I have any business dealings with you. To be frank I never thought about your integrity because I never had cause to questioned it and still don’t.You explained and that’s enough for me.
Now…
Dear Mrs. Giggles & fellow cohorts,
My grandmother was a no guff kinda woman and called it as she saw it. “If you have something to say, say it! Or keep it to yourself.”
or if you prefer…
“For many years I thought an innuendo was an Italian suppository
-Spike Milligan, British comedian
And my personal favorite…
Don’t poop in your backyard!
Got it?!
kim said on 10.19.11 at 07:08 PM • [link]
I don’t generally follow Sarah or any of her detractors mentioned above on a regular basis. I don’t like/dislike anyone or even know any of the history between these people. As long term readers of this blog, most of the commenters will vouch for Sarah’s integrity, but for me, since I do not have the background, I am sorry to say that her possible conflict of interest and not disclosing it immediately will color how I view her reviews. That doesn’t mean I will not read them, or that I think they are not her opinion, just that I don’t have the history and therefore the ability to trust in her the same way that you all do.
I’m not trying to offend or start anything, I just wanted to express my view as someone on the perimeter.
Liza said on 10.22.11 at 12:38 AM • [link]
Hypocrite thy name is Hypocrite:
I can remember that which made you famous which is still on the sidebar of your page and how you defended your position then about contacting Cassie Edwards, and you sat there on your high horse,
Now you want different treatment than you have given others. Its a news story and allowable when you place it on your site and have pages and pages of the what? Story? proof ? Spreadsheets. Yes we have proof yes we are cutting edge journalists? Do not question how wonderful and smart and great we are.
Mrs. G writes nothing except shows a link and she should check with you first.
Hypocrite thy name is Hypocrite
my captcha is room73
Are we not back in high school now.
MaryK said on 10.22.11 at 03:48 AM • [link]
I’m subscribed to comments and I’m getting two emails for each comment. One is the comment and one is blank with quoted text.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments