Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Someone else pointed it out, but if the head of AT&T had sent out the same email to the stockholders, not only would it have been on the net, but it would have been published in Forbes, Fox News would have carried it on air (in a slow week) and Greta would be interviewing the kids.

Some posters just didn’t seem to ‘get’ that publishing is a business.  And business like behavior is expected, no exceptions.  Period. The End. Amen.

Whatever.

Others commenting on poor business behavior are truly upholding the standards, not the opposite.  The violator of the standard was the person who sent out the email.  They deserved and got public censure.

If romance writing wants gain respect, it’s going to have to live by the same code that all other business live by….it can’t go down the path of “we write about emotions and soft stuff, please be nice.”

Otherwise, it will always be treated as the Crazy Aunt in the attic or “that bunch of hormonal bats”.

Regardless of the genre, writers are going to bond with other writers. Friendships and/or knock down drag out rivalries will form from there. It’s human nature. And while loyalty to company may be one thing, I feel it’s good to keep a bit of professional distance from your publisher. Respect is far more important than friendship in these instances when you’re trying to make a go of it in this business, and that distance makes pertinent business decisions as well as criticism easier to deal with in the long run if there are no heart strings attached.

A lot of women really hate it when something provokes strong negative emotion like getting angry and it makes them really angry when someone makes them really angry. So it’s a big old nasty spiral of emotion. Just like when you flush the toilet.

And, yeah, anybody who doesn’t get flipped out by that really hate angry thing is just the type to hang around toilets. Emotionless sluts!

Here are some things I like about working for women publishers:

1. One of them screwed up. She didn’t go into the Macho Not Asking for Directions/The Prez is Always Right thing. She wrote a note to her writers saying here’s what I did, sorry, and here’s what I’ll do to make sure it doesn’t happen again. I think the ability to semi-publicly admit making mistakes (if it’s relevant) is a good trait and I think it’s often women who can do it better than men.

2. I got a birthday card from my publisher.

3. They get the fact that family does come first . . . sometimes.

I work for the University of Miami. No huge secret so ... yeah.  Anyway.  If someone came onto a forum I frequent, or walked into the local bar and dissed the shit out of Donna Shalala I’d feel honor bound to slam dance them all over the blogs or bar to hell and back.  So would most people at UM.  When I was at the Miami Herald, I took great exception to Art Teele blowing his head off in the lobby of my office building to make his point.  So.  Is it a chick thing or a dedicated employee thing? 

In publishing is it because some publishers treat authors less as contract workers and more as full time employees?

yeah, ferfe, good point. loyalty and friendship do show up on the job and they’re a cornerstone of civilization.

But it can go too far and the general “if you can’t speak nicely then shut up” thing can get in the way of real communication—and also effective business. Oh yah and in governing, too.

But Kate.  In what way does intimating that Gail Northman a racist and borderline illiterate further a discussion aimed at shedding light on Triskelions corporate restructuring?

None for me, but I’m not considering submitting to Trisk. She’s in business, if I wanted to be part of that business, I’d care a whole lot because those qualities might affect her performance.

If I was one of her employees who knew that she was basically good at her job then I’d do exactly what they did, too. Maybe not scold the bitches for being heartless (but mainly because the amused wrath of SBC and SBS is scary to behold and I’m a coward).

Not sure about racist thing, but the fact that the Publisher appears to be borderline illiterate (not just in the emotional email that was posted here, but also in the more reasoned one on Dear Author) would seriously worry me were I contracted with Triskelion.

Wow.  Well I asked for my rights back from Trisk for the business reason that my historical was not erotic enough to sell well as only an ebook.  However, the more I read this blog and the comments on Dear Author, the more I am thankful to be away from that whole arena.  I’m currently published with two other epub houses and have never had the kind of drama that’s been going on during the last few days.

In one thing I completely agree: the romance genre takes enough hits for its covers, content, and strangely maligned HEA - we don’t need to add unprofessionalism or drama to the mix.

In what way does intimating that Gail Northman a racist and borderline illiterate further a discussion aimed at shedding light on Triskelions corporate restructuring?

Did they call her a racist for her rant? I missed that part. But as to the borderline illiterate part—did you not read the poorly written rant she put out there? In PUBLIC? And this woman calls herself an editor?

Editor who can’t spell or properly punctuate = bad for the publishing business she runs. IMHO. Which is probably not worth much, but it’s all a game of public perception, and now I perceive her as a person who runs off half-cocked when threatened, and does so badly spelled to boot.

Sorry.  I came over from Dear Author and haven’t read the SB thread on this subject. 

“Would you want to work for Trisk?” wasn’t the subject at hand from what I read.  Subjective I know, but it sounded like the discussion was supposed to be about contracts, RWA’s actions and ... some personal issues I didn’t understand.  It turned into a slam dance on Heebie Jeebies and proper sentence structure.

I’ve just done an hour’s catchup reading (feather-boas-at-dawn events like these usually pass me by completely) and I’m just left with an enormous sense of gratitude for all the characterisation material it’s given me…

Can’t see that you’ve done anything wrong, SBs.

After all, “private loop” is an oxymoron.

Not sure it’s a female business thing, though, as much as an online business thing.  I’ve seen guys react in similar ways, but only on e-loops.

And I have to confess to getting a birthday card from my pet insurance broker.

No, wait.  I think that was for my cat.

Here are some things I like about working for women publishers:  Wow, take me to your genre. 

In my genre, the editor is usually the owner/publisher and this makes for some serious issues.  My genre [m/m ero comics] doesn’t suffer from non-payments or any of that happy BS; it suffers from a lack of buffer zone between creators and publishers—because they’re also serving as editors. 

Now before anyone says—I love my editor…blah blah, I’m not faulting the editor, I’m speaking about my genre specifically relating to-what causes drama.  A creator should have a close relationship with her editor; but this same sort of relationship cannot exist with ‘a publisher’ who must regard their creators in a more professional, and less personal, manner. 

A Publisher has to think about distro, other creators, other books in progress, conventions, payroll, websites, and press releases: The company comes first.  An editor has to make sure the story comes together, make sure she has a good relationship with her author so that she can make sure the story comes together, and comes together On Time:  The Title comes first.

Kaite & Leslie,

Editors are scary.  Ethnic insensitivity and questionable communication skills are the least of what lurks beneath their beds. ;-)

Perhaps this is not the right place for this (I’m a longtime reader but I’ve only begun de-lurking very recently) but I think both Sarah, and Candy, handled the entire situation incredibly well—they were classy and intelligent, and didn’t express their opinions as negative ad hominem attacks.

At first, that comments thread was a bit amusing for me. I like a good drama just as much as the next person. But I was quickly disgusted by all of the unnecessary personal attacks being thrown around. When people started calling Nora Roberts out for simply being an intelligent woman with a well-reason argument, it was obvious to me that it had gotten out of hand. Who in the world thinks that they have the right to insult Nora Roberts? She has (arguably and in my opinion) done more for the romance industry than any other single woman and yet people were telling her that the should be ashamed of herself.

The fact of the matter is that once people really started calling out the personal information in the email as being inappropriate for a public forum, Sarah edited that information out.

And yet the debate raged on and actually got WORSE. Regardless of how many times Candy tried to steer people back to the matter at hand: Would you want this woman to be in charge of your literary career? She was mostly ignored.

So, personally, I applaud Candy and Sarah for the way they have responded to all this intensely negative, and often downright nasty, criticism. And also for the fact that they have allowed all of the comments to remain posted, whereas other bloggers would probably have deleted them as soon as they were posted. They’ve even allowed the comments thread to remain open even though there isn’t much left to say about it all. Again, I’ve seen blog authors shut down comments threads for flamewars that were far less nasty than this one.

Sadly, I have nothing to offer in regards to how the industry is viewed by outsiders, or how the actions of female executives in the romance industry might differ from male executives in a similar industry (I’m only a reader, not an author, so I have absolutely no knowledge of what goes on behind the curtain). But I appreciate the intelligent criticism that the Bitches publish, even when it gets them called horrible names, and am thrilled that they are going to continue doing what they do best because I think the romance industry could definitely use some intelligent criticism.

Writers—myself included—can be batshit crazy. Genre doesn’t apply.

But, I, too, am baffled by the hold-hands, one big family, share our personal woes and joys kind of tone that seems to be on the loop in question—according to some of the members of the loop.

It’s BUSINESS. Friendships can and do—if we’re lucky—grow out of business and professional relationships. I have many that have. But I would never, EVER, post private and personal business on an author loop, and would never, never, NEVER expect my publisher to do so.

Not exceptions. No excuses.

If I had personal problems I wanted to share, I would do so OFF-LOOP with my friends, not with a couple hundred associates I’m friendly with.

I expect my publisher to behave as professionally as I do—even moreso. Actually, considerably moreso.

And, frankly, the minute my publisher stated that I was with her or against her, I’d be calling my agent.

I can give Ms. Northman some leeway as it just strikes me her post(s) were written while emotionally distraught and angry. I think posting under those circumstances is unwise, but we’ve all done it at some point.

I give no leeway to posters who wag their fingers and cry: Shame, shame, you’re all meanies. Bitch, bitch, bitch, because not everyone sees a situation as they do—i.e., I love this author/book/publisher/editor/reviewer so anyone who doesn’t think she’s swell is a fuckheady bitchipants and probably trampling on my civil rights.

There’s no crying in baseball—at least not out on the field. If you’re going to cry in this business, you’re wise to do so in private, or on the shoulder of a good, personal friend.

But how can you trust an editor with questionable communications skills to help you turn your book into publishable material?

Both Ms. Northman’s words and the words of her supporters bring to mind a number of stereotypes men have about women in business: that we’re irrational, inappropriately emotional, whiny, needy, immature, and liable to fly off the handle at the least provocation. Why is it so necessary to “come to the defense” of an editor just because you have a professional relationship with her? You only succeed in making her and yourself look bad.

Why is it so necessary to “come to the defense” of an editor just because you have a professional relationship with her? You only succeed in making her and yourself look bad.

Remember when Microsoft employees ran through some random Silicon Valley Mall chained together singing “Don’t Break Me Up!”?  The business that paid their bills and put their kids through college was under attack.  It’s not just women.  It’s not just publishing.  It’s not just a job to some people.  Perhaps looking bad is not as awful as looking for work.

Totally OT, but FerfeLeBat, I didn’t know you were in Miami! I miss Miami, sigh.

I remember the Art Teele thing. He was a dildo anyway.

And I’ve been saying for a while that overly emotional crap like this is one reason romance isn’t taken seriously.

Just remember…WWND?

Cuz if Nora wouldn’t do it…it’s not appropriate.

Which includes thinking you’re the person who should be taking Nora to task for something. Riiight.

December,

I live in the Keys but work in Miami. Hellish commute.  I was home the day Art did that.  Just decided when I woke up that it was not a good day to drive into te office.  They cleared him of the road rage charges.

I’m here to give the SB my wholehearted support. I don’t think you did anything wrong, although when I read the entry I did say to myself “oh, man, you should never say that about your kid!” Which is more about the editor than about SB.

I am not an author, or wanna-be author, or associated with the literary world in any way. But as a woman in an industry almost completely dominated by men, in a position that very few women ever achieve, I can honestly say that there is no way I would ever put anything down on email or paper about my personal life, and I would never use it as an excuse.

I hate to say it, but I agree that we seem to be having a “girl thing” here.

But I think you guys did the right thing, and I get very unhappy when people attack you for having an opinion, just because it isn’t sunshine and unicorns.

my word was justice22. Rock on!

Oh, I was going to post an analogy to a financial firm I used to work for, but then I thought WWND? I don’t want to get flamed for making inappropriate comparisons and spend the rest of the week defending my poor judgmentaling skills.

Instead, I’ll just be all squee that I’m #9 on your Top Ten Big Bitches. So happy! Hubby thinks I need a hobby, but obviously I already have one.

Wow, FerfeLeBat. And here I gave up on the Ft. Lauderdale-to-South-Beach work commute after like two months.  (Although a couple of years later I made the drive with ease every Wed., Fri., and Saturday night to drink and play pool at the Deuce. Priorities, eh?)

I do miss Miami politics. I miss seeing Jorge mas Canosa on TV all the time. I miss Neil Rogers with a passion.

You rock on Meredith! How often do we see just a reader around the blogosphere these days! (Aside from the bloggers themselves.) Go you!!

Ft. Liquordale to Miami sucks, December.  Keys to Miami is no joy ride but it’s not the Baton Death March that the Northern Commuters suffer since Hurricane Andrew.  There have been four or five suicide jumps off the I-595 overpass in the past two years (approx).  On S.Beach I love Mangos.  The music never stops.

Miami is a great city, disgruntled drivers and all.

k.So

Lovely.  Did I break a rule of engagement mentioning Microsoft as an analogy?  It’s been awhile since I posted.

I don’t think you broke a rule of engagement. My analogy would have…so I didn’t post it.

Both Ms. Northman’s words and the words of her supporters bring to mind a number of stereotypes men have about women in business: that we’re irrational, inappropriately emotional, whiny, needy, immature, and liable to fly off the handle at the least provocation. Why is it so necessary to “come to the defense” of an editor just because you have a professional relationship with her? You only succeed in making her and yourself look bad.

Just when I think there’s nothing to admire about those NY houses who don’t seem to give a crap about the success or failure of their authors.  *sigh*  You just can’t count on any damn stereotype to come through, can you?

I think Candy’s point about the ideal of a woman’s business as more nurturing, etc. than the traditional male world might be right on.  Although I can’t help but think there’s still a culture of overpersonalization in Romance that connects back to the author-fan relationship that seems to be the historical foundation of the genre.  And aren’t most of the e-press execs current or former authors? 

I do feel sorry for Northman because it’s clear that she’s got some BIG personal problems going on and is obviously totally over the edge emotionally.  BUT, that CLEARLY is affecting the business of Triskelion, if not wholly than at least in part.  And I was troubled by what appears to be a hostility to the “disgruntled authors” who spoke up to the RWA.  Compare Northman’s response to the way Anne Stuart’s editor responded after she criticized Mira—verrrry different tactics there. 

And here’s the thing I have to wonder:  if, indeed, the execs at Trisk didn’t know that some authors were unhappy, is that a reflection of author disloyalty or a glitch somewhere in the machinery of Trisk?  It’s difficult for me to believe that all this exploded overnight.  And while I would hope that people would maybe be more judicious in sending out emails with so much private info in them (and I’m talking about the person who leaked the email, not the SBs), Northman’s characterization of “disgruntled authors” does seem to suggest that there was already a problem somewhere.  In other words, Northman sort of confirmed an issue even as she denied it. 

Obviously things aren’t cut and dried and some authors are very happy at Trisk.  But some aren’t and should they be seen as unprofessional or disloyal for articulating their concerns to the RWA?  Do we berate an employee for complaining to his or her union about what she/he perceives to be unfair practices?  If the authors are blowing steam out their ears, would the drama around this situation be so high?

That whole J. Wallace fiasco divested me of ANY idealism regarding authors, publishers, or editors.  OTOH, there’s a discouragement of critical discussion in the genre, either of books or publishing practices.  So what happens—this type of crap.  Isn’t this situation an enormous illustration that the Romance community would be so much healthier if it could manage confrontation and conflict as cultural norms rather than as the tortured *result* of such torqued attempts to avoid forthright disagreement and public disclosure?

I can’t comment on this because I just found out my best friends daughter***edited to remove WAY too much pathos in the form of TMI, because yeah, you have a point, gotta think of the children here***so I have to drive her to the local STD Clinic to get checked out.

Hope to catch up with you guys tomorrow.

The Pig

Well said, Robin. Well said.

I haven’t read a Nora book in a while. No reason; just hasn’t happened.

After reading this, however—“fuckheady bitchipants”—I am going to go out and buy the bigget, bestest, most overpriced glossy hardcover I can find. And read it. And cackle.

Thanks, Nora. That was swell.

Ah, the culture of nice. Didja see this article on CNN?

Point: A church is trying to stop people from complaining. The pastor says: “When you complain, you do it typically to attract attention or sympathy. It’s you saying, ‘There’s something wrong with me.’ You’re sending out this vibrational energy into the universe that you’re a victim, and the universe responds with more negativity.” He also bans sarcasm.

Counter-point: A psychology professor says “If we lived in a world in which there was nothing to complain about I think it might make perfect sense. But we don’t.” and “The tyranny of the positive attitude in America… can actually hurt some people…. let people cope in the way they cope and don’t make them feel defective.”“

Two books referenced: A Complaint Free World and Stop Smiling, Start Kvetching: A 5-Step Guide to Creative Complaining.

So, which title do you like better?

Interesting point you make, Candy, about this whole cat-fight shedding a negative light on the romance industry (at least in the eyes of other publishers). I am also purely a reader, and it’s interesting to think of the stigma coming from both ways. Do I think the touchy-feely aspect of the genre has much to do with public opinion? mmmm… not really. I think what Leslie said in her comment about her book not being “erotic” enough for Trisk has more to do with the generally negative opinion of romance. Every industry has executives that act inappropriately, and every company I’ve ever worked for has, at the very least, a group of people who share too much about their personal lives then is professionally good for them, male and female both.

I think what really hurts the industry is it’s REFUSAL to make the changes that we all know would help. Let’s take covers a small, small example. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. They are the reason why I only read romances at home, or with the book on my lap. And look what happens when a publisher dares to change the cover… I’ve seen the blue-covered Outlander in Fantasy AND regular fiction sections now, and I’ve seen a wide variety of people reading it. But the old-covered version? Get thee to the romance section!

What hurts romance is the perception that they rely on sex or large breasted, besotted females rather than a good story line. Nevermind that I won Trivial Pursuit the other night because I could name the Duke of Wellington’s horse (thank you, romances) or that I could explain to a friend working on a crossword that Gaia mother earth. Everyone here knows that the genre has value, and a little kerfuffle between the higher-ups isn’t going to change that, and it probably won’t make anyone who is hesitating on trying it out run away.

To me, the real question seems to be whether or not Romance as a genre WANTS to be taken “seriously”. With the exception of a few (nods to you, Nora) it appears to me that most houses/editors/writers CATER to the stereotype. I guess it depends on what the real definition of “seriously” is, but on my part I just don’t see the fact that the industry is mostly women, or the cattiness that very occasionally ensues from that, being a major factor in public perception.

I’m sorry, but if publishers and writers were OMG BFFS 4EVA!!11!1!! then I wouldn’t be spending money on an agent.

In fact, if my editor called me and started telling me that I should give her slack because her daughter was a prostitute, my response wouldn’t be “Take whatever time you need to get your shit together,” it would be “Okay.  Who will be my editor while you’re off getting your shit together?”  Because business (read: my money) needs to keep flowing despite someone’s personal problems.

I’m consistently surprised at how brainless some authors can be about this business.  It’s not some big sorority where everyone really wants you to succeed.  We’re in competition with each other for readers, we’re constantly watching our backs and our contracts for ways our publishers can stick the knife in and twist, and yet we’re supposed to be somehow above all that because we’re sensitive, artistic people, and women.

I’m sorry, but this is a business and I did not trade my brain for a set of ovaries (although mine are, admittedly, bitchin’, with flames painted on the side to make them look like they’re going really fast).

Now, all of that said, I have a fantastic editor and my company treats me well.  End disclaimer.

I’ve muttered for years that the romance writing world (at least as summed up by RT and RWA) acts like a big sorority instead of a professional career group. Freshly minted authors go on the writer’s loops and gush about their editors and agents as if they’ve just pledged to be their big sisters. I keep saying, “These people are not your friends. They will drop you like a hot penny the moment you cause them any serious annoyance. You are not accomplishing anything by making nice with them. You are dispensable. They don’t need you—there’s lots more eager-beaver baby writers where you came from. BEWARE.”

I’m just glad I’m a reader and not a writer LOL
Who’s writing my future purchases at the moment? Everyones posting at blogs!!

It’s not writers, it’s not publishers, it’s not even women. Just read in the news re: Paul Wolfowitz’s *ahem* shennanigans at the World Bank (and I quote):
“Bank officials said the negotiations [with Wolfowitz’s representatives] were aimed at finding a way for the board to accept the findings of the bank committee, while also declaring that Mr Wolfowitz HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH and that MISTAKES HAD BEEN MADE BY ALL SIDES.” [capitals are mine; can you blame me?]
So, if even the hard-nut cases at the World Bank have gone over the edge in a Kumbaya-fest, what hope do we little mortals have?

A few things, because I just can’t NOT dip my toesies in…

1. If the publisher/editor at Triskelion didn’t want this personal information getting out, she should not have posted it publicly/sent out a mass email with it. Period. The Internet is PUBLIC. Emails can be passed around and read just like a paper trail can be. A lot of obfuscation occurs around this one simple rule—if you do not want it spread over town, do not post/email it. An epub editor/publisher should KNOW this.

I can find nothing professional about the behavior by Triskelion under discussion, even if the email was “only” for authors associated with the publishing house. End of story. I’m sorry, but that’s just all there is to it. There is no situation in which this behavior is at all appropriate.

2. I’m going to go out on a limb here and repeat something that was said to me a while ago, when I was wrapped around the axle. A very wise literary agent told me, “Small presses ARE personal. That is their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. The editor/publisher can publish things they strongly personally believe in, things that bigger houses might not touch. The downside to that is, any criticism runs the risk of being seen as a personal attack, because the business is so scorchingly personal.”

When added to the way women are trained to handle conflict in our society, we have a recipe for feather-boa flinging on the fringes.

3. Very few people, male or female, are capable of being classy and professional all the time. We all have varying degrees of wacko in our professional behaviors. The trouble is, a normal ratio of “wack reaction” is about ten percent, but we hear more about the people functioning with fifty to sixty percent wack or more, because it’s juicy.

4. The peeps responding with the “You’re just MEAN!” are engaging in a classic straw-man maneuver, with a soupcon of “let’s all be nicey-nice and pick a discreet way to stab each other in the back.” I suspect the people screaming loudest about being offended at a clear public discussion of improper behavior are the people who would prefer stilettos in the ribs quietly at midnight, because then influence-peddling and drama can go on behind the scenes and add color to drab lives.

But maybe I’m just being mean.

5. And last of all, Candy and Sarah have handled this with class and appropriateness, and if someone doesn’t like it, they can find another corner of the vast sandbox that is the Internet to play in. Because here, they will get nothing but a good thrashing, as they well deserve if they bring it on to the Bitchery.

Nuff said.

First of all, I really hope Candy and SB Sarah used a copyright-free stock photograph for the “Internet. Serious business.” image, because I must have it on a coffee mug.

Second,

I will say that from what I’ve observed, bugfuck nutty fans and cheerleaders exist in every sub-genre, but the fans seem to be nuttier and more vocal in genre circles like SF/F and romance.

I’ve noticed this, too, and I think it has to do with how little understood those genres are in general publishing circles and society in general. There’s a lot of wagon-circling and defense of the genre going on, and when an ardent fan gets defensive, they tend to sound a little wackjobby. (Not to be confused with Jabberwocky, which is entirely different.)

FWIW, I’m just a reader, not a writer or publisher or editor, but reading various blogs, etc., I do think some women who work in the genre tend to blur the lines between professional relationships and friendly ones, and the inability to weather bad reviews on the internet is the best example I can think of. I’ll put it in caps, which is annoying, but eye-catching:

I DO NOT OWE YOU A FAVORABLE REVIEW BECAUSE WE’RE BOTH WOMEN. I DO NOT OWE HILLARY CLINTON A VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE WE’RE BOTH WOMEN. I DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE DR. MEREDITH GREY BECAUSE WE’RE BOTH WOMEN.

I see similar cheerleading in other genres, more in the small presses.  I also see some publishers encouraging it with squee parades on their loops and forums and deliberate shaming of those who ‘step out of line’.

Although there does seem to be more promises to love the authors forever and be family to them in romance submission guidelines than in other areas where sales and distribtuion are more likely to get at least a mention.

I’m just glad I’m a reader and not a writer LOL
Who’s writing my future purchases at the moment? Everyones posting at blogs!!

LOL! Touche! Touche! (Don’t worry, this will all die down in a matter of a day or two.)

I’m already feeling better.  My agent is now reading the book I pulled from Trisk and I’ll hopefully find a happier home for it.  You ladies (any guys on here?) have made some excellent points…

Hi Candy and Sarah-actually,there’s a lot of nuttiness in sf/f too-not just on the fans side-trust me. I think the main difference is in that other genres,there aren’t as many of these small start-ups.
  But look at how John Scalzi was treated for daring to openly talk about SFWA business publicly-or for that matter,when the board’s ethics were questioned(rightly IMHO).
  I don’t think it’s just romance,nor actually do I think it’s because they’re mostly women.

Very nicely said Ms. Saintcrow.  It always backfires and shows a weak starting position when someone responds to criticism with insults and diversionary tactics instead of a reasoned, logical rebuttal.

and avoid the actual matter of the situation

That was my point… you didn’t address the matter but reposted a private post that for all you knew could have been edited.

To me that doesn’t say, I want the news that says I wanna gossip.  And yes that is a larger reason why romance is regarded as it is.

As far as the trisk authors go, you weren’t doing them favors by reposting info they already had.

As for any newbies out there, yeah I think it is useful info.  And great that RWA responded so quickly to the information. 

The authors that came out crying omg you mean nasty grrl how can you say such mean things didn’t do themselves any favors.  Gail made a poor showing of herself in that private email to her authors and I am gonna guess they were smart enough to think WTF without having the Smart Bitches post it and say oh my god at you.  But I could be wrong.

Hopefully they have all learned something and will clean up that list.  Of course someone should prolly also let us know how many people can an email be sent to and still be considered private and when does it become a free for all?

I know I am in the minority, as well as I know anything sent on the net can become public.  If nothing else you have taught them that too.  But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should and you are a hella smart woman, you could have thought of a way without reposting a private post.

just my 2 cents and yes I know… we will just have to agree to disagree… so play on

I’ve never understood this kind of stuff.  If I didn’t get a good kvetch on, regularly, my uterus would explode—if it hasn’t already.  I try to kvetch in a literate and reasoned manner, of course, and use bad words only for very precisely placed emphasis, but even a clumsy kvetch is better than no kvetch at all, as long as it springs from sincere Weltschmerz. 

I fully understand and appreciate the impulse to engage in this sort of activity.  It’s kind of like taking an attitude diuretic.  And anybody who says it ain’t should be petitioning the Vatican for beatification.

So, nobody will ever have to talk to my hand.  (But if you fuck with my dog, you’re dead.)

“I’ve noticed this, too, and I think it has to do with how little understood those genres are in general publishing circles and society in general. There’s a lot of wagon-circling and defense of the genre going on, and when an ardent fan gets defensive, they tend to sound a little wackjobby.”

I think that Chicklet’s on to something.

Maybe the reason why Romancelandia is so hell-bent on being friendly is because of the fact that it’s a “persecuted” genre, so people have this feeling that we all need to band together and hold each other’s hands if we wish to stave off the haters and survive as a genre.

Which is ironic, because I believe that it’s that very kind of behavior which helps to trivialize the genre.

(This may also hold true for SF, but maybe to a lesser degree.)

anyone who doesn’t think she’s swell is a fuckheady bitchipants

Wow. That’s the Eve Dallas–iest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say. Ever. It made my effing night.

I think the way certain women run their business is in a way a reaction to the male dominance in the business world, which is often perceived as cold, impersonal and cut-throat. And so some women-centered businesses skew the other way and personalize their business dealings to an unhealthy degree.

I agree. Even before Trisk’s whole kerfuffle with RWA began, I never again signed another contract with them because of the very simple fact that Trisk is not a well-run business.  I point to you these things that might make you go hmmmmm…:

1. Their home page is NOT THEIR BOOKSTORE. eBooks is their main source of their revenue. Why is their bookstore not their home page? You have to click another (smaller) link to get to the bookstore.

2. Then, there’s the bookstore site itself.  Just compare it with other ebook powerhouses out there: EC and Samhain in particular. See the difference? As a web professional, I know that real estate at the top of the page is highly prized. Why not place their genre selections higher up? Who cares about the heat index? Not as important!

3. Covers. Mary mother of god. Their covers ROT. They basically take a photo and slap some text on it. They don’t bother coming up with the normal taglines that appear on book covers. They don’t regularly print one-line reviews on them. A lot of the photos they use look proportionally distorted. There’s just something about these Trisk covers that don’t look right.

4. Lack of business/strategic planning. They don’t have a long-term editorial calendar, at least not one that they share with there authors.  Is there one? Ed calendars are VITAL for coming up with book P&Ls, for marketing plans, for revenue projections. 

5. Lack of distribution, and I’m not talking about print books either. Why aren’t Trisk books sold in Fictionwise like LooseId or Samhain? Don’t tell me it’s too difficult or that Fictionwise takes such a larger cut that you’d be forced to lower royalty payments. Bullshit. If LooseId can do it, so can you.

6. The method of selection for who will get their books in print and who will not. Here’s another tidbit that hasn’t been revealed elsewhere (at least none that I"ve seen): Trisk will choose who gets their book released in print based on participation in the Yahoo loops. From Gail Northman via the Trisk Yahoo Loop:

I have some things to bring to your notice… and how we are going to be selecting books for publication… and no they not all going to be erotic.. however, there are things I’ve noticed…

First off new submissions - Toni, Debi and I will be looking at how the author plans to make herself known and I don’t mean expensive advertising etc… or expensive promotions.  What I mean is loop participation…

I head a big GROWN… OK first off I know and can track… sales when an author is out and about.. it doesn’t always come at once.. sure or with the first book though it does happen…

However the more you are seen aka playing for want of a better word the more a reader will come to like you… and buy your books…. having a book published is only the first step.. the next step is to build a readership/friends that will buy your books… I’m sure Doreen and Lynne C and a few others can tell you about their experiences.. but it does work.

I don’t even wanna comment on how ludicrous this is.  BASED ON LOOP PARTICIPATION? What about just based on sales of the ebook???  And the woman doesn’t know the difference between “groan” and “grown?”  *groans*

7. They can’t get their act together early enough in the editorial planning stage to get their books spotlighted by RT magazine. I’m talking about the section in the back of the magazine that highlights the future releases of various publishers. This again goes back to lack of planning.

8. Why no Walmart for their print books? Walmart sells more books than the top 4 bookstores COMBINED. To not sell via Walmart is questionable business tactic.

The gist of my commentary: Trisk is not a well-run business. Authors should submit elsewhere. They’re barely doing okay. To the authors who are happy with their treatment/results via Trisk, I bet you could have sold a whole hella more had you been with EC, Samhain, Liquid Silver or LooseId. Trisk is OKAY, but they could be TONS better. TONS. Spades.

Maybe the reason why Romancelandia is so hell-bent on being friendly is because of the fact that it’s a “persecuted” genre, so people have this feeling that we all need to band together and hold each other’s hands if we wish to stave off the haters and survive as a genre.

I have no doubt that there are many supportive communities within the larger genre group, but when you force the idea of friendly you often end up with a lot of unfriendly undercurrents. 

having a book published is only the first step.. the next step is to build a readership/friends that will buy your books

IMO, the sooner we get past the idea that readers are friends of the author, the publisher, the editor, or even other reader-friends, the saner the Romance community will be.

actually,there’s a lot of nuttiness in sf/f too-not just on the fans side-trust me. I think the main difference is in that other genres,there aren’t as many of these small start-ups.

Do you think it’s a characteristic of the genres where *fans* are cultivated rather than *readers*?

Then, there’s the bookstore site itself.

I didn’t even get there, because I got stuck on the general homepage:  http://www.triskelionpublishing.com/ and couldn’t get past the tab entitled “gossip” and the blue ribbon announcement that the Thunder Down Under guys were now cover models.  And while the face moisturizer recommendations were kind of nice, they threw me for a minute, because I thought perhaps I had the wrong site.  It wasn’t until I clicked on the bookstore tab and came up with the same site you linked to, Sara, that I realized the two pages were connected.  It all felt a little unfocused and unfriendly to readers like me who are still learning their way around ebook sites in general and Triskelion specifically.

Blaker Girl,
I have to agree with just about everything you said - and you stated it so well.  I am published with Samhain and the difference with how the companies are run was evident to me from the very beginning.  At times I couldn’t understand how Trisk managed to do as well as they did - or as they said they did.  I thought I was just “spoiled” - but maybe there was something to my gut feelings, after all.  I certainly never understood the strategy or philosophy of Trisk, no matter how often I tried to ask.

What a mess this has all become…

It wasn’t until I clicked on the bookstore tab and came up with the same site you linked to, Sara,

Sorry, got my posts mixed up—I was responding to Blaker Girl’s post there, not Sara’s.

Do you think it’s a characteristic of the genres where *fans* are cultivated rather than *readers*?

Robin is SMRT! That’s an excellent point; when a genre privileges *fans*, those people who have an internet presence or belong to fan clubs, etc., that may invite overfamiliarity between writers and readers, and this emphasis on close, lengthy relationships (over the course of a series) may bleed over to editors, publishers, and writers.

I mean, Michael Chabon hasn’t written four more books about the characters in Mysteries of Pittsburgh, but John Sandford has published approximately eleventy-seven Prey books about Lucas Davenport, and Janet Evanovich has 12 books (and counting) about Stephanie Plum. Romance doesn’t have many series about the same characters (Gabaldon is the only one I can think of at the moment), but writers do spend a lot of time cultivating online relationships with readers, so I think it’s quite easy to assume a level of familiarity and friendship that can have a negative effect on the books, and on the romance community.

I suppose the fact that I got a good laugh on behalf of someone going apecrazy is a bad thing?

In all honesty there are a lot of businesses that are run in a very personal way, and that isn’t necessarily bad but once it takes on an almost cult like personification they leave themselves open to be observed.

Surprising isn’t it, how some people can’t take criticism..

3. Covers. Mary mother of god. Their covers ROT.

OMG, Blaker Girl! Those are HORRID. You’re absolutely right: They just slap some text on a stock photo. The Smart Bitches’ cover design contest from last year proved that it *is* possible to do kick-ass covers without having to pay models or painters, or use that awful Poser program.

The best part is how you’re scrolling down the books page, doop-de-doo, when suddenly they’re selling jewelry! Because the number-one way to look like a professional publisher is to sell things that aren’t books.

3. Covers. Mary mother of god. Their covers ROT.

I checked the covers and noticed 2 with a wrist with a bracelet and assumed they were part of the same series, at $25.00 each and thought wtf? Who’s gonna spend that much on an e-book from a small-time publisher?

On closer inspection, they are bracelets for sale, not books.

I thought the link was wrong or something because I, too, saw bracelets, etc. on sale there.

What’s going on?  I thought it was epub, not eBay.

That was my point… you didn’t address the matter but reposted a private post that for all you knew could have been edited.

I would like to point out once again that the post wasn’t particularly private, but sent to at least a couple hundred people. And true, it could’ve been edited or distorted—which is typically why Sarah (and I, for that matter) attempt to provide complete documents whenever we can. Things can be taken out of context, and it’s useful to have the source documents handy so everyone can read and draw their own conclusions. If the post had been substantially edited, surely somebody would’ve come forward and said “That is a crock of lies, lieeeeeeeees.” It’s typically why Sarah and I ask for confirmation after talking about news items.

To me that doesn’t say, I want the news that says I wanna gossip.

Your conclusions are your own. We wanted scuttlebutt, sure, but we weren’t purely motivated by schadenfreude. Jane handled this whole thing with more finesse than we did, but neither of us think what we did was especially wrong.

Also, since when were “news” and “gossip” mutually exclusive categories? (I can’t bring myself to insert a smiley here, so pretend I did.)

Of course someone should prolly also let us know how many people can an email be sent to and still be considered private and when does it become a free for all?

Aw, dude, c’mon, do not EVEN play that sort of game here. Yes, lines can be hard to draw, but I’m pretty damn sure sending an e-mail to 200 people, many of whom the letter-writer never met personally, extends pretty far beyond the line of “private and sensitive communication.” Think of some of the scuttlebutt you’ve handed Sarah and me over the past couple years—you know we’re not in the “anything sent over e-mail is fair game” camp, and implying so in this comment is dirty pool.

Lookit, this is probably not especially helpful, but I think a bit of common sense would serve all of us well at the end of the day.

just my 2 cents and yes I know… we will just have to agree to disagree… so play on

As far as disagreement goes, yours is a lot more reasoned than most, and I do appreciate the viewpoint you come from. I do wish you’d quit it with the passive aggressive “Oh, I guess the poor wee publishers and editors learned an important lesson to NOT TRUST PEOPLE EVER AGAIN” bits. I prefer aggressive aggression.

Actually, you can continue doing that if you want to. It’s not like Sarah or I make much of an effort to shape what people post here, heh. Which leads to some pretty exciting comments sometimes, boy howdy.

Shit, I need to save reading the rest of the comments for tomorrow. DAMN THIS NEED FOR SLEEP.

I agree with Candy.

There was a girl who sent a very inappropriate email a bunch of people in my firm once by mistake.  She apologized, but she had to be let go.  Mind you, this was an internal server and nobody outside supposedly saw it (ha!), but the damage was done and the email, private or not, was forwarded around, even though the email came with the warning at the end that it was proprietary and confidential.

I find it ironic that people find Gail Northman’s email professional or even acceptable for a hugh loop, composed of a lot of authors and Trisk staff.  Furthermore, she’s the one who brought in her personal life into the fray, not vice versa.

So ultimately what you have to think is this:

Here’s a professional woman…who seems unable to exercise any discretion or maintain professional decorum under pressure caused by some RWA dis-invite, her authors’ concerns over royalties and book release schedules, the Internet gossips, and her private life.  Soon she’s going to be in charge of the company.

Do you think she’s going to be effective in that position?  Do you trust her with your ms?

Because you know…a lot of people have been saying how she’s a nice woman to defend her (and ironically nobody said she was a bitch or anything).  But being nice doesn’t mean being competent, much less being damn good at your job.

So are the bracelets the same price as a Short Novella or is it priced per link?

Let’s see a hand beaded necklace or a novel…

Oh lord, this whole thing is so juicy but but but…

I would feel really awful using that “gift certificate” joke here.

This comment thread is much more reasoned than the other.  It’s a relief because one of the main reasons I occasionally stop by this site (pretends not to see proof on the right sidebar of just how much time I spend here) is for reasoned, logical argument that skips the OH YOU MEANIE YOUR A BOOK-BURNING NAZIE crap.

I also find it highly amusing and ironic that, if not for GN’s passionate “defenders,” I never would’ve known what she posted about her daughter.  That info was gone by the time I dropped by.  Since everyone was too busy finger-wagging at the Bitches (and La Nora) to think about exercising a little discretion of their own, I’m now privy to the same TMI about which they’re complaining so strenuously.  This diarrhea of the keyboard is apparently contagious.

That being said, I can’t think of anything else to add to the discussion.  It’s been well-covered and I’m ready to see some covers get snarked or read some reviews.

I wrote a fucking book.  I doubt it will be of interest to anyone but Candy (if that) but I responded to you on my blog.  If you are cool with me posting 100,000 words in your comments I am happy to move it here (dude I am a lazy fuck who hates to click out too).

But really I am not a smart bitch so you won’t miss much. 

Thanks Candy, you are always one interesting bitch to disagree with, I like that about you.  Of course I also really, really WANT you to change my mind for my own sick reasons ;).

The whole thing seems pretty cut-and-dried to me: RWA responded to Triskelion’s problems by not allowing them to solicit even more authors at the national convention this year. A lot of people were curious about why this happened and what was going on, and the Smart Bitches posted information to shed light on the subject. Information that is helpful to potential authors, I might add.

But still, I had to laugh when I read this: “nutty crazysauce people who can’t argue without resorting to name calling.” The irony of that one is just too rich, considering I’m pretty sure it’s name calling to refer to those who disagree with your viewpoint as, “nutty crazysauce people.”

Just saying.

We have Irony!

I never ask Alanis Morissette because she thinks bad luck is ironic.

Wow.

Yes, I am (at least one of, who knows if there were more than just me?) the leaker. I sent the email to the SBs. (And you guys can email me if I was the only one, I’ll confirm this is me.)

For the record, I did NOT get the email from any private loop; I am not a member of any Triskelion loops. It was forwarded to me by more than one person, which honestly made me believe it was being spread all over the internet anyway.

I didn’t intend it as gossip. I barely even noticed the personal stuff at the bottom because to me the important thing was the contemptuous attitude towards RWA and writers who didn’t agree with Ms. Northman, and the quote of the letter sent by RWA. I thought that was important, that it was something people would want and need to see.

That’s all. I genuinely wasn’t trying to personally hurt anyone.

Maybe it’s a little late to post this now. I probably should have said something yesterday when everyone was saying what a disgusting person I am and how I should burn in hell for gossiping or whatever. But frankly I was a little scared, and I’m a little scared now even. I’m not trying to stir the pot, just to say something.

That’s all. It’s just important to me that people know I didn’t deliberately invade anyone’s privacy, and I wasn’t the only person sending the email to other people either. Yes, I should have deleted the personal stuff at the bottom before I sent it along, but A) if I had people would have said that wasn’t the complete email, and B) it didn’t even occur to me that that was what people would focus on. Who cares about someone’s personal life? This was about a publishing company imploding, not some teenager.

For that I am very sorry. But I’m not sorry I forwarded an email that several people were already sending around.

MY GOD YES.  I work for a woman-owned business.  In fact, there are only two men employed at the entire company.  They will take you aside and reprimand you if they feel you’re not socializing enough before meetings begin or sharing enough of your personal life with your coworkers.  Sometimes working with women is great, but sometimes it’s just plain old batshit.

To THE LEAK

I have to say this.  Have to. 

“If everyone else was jumping off the cliff would you?” 

Never ever say you did something just because everyone else was doing it.  You didn’t do what everyone else was doing. You took it and pushed it up to the stratosphere.  That?  Is a talent and a gift.

If you are indeed who you say you are then be YOU.  Say - Yeah.  I sent it.  I - god of all that is juicy-newsy-crawlIntoTheGutterAndDragThatBitchOutKickingAndScreamingForMassEntertainment-gossip - I DID IT.  Sure.  Others sent it around and toyed with the backdoor “Oh my how f’ed up is this?” nonsense.  But YOU recognized it’s real potential and ran with it al the way to the big bitches who could make it sing.  You are an agent of entropy.  Own it and take your rightful cut of the action. 

Don’t let anyone take this away from you. 

Myself?  Next time I have some unbelieveably bad lapse in common sense, judgement and linguistic creativity, I want you as my agent. 

I want to be the next great Internet Scandal Du Jour.  YOU are clearly the goto person to make that happen.

Never ever say you did something just because everyone else was doing it.

I don’t think that’s what s/he said?  I think the message of the post was that a) the person did not think the email was private at that point, and b) it contained important information, and c) the person wasn’t a Trisk author and therefore bound by any confidentiality agreement.

We can argue forever about the ethics of sending and posting the email.  I go back and forth myself because on one level I’m uncomfortable with all the personal stuff that remained, but had that been edited out to begin with, and had no one known it was there, I’m not sure the backlash would have been very substantial.  The informative parts of the email were, in fact, a response to the rumors and rumblings about Trisk, even though they were not addressed directly to a public audience. 

Clearly, there is a series of decisions that were made here, from Northman’s choice to write what she did, to however many authors’s decision to forward the private email, for other people outside that loop to forward the email, for the SBs to post it, and for all of us to read and/or comment on it (because we’re all complicit at that point).  IMO the two most potent points of ethical responsibility were the decision to write the email as it was and the decision of the author(s) in the Trisk loop to forward the email.  IMO it is not enough to say that one shouldn’t *expect* privacy in that kind of loop as a way to completely abdicate the author’s responsibility for originally forwarding the email.  But OTOH, had the email been completely devoid of all the personal stuff, would the outcry be so intense?  In other words, yes I think it was an ethically questionable thing to do for the Trisk author(s) to forward the email originally, but that IMO doesn’t mean that everyone in the subsequent chain shares the same level of responsibility or even that the ethical burden isn’t potentially outweighed by the importance of the issues discussed to the authors themselves.  It’s not deep throat or Enron here, but it seems clear that some Trisk authors felt that Trisk was acting wrongly itself.  Now, if the intent of the people sending out the email was to hurt Northman or injure Trisk, then that makes the whole deal a big ugly.  But nevertheless, I feel comfortable in believing that such was NOT the intent of Sarah or Candy when they made the decision to post the missive.

oh. oh. oh. HEEEEE.
(Not an orgasm, only a doh!gasm.)

I’ve been noticing some ugly-ass books on the romance/erotica shelves. The cheap look, the typo-riddled poorly-written back cover blurbs, the “my 8-year-old chose the font” titles were Big Warning Signs. I assumed they were unedited, unprofessional vanity press books. I’ve never even opened one. I’d pull one off the shelf, see it was “one of those probably-vanity books”, and move on.

Ha! Thanks to someone’s link, I now know those are Triskelion books. [wow, I’ll join the chorus of “the website sucks!” Unclear purpose, terrible organization, typos, links that go to empty pages. Can’t someone help them out? It’s painful.]

Now, I am a MONSTER buyer of books. Half my income goes to books. And I wrote off a whole publisher based on the quality of the covers [both art and content]. That? Should be a lesson.

Now, I am a MONSTER buyer of books. Half my income goes to books. And I wrote off a whole publisher based on the quality of the covers [both art and content]. That? Should be a lesson.

OUCH!!!! As an author, that hurts.  As a reader, I have to agree!

Although the saying is “never judge a book by its cover” - I think the higher prevelence is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

One of the reasons I chose Samhain to publish some of my stories was the very professional looking covers.  I was quite relieved when Trisk gave me a cover with only a red rose on it…much better than some of what else they had out there.

I don’t think that’s what s/he said?  ~ Robin

We interpret this differently then.

I wasn’t the only person sending the email to other people either.

I forwarded an email that several people were already sending around.

And it started with this:

Yes, I am (at least one of, who knows if there were more than just me?) the leaker. I sent the email to the SBs. (And you guys can email me if I was the only one, I’ll confirm this is me.)

Is it just me?  Am I the only one who reads that as meaning this person thought they were one of many, doing something others were doing, part of a - dare I call it - trend and not a leader?

Okay, Ferfe, but at least include the contextual text, too:

For the record, I did NOT get the email from any private loop; I am not a member of any Triskelion loops. It was forwarded to me by more than one person, which honestly made me believe it was being spread all over the internet anyway.

I didn’t intend it as gossip. I barely even noticed the personal stuff at the bottom because to me the important thing was the contemptuous attitude towards RWA and writers who didn’t agree with Ms. Northman, and the quote of the letter sent by RWA. I thought that was important, that it was something people would want and need to see.

IMO there’s a difference between saying, “don’t blame me because everyone else was doing it,” and saying “I received enough forwarded copies that I assumed it was no longer private information.”  Obviously I think The Leak is saying the second of these.

Does it make this whole thing less unsavory?  Hell no. Would I be complaining and horrified if I were Gail Northman or her friends and loved ones?  Oh, most certainly.  Do I personally admire the choice each person made in this chain?  Negative.  But I still contend that had there been no TMI personal info included in the email, either as written or posted, that a lot of drama and debate around the ethics and implications of its revelation would be absent.

I have to say I read The Leaker’s post as Robin did, not as a dare or an everybody’s doing it so I will, too.

~But I still contend that had there been no TMI personal info included in the email, either as written or posted, that a lot of drama and debate around the ethics and implications of its revelation would be absent.~

Agree again. Gee, Robin, this must be a record—two in a row!

I do think there would have been drama and accusations and bitch-slinging regardless, but on a lower level.

I hate to correct the Smart Bitches, ‘cuz you guys are SMRT.  However, I view all the “you bad meanie beanies” tossed at Sarah and Candy yesterday by Trisk authors as merely self-serving pap.  Northman said you’re with her or against her.  So a few suck ups came out solidly with her.  Business as usual.  The only brown noser I worry about is Valerie, since she did not have the, er, intestinal fortitude to post her full name.  But manybe I wrong her and there is only one Valerie writing soft porn, er, erotica for Trisk to sell along with their “Ding, dong, Avon calling” style jewelry.  But the newbies explaining the romance novel market to Nora (250 million books IN PRINT) Roberts was really cute.

Agree again. Gee, Robin, this must be a record—two in a row!

It must be all those shots!

I’ve written elsewhere at length about how much I despise the “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” mentality in the romance world. I applaud everybody for calling things as they see them. As contradictory as this may sound, I also despise people whose jealousy of Nora Roberts compels them to say mean things to her on blogs. Personal attacks are a waste of time. Talk to the topic.

I’ve also written elsewhere about this constant “I don’t get no respect” wail in the romance world. The problem with complaining is that complaining assumes that someone else will listen and fix things for you. That’s not the way the world works outside your own home.

So, motivated by all this bitching, I went to Borders yesterday and actually looked at everybody’s books. Triskelion’s are very cheap and unprofessional, far and away the worst presentation of all the romance small presses.

An example: One of the books I looked at from Triskelion justified the very last line of the novel, so there was embarrassing white space between the three words, instead of the line end ragged. It’s a very amateurish error and one easy to correct. Easy if you happen to know anything about printing, about electronic files, and about publishing editorial standards, which evidently Triskelion does not.

Another embarrassing mistake is Triskelion’s ignorant habit of putting the copyright page before the title page, and then starting the text of the novel on a verso instead of a recto. Don’t know a verso from a recto? Then WTF are you doing claiming you’re a publisher? Yes, some of their books did have this correct, but half did not.

I could go on and on. I picked up every Triskelion book on the shelves. It’s pretty obvious why Triskelion might need to cut back on its print plans. Triskelion does not compete visually. The covers are horrendous. The paper is wrong. The binding is wrong. The printing is pretty bad. Even the layout of the type on the page is poor. The people at Triskelion do not know what they are doing.

Now hold on, you say. Some of their authors are quite happy with them. I get it. I really do. If your book comes out anywhere, under any conditions, you’re likely to be happier than if nobody published it. But the sad truth is that Triskelion is producing a product that looks like an ignorant self-published book, and it simply cannot compete with all the far better looking products available. It doesn’t even feel like a proper book.

Does the presentation matter? Of course! You can print the darn thing yourself if you want to. A publisher is supposed to make your book look good. By inference, the professional packaging assures the reader that your writing is good, too, that the same professionalism has been applied editorially to the story. That’s not the message Triskelion is sending.

When the editor at Triskelion talks publicly in a manner that other professionals do not, including egregious spelling errors, that’s another sign that this company does not have it together. So I think SB has done romance writers a favor by publicizing this situation. Writers may still choose to stick with Triskelion. And Triskelion may weather this situation and improve. But right now, indications are not rosy.

I’ve written elsewhere at length about how much I despise the “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” mentality in the romance world.

IMO one of the reasons you so often see the resort to “free speech” arguments in these discussions is that so many people *don’t* feel free to speak their mind.  But they mix up the fact that the First Amendment prohibits government censorship, not a Romance culture of ‘nicespeak.’  Although I’m starting to wonder which is more difficult to challenge.

SB Sarah: The right-hand pages (the ones that would be facing you if the book were closed and you were looking at the cover; traditionally odd-numbered) are recto, and the left-hand pages (on the back side of when you’re holding said closed book; traditionally even-numbered) are verso.

Now, if you really want rude publishing words, let’s start with “bastard title” and “cockled”....  (http://www.alibris.com/glossary/glossary.cfm)

(And I’ve always thought “colophon” sounded vaguely unsavory.)

yes I think it was an ethically questionable thing to do for the Trisk author(s) to forward the email originally, but that IMO doesn’t mean that everyone in the subsequent chain shares the same level of responsibility or even that the ethical burden isn’t potentially outweighed by the importance of the issues discussed to the authors themselves.

Hopping on the agreeing-with-Robin bandwagon here.  (I mean, Nora did it, and following the WWND Law of Ethics…) 

I think the SBs acted according to their journalistic instincts in posting the letter.  It makes me uncomfortable to hear myself think, “They shouldn’t have done that,” when I’m normally a big supporter of whistleblowers and the media they use to get out their message.

But I still would’ve preferred the note be paraphrased (preferably at the source) to comply with the rules of the loop.  I understand Candy’s rationale that a paraphrase or summary might be construed as twisting the story to their own interpretation, but isn’t that what journalists do?  They filter the information and make a judgment call. 

IMO, the same noble purpose (warning prospective Trisk authors away from a bad publishing situation) could have been served in a less inflammatory way and might have inspired less hysterics on the part of Northman’s defenders.

I actually think this has as much to do with blog culture in general as it does with Romance-landia.  Bloggers sometimes have to choose between fireworks (which bring lots of hits) and reasoned debate.  Do they want to be more like a newspaper or a tabloid?

But that’s a whole ‘nother topic, respectfully submitted.

“But I still contend that had there been no TMI personal info included in the email, either as written or posted, that a lot of drama and debate around the ethics and implications of its revelation would be absent.”

Robin I agree - and I’m probably going to be in the minority on this - BUT… I think it was important to read the TMI in the context of the email (I didn’t need the facts - by the time I saw the post it had already been edited - but I understood that this woman used a situation with her daughter in an email to authors as some sort of excuse). Beyond the tone, the sarcasm, the immaturity of the response - THAT fact put it over the edge for me.

It really painted the picture that this woman should not be in the position she was/is going to be - whatever.

I get it. We all feel bad for the kid. But as someone said earlier - this isn’t about a teenager. This is about a publisher who has gone off her rocker - and should serve as a warning to ANYONE who is putting their hopes of getting “published” into her hands.

Oooooo, my MFA is actucally going to come in handy today. LOL! These are the names for the front and back sides of a page. “Recto” is the right-hand page in an open book, and the back of that page (the left-hand side) is the “verso”.

Thank you Sarah and Candy and the Bitchery for this informative (and slightly entertaining) discussion.

Moreover, I posted the whole shebang simply because…

I see your point, Sarah, and it makes a lot of sense.

However, because we disagreed, I have no choice but to end this argument South Philly style:

You’re dead to me.

(And then we never speak again and I tell everyone you’re a whore.  Hey, it works for my in-laws….)

Great good God on Great good God on a pogo stick, what a disaster! Reading the comments for these two related posts has kept me busy for HOURS. And after looking at Triskelion’s website, I suddenly find Ms. Northman’s behavior less surprising. Mainly because of this blurb from the bottom of the front page:

“On a more serious note:

Look at the News section for more about Ovarian cancer. “

Did I just read a blurb that basically said “read this woman’s book because she has cancer?” Because that is sure as hell what it looked like to me, and that just… I have no words. I am all for making people aware of ovarian cancer, but the idea that people should look at her book because she had it is (I think) incredibly insulting to her as an author. Maybe it’s just me, but I would want my books judged on their merit, not on the fact I waited 10 years to find a publisher, or that I was losing my battle with cancer. UGH. Not to mention how much I dislike the implied attitude of “we are so awesome because we published this person when no one else would, and she has cancer and all other publishers are mean and HATE new authors.”

Now see I would have just shown a picture of the author with these really teary eyes and a pleading expression.

Then put under it.

Buy This Book Or The Writer Gets It.

I Adore Cheap Sentiment
- Bette Davis

Did I just read a blurb that basically said “read this woman’s book because she has cancer?” Because that is sure as hell what it looked like to me, and that just… I have no words. I am all for making people aware of ovarian cancer, but the idea that people should look at her book because she had it is (I think) incredibly insulting to her as an author. Maybe it’s just me, but I would want my books judged on their merit, not on the fact I waited 10 years to find a publisher, or that I was losing my battle with cancer. UGH. Not to mention how much I dislike the implied attitude of “we are so awesome because we published this person when no one else would, and she has cancer and all other publishers are mean and HATE new authors.”

Whatever the purpose or way this sounded, it certainly has helped that author’s sales.  She’s been the number one bestseller there for several weeks - at least since that blurb was put up on the website.

Not that I’m bitter ;-)

Seriously, the author’s situation is extremely sad, but I often questioned the judgment of bringing her personal pain so out into the open like that.  I can only assume she gave permission of some sort.

OK, I’m not sure why my god on a pogo stick comment developed a stutter, but sorry about that.

Leslie -
Well, I guess I’m glad it’s working… sort of. It would really suck to have your personal business out there on a platter and then NOT increase your sales. But again I think I’d always wonder if people were buying my books because they thought they were good, or because I had cancer. But I guess if they’re getting sold, then maybe that’s the bottom line. It’s just not an advertising tactic that appeals to me personally.

I received same email yesterday morning and what interested me was Triskelion’s disinvitation.  I thought Northman made poor choice in talking about her family problems for whatever reason, but didn’t realize that people would see that as important to show the problems Triskelion presents as a potential publisher.

I debated posting the Allison Kelley part in full and even though I had permission to post via THE LEAK, I wasn’t sure of the appropriateness of it.  I didn’t have any personal investment, either financial or emotional, in Triskelion or its authors and therefore the posting of it didn’t affect me personally. But Sybil received the same email from the same LEAK and urged me not to post any part of the email.  I had emailed Triskelion and RWA and recieved responses that I felt comfortable posting.  Had I not received those emails, would I have posted some sort of the email. Probably.

Does the LEAK show bad judgment in forwarding the email?  I guess I don’t know.  It contained information that was important to be publicized because there are alot of authors out there that read these “reader” oriented blogs.  What implication does it have for me as a reader?  (pick up and drink once or three times depending on your game).  Not alot except I have enjoyed Trisk authors in the past and will in the future, I hope, as I don’t think that I am going to burn the whole forest because of a few bad trees.  I’m still frustrated that Lynne Connolly’s Rose and Richard series isn’t finding the light of day. 

My eyebrows were raised when I read people writing off Trisk because of its bookstore and covers.  Samhain sells jewelry and other non related book items at its store that I think it doesn’t even own.  Ditto with Barnes and Noble and Borders.  The covers at alot of houses are bad. I think some of the covers at Samhain are very cheesy. 

I know that this whole episode makes me nervous because some people (referencing some comments and not the SBs) clearly believe that anything that is emailed is fare game for forwarding.  I do not believe that. I believe that we should have the same rights of privacy in this digital age as we do in the paper age.  What people send to me is confidential and personal and I believe, until proven otherwise, that what I send to others is personal and confidential. 

Finally, and this may get me skewered, I have a problem with raising Nora Roberts up as the oracle of all that is good, that she is above being singled out for bad behavior (and I am not saying she did anything that was bad here), but then on the other hand saying she is just one of the washed or unwashed masses.  If we are all equals here and entitled to equal weight being given to each opinion regardless of our name, our booksales, or our position (writer, reader, beggarman, thief), then we are all subject to the same “shame on yous” as everyone else, regardless of whether those shame on yous are justified.

Finally, I do think that there is a greater need for professionalism in the romance genre.  Theresa Meyers handled this exquisitely and it gives me a lot of admiration for her.

~But I still contend that had there been no TMI personal info included in the email, either as written or posted, that a lot of drama and debate around the ethics and implications of its revelation would be absent.~

I think it is great that Robin and Nora take the high road and attach only the best of intentions to “The Leaks” actions.  There has been a great deal of hand wringing in this thread over how the entire subject and supporting documentation was handled and self review is admirable.

The fact that some participants have expressed such concerns, however insubstantial, suggests that somewhere in and amongst the “ends justifies the means” method of blog broadcasting, bad things happened.  I’m not in any way shape or form invested in Triskelions troubles.  What interests me is gossip and how it spreads.  What keeps me reading this thread and other related threads is how people justify what they do and say. 

When I zeroed in on one of the negative driving factors fanning the flames, “Everyone else is doing it too”, I thought it was sad but interesting that no one agreed. The two people willing to even address it knee jerked as far over to the nice side as humanly possible considering how inhumane this public stoning of a complete stranger and her daughter is.

If we are going to say and do bad things, why do we need pretense?  I am probably the only person on earth who thinks this way.  Please don’t get all defensive and riteous on me again.  I’m not saying this kind of thing is wrong.  It’s the way of the web.  Informative?  Yes.  Educational?  Definitely. Reprehensible and downright nasty?  Well that’s the best part, isn’t it?  Why deny it?

“Finally, and this may get me skewered, I have a problem with raising Nora Roberts up as the oracle of all that is good, that she is above being singled out for bad behavior…”

Certainly not skewered - maybe just a little fried. Seriously Jane - I think the issue people had was that she was singled out at all. People were posting their opinions - including Nora. There was no reason for the poster to call attention specifically to her OTHER than because she happens to be Nora.

It was just really innappropriate -I thought - in that kind of discussion. It was as if the poster was holding her to some higher standard (Was it Paragon of All Womanly Virtue - I forget) when all she was doing was stating her opinion like everyone else.

Many people shared Nora’s opinion, and posted as much, but she was the only one to get the “shame on you” response.

Well her and Sarah and Candy - who were called several things that would were really uncalled for.

It’s a good thing you guys have a sense of humor about it!

Jane, my objection was—and I think the objection of others was—that I was the only commentor singled out and named for shame. It was that poster who took me out of the box, imo.

I guess what I am saying is that we readers and commenters need to be careful about raising someone up on a pedestal because if we do it often then there is the tendency to single that pedestal standing person out when he or she is giving an opinion that is disagreed with, even if there are a chorus of others also disagreeing.

And, god, lest I be stoned here, I think that Nora, you had every right to respond to the singling out.  I just felt uncomfortable with the pile on.

“I know that this whole episode makes me nervous because some people (referencing some comments and not the SBs) clearly believe that anything that is emailed is fare game for forwarding.  I do not believe that. I believe that we should have the same rights of privacy in this digital age as we do in the paper age.”

I fully agree with this based on the situation of The Originator sending The Leak a note “one on one” about a “personal matter” because The Leak had that type of “personal relationship” with The Originator to begin with. Then The Leak forwarding said note would be very very wrong and it would be GOSSIP.

No argument.

BUT! If I was part of that “loop” of 200 people and got something like this, I would be amazed at the audacity to assume my business with them included their ability to lay their personal problems on me and expect confidentiality on top of it.

I think this note crossed a professional line in what I would consider to be an abusive manner. I think the originator was in the wrong and on top of it placed the people who received this note in an untenable position if they actually had valid issues to address at this time.

The first and last rule of acting professionally is to keep your personal life to yourself. It is one thing to expose personal matters inadvertently, it is plainly another to do so with intent to use that information in regards to your business activities.

What do you do with that information anyway? You know, I think it is along the line of… Don’t bother me with your stupid business problems right now people because look at what a mess my private life is.

Wow, Jane you know, if I had received that note I would so want to share the uncomfortable experience of unsolicited personal matters divulged in a work forum and framed as a business practice.

It may not be illegal but it does not make for a comfortable working environment.

My eyebrows were raised when I read people writing off Trisk because of its bookstore and covers.  Samhain sells jewelry and other non related book items at its store that I think it doesn’t even own.  Ditto with Barnes and Noble and Borders.

Yes, but Borders and B&N are not publishers, they are stores. If I went to the Penguin Books website and their online catalog was full of lipstick and socks, that would be pretty WTF, don’t you think?

If Triskelion wants to be taken seriously as a publisher, especially a publisher just expanding into print books, they need to focus on books, period.

I fully agree with this based on the situation of The Originator sending
The Leak a note “one on one” about a “personal matter” because The Leak
had that type of “personal relationship” with The Originator to begin
with. Then The Leak forwarding said note would be very very wrong and it
would be GOSSIP.

No argument.

BUT! If I was part of that “loop” of 200 people and got something like
this, I would be amazed at the audacity to assume my business with them
included their ability to lay their personal problems on me and expect
confidentiality on top of it.

So. 

~ First hand source passing on information is gossip. 

~ Second or third hand source passing on information is not gossip. 

The more people in on it, the less gossipy.  This gets me back to the defense that “everyone else was doing it so passing it along is a public service”.

It’s like money laundering!

“Personal Relationship” matter versus “Business Matter”.

“Professional Behavior” versus creating an “Uncomfortable Situation”.

I sent it to the Bitches and the Ja(y)nes. I sent it to a friend I often email.

That’s it. I didn’t send it to Sybil. I didn’t send it to any other bloggers. So any blogger other than the Ja(y)nes and the Bitches who says they know who I am and they got it from me is mistaken. Perhaps someone else forwarded it on to them, I don’t know. But while I did forward it after it had been forwarded to me by several different people, I did not wallpaper the internet with it. 

I don’t want to argue my motives. If I had to do it again I wouldn’t.

“Samhain sells jewelry and other non related book items at its store that I think it doesn’t even own.”

You are so right and I have pointed out several times that back end store is their worse mis-step in that whole site.

“Personal Relationship” matter versus “Business Matter”.

“Professional Behavior” versus creating an “Uncomfortable Situation”.

But you and I wouldn’t know about it without “The Leak”.  Or maybe it was taking on a life of it’s own and would have bubbled up to the surface eventualy.  It is business news, certainly.  Jane took a source and followed up with it—what most ethical reporters would do.  The SB’s took the raw, unedited material and posted it for disection (haven’t read that thread BTW because discussions like that make me physically ill).  Over and over they seemed to equate a lack of malice with a lack of responsibility for the outcome.  If intent was not evil and bad things result, then we must hold them harmless?  Ok.  Or as with these kinds of trainwrecks, it’s no ones’ fault but the idiot who sent the original email out in the first place.  Also an interesting justification and dodge of the bullet.

This thread began with a post discussing the process, not the (basically irrelevent) topic that was propelled by the process.  Triskelion isn’t the first and it won’t be the last to get sucked into this process. 

(The process being “blasted from the back rooms of the web where most people know the parties involved out onto the public whipping post for indifferent and cynical dissection” in case anyone is unclear what I mean by that generic term.)

On a side note, I agree with Jane.  Emails should be considered private, even unprofessional business emails.  It’s not a right, it’s an unwritten rule of civility.

“The SB’s took the raw, unedited material and posted it for disection (haven’t read that thread BTW because discussions like that make me physically ill).  Over and over they seemed to equate a lack of malice with a lack of responsibility for the outcome.”

I think you have already decided that you are defending the note as “confidential personal material” despite apparent indicators that it was in no way private.

I see as it as a highly improper business practice of abusing those who do business with you by divulging “personal information” in a mass mailing.

I read a much darker intent into that note and would have been very annoyed to have gotten it. I would not have even the slightest problem sharing it nor would I feel I had given even my implied consent to that person to keep such inappropriate behavior confidential.

Hold that thought Teddy, it’s an interesting one.  Let’s shift over to Jane and Nora’s thread where they take exception to Nora being singled out for censure.  If I read the justification for this being an out of line spotlight, they are saying Nora should not be singled out for saying what numerous other people have essentially said as well.  Ergo, everyone else is saying it, why pick on Nora?  Because she is the high dollar target in the shooting range?

Does the fact that everyone else is doing it\saying it make her less of a target in the same way that the gossip dillution theory (Money laundering) works?

~If I read the justification for this being an out of line spotlight, they are saying Nora should not be singled out for saying what numerous other people have essentially said as well.  Ergo, everyone else is saying it, why pick on Nora?  Because she is the high dollar target in the shooting range?~

Apples/footballs.

No one should be singled out for expressing an opinion in reasonable terms. Whether or not others share that opinion. If it’s expressed reasonably one should not be singled out for the shame game because she’s a known name. And in this case, that was the only reason it was done.

It’s not a matter of follow-the-leader, or my friends all did it, so why can’t I sort of justification, which is how you’re equating the forwarding of the post.

Whether I agree with that justification or not, culling out one person because they’re recognizable in the industry isn’t at all the same thing.

I think Nora supported her opinion with well thought out reasoning and I agreed with it.

I think the BIG issue I had was over the “sneering” which accompanied the “cherry picking” of her comments alone.

Which is again “inappropriate behavior”.

I cannot even begin to address “money laundering” because I think that is also way outside of this discussion and implies “criminal intent”.

If we are going to say and do bad things, why do we need pretense?  I am probably the only person on earth who thinks this way.  Please don’t get all defensive and riteous on me again.  I’m not saying this kind of thing is wrong.  It’s the way of the web.  Informative?  Yes.  Educational?  Definitely. Reprehensible and downright nasty?  Well that’s the best part, isn’t it?  Why deny it?

You’re not saying it’s wrong, you’re just saying it’s reprehensible and downright nasty. Am I missing some obvious sarcasm or are you sincerely trying to give neutral connotation to the words “reprehensible” and “nasty”? Right now I’m interpreting it as sarcasm because I don’t see how an alternate definition would work.

Oh, nevermind, having read the rest of the comments I see you fall into the “it was wrong” camp.

When I zeroed in on one of the negative driving factors fanning the flames, “Everyone else is doing it too”, I thought it was sad but interesting that no one agreed. The two people willing to even address it knee jerked as far over to the nice side as humanly possible considering how inhumane this public stoning of a complete stranger and her daughter is.

Assuming I was one of the two, I consider my response one of careful and close reading, but hey, whatever.  That we disagreed does not make my reading anything but different from yours, and, I believe, very supportable given the text of The Leak’s posts. 

Beyond that, though, I just want to point out that I have not attacked Northman either personally or professionally. I have stated more than once that I feel sorry for her AND her child, and I have also indicated my belief that her email demonstrates severe emotional distress and a blurring of personal/professional boundaries that, IMO, must have had *some* effect on Trisk, whatever that is.  As gossip, IMO the non-personal part of the email (which is the bulk of it) has very low value on the scale of fascinating, and the “gossip” part was, as others have pointed out, mentioned here after the actual portion was removed from the email by some of the folks who were supposedly on Northman’s side.  Since I (thankfully) read the email after that info was removed, the irony of finding out what it said from people lambasting Sarah was disturbing, to say the least.

IMO the only easy position to take here is that of “it was wrong to post the email,” and generally those morally absolutist positions are really appealing, in part because they don’t require a lot of messy moral and ethical reconciliation. But I have personally found them to be largely unworkable in life, leading to an eventual position of either forced hypocrisy or disillusionment (or both). 

I don’t doubt your sincerity in taking a strong moral stance regarding this situation, but I see most of the objectionable language coming from the extreme arguments on either side. A good number of us, though, have been sincerely grappling with and debating the ins and outs of what happened here, both with Trisk and with the history of the email posting.  There are some complicated issues on both sides, IMO, and some evidentiary weight for both positions (yes on posting email v. no on posting email).  I don’t see that as knee jerk or nice or anything else that suggests an escape from moral responsibility of confrontation of the hard questions.  It may not have the moral appeal of out and out condemnation of the posting, but *for me* moral absolutism creates the same level of discomfort as the ethically nebulous ambiguous here, albeit for somewhat different reasons.  For me (and I’m not speaking for anyone else or declaring my position superior), justice is rarely contemplated from a position of moral certainty, and ethical clarity is something to arrive at rather than start with.

Late and likely redundant but… (plus nothing more than a humble reader)

If we take the Leak at his/her word (and apparently Candy/SBSarah have had previous dealings with this person, and so they do), then:

First, this person does not belong to the loop where GN posted the original message, will all its inappropriate and unprofessional TMI.

Second, GN herself started the rant with “since so and so are passing my emails around, then I’ll do it too, neener” (wild paraphrasing here), and proceeded to post a business email from RWA.

Third, by the time the Leak forwarded this to the SBs, s/he had received it from multiple channels.

Fourth, the Leak states that at this point s/he didn’t consider the content of the post private—which is in no way out of the realm of common sense, IMNSHO.

So.

Was it wrong to post the TMI, even without malicious intent? Yes, and it was removed from the post as soon as that observation was made.

Is it a shame that everyone still knows what it said because a lot of the people in the comments pretty much spilled the beans? Yes.

Do I think that GN needs a break? Hell, yes—preferably in the form of less professional responsibility so she can dedicate more time and energy to coping with the personal. Again, IMNSHO.

Was it wrong for the Leak to forward the email in toto to the SBs? Hell no. At that point in time it was pretty much common knowledge to those in any way remotely connected to the publisher, and a good few who weren’t (like say, oh, the Leak? who didn’t belong to the loop and is not an author, but had received it from different sources).

Was it wrong for the SBs to post it—without the TMI? Double hell, no. Again, to the SBs knowledge this was already going around, with all the drama and TMI.

Was there are more elegant (classy?) way to do this? As far as I’m concerned: meh, perhaps, but I still don’t see wrongdoing here.

Isn’t it more to the point, insofar as authors and readers are concerned, that GN’s email shows an appalling lack of professionalism—even removing all mention to the personal TMI? (“with me/us or against me/us”????? Hello, WTF?)

Isn’t it more to the point that, by she herself posting a private email to over 200 people, GN pretty much waived her own right to privacy? Particularly with the “tit-for-tat” middle school tone in which she did it?

Isn’t it more to the point that, by including the personal TMI in a supposedly professional communication, she violated the privacy of the people involved? Can that be considered professional behaviour anywhere?

Isn’t even more to the point that, as Teddy Pig points out, the inclusion of the personal TMI reads like a blatant attempt at manipulation? (i.e., be patient with me on the business front because my personal life is such a mess)

That’s $.02 by the way.

Damnit! That was “Was there a more elegant…” not “are”

(And of course I have to post right after Robin, who expresses herself so much better than I can… *sigh*)

Was the official email sent to Triskelion by RWA not something that was supposed to be shared with the company, since the whole company was affected?  Was it only for GH? 

Just curious.

It’s not a matter of follow-the-leader, or my friends all did it, so why can’t I sort of justification, which is how you’re equating the forwarding of the post.

Whether I agree with that justification or not, culling out one person because they’re recognizable in the industry isn’t at all the same thing.

Nora.  I didn’t read that thread so I don’t know if what you said (which by comments in this thread indicate was similar to what everyone else said) merited a “shame on you” post as the representative of the collective comments.  If you had not been among the people posting would they have said anything to anyone else?  I can only go by Janes’ post where she indicates her impression was they picked on you because you were a high profile target.

I guess the question I can’t definitively answer is: Were they pissed at everyone and took it out on you or do they just dislike you specifically and took an opportunity to take a cheap shot?  It seemed as if they were holding you to a higher standard than the “washed or unwashed masses” if I go by comments in this thread.  And everyone seemed to agree that you should be no more subject to or exempt from attack than anyone else posting.  So.  You weren’t doing anything everyone else wasn’t doing (right or wrong) and it was wrong to single you out of the crowd.

It is the same rational as “The Leak” used.

You’re not saying it’s wrong, you’re just saying it’s reprehensible and downright nasty. Am I missing some obvious sarcasm or are you sincerely trying to give neutral connotation to the words “reprehensible” and “nasty”? Right now I’m interpreting it as sarcasm because I don’t see how an alternate definition would work.

Arethusa. What you are missing is the original post was about whether or not the SB’s were – for want of a better word – wrong in their handling of the original tip.  I believe the original discussion that prompted this thread is no different from a hundred like it that came before and the hundreds more that will sadly follow.  Personally, threads like that make me sick.  I would like to see them evolve into something better, and less damaging.  But the entertainment value is what keeps them coming.  The information presented and knowledge gained seems to justify, or maybe a better word is mitigate, the fall out.  Is it bad?  Some of it is bad.  Some of it is very bad.  Some people seem to like the bad and could care less about the good that also comes out of it.  I would like to know how otherwise good people can engage in discussion like that one?  How do they rationalize their participation? 

Robin.  There are no moral absolutes but there is honesty about what happened.  Faced with the same material, and I am not holding her up as a better example, Jane chose to take a journalistic route.  The SB’s took an entertainment route and then tried to couch it in a moral blanket of “people need to know this shit don’t kill the messenger”.  Pretending this is anything other than the equivalent of a public whipping for the judgement and entertainment of readers is what is wrong about the entire discussion. 

If we are going cow tipping don’t pretend we’re at a public poetry reading.

Jane & FerfeLaBat,

I must respectfully disagree with something you said.

I think that people should have some privacy when they send some memos / letters whether hand-written, typed or digital.

BUT the rules change if you send an email out to some two hundred people.  It’s no longer private.

If I hand-wrote a letter and made two hundred copies and mailed them out to two hundred people, most of whom I’ve never met, my letter is no longer private.