Jennifer Crusie weighs in on Miss Snark’s entry about Anne Stuart. Woo damn! There is some righteous smackdownage in that there entry. Sarah and I had the following e-mail exchange after reading it this morning:
Candy: I love Jennifer Crusie with all of my body, including my pee-pee.
Sarah: That’s a lot of love. Do you love her with your clue cake?
Candy: Jenny Crusie doesn’t need clue cakes. She spits on your clue cakes. She stomps on them with her fabulous, fabulous shoes.
Sarah: I bet clue cake tastes like bad grocery store two-day-old ugly-frosted cake and isn’t very nice to look at either. So she should stomp on it.
Candy: Dude, nobody likes clue cake, not even when it’s real clue cake, as opposed to ersatz clue cake baked by an anonymous chef.
That’s one of my favorite thing[s] about this site. People disagree without the pile on, just state their opinion, discuss a bit and move on. It’s cool, and a huge compliment to the bitches that comment here.
Thanks, Ana. I have to say, that’s one of the things I’m most proud of about our site. We can disagree but we do it with class, and we don’t sling insults instead of rational arguments. The pile on can get exhausting. And? Boooring.
As for pile on, I’m still bemused that again, Stuart makes a comment about her feeling that her publisher doesn’t have her back, and instead of asking whether (a) it’s true or (b) if anything can be done about it, the debate is focused on whether or not she should have said anything.
‘As for pile on, I’m still bemused that again, Stuart makes a comment about her feeling that her publisher doesn’t have her back, and instead of asking whether (a) it’s true or (b) if anything can be done about it, the debate is focused on whether or not she should have said anything.’
Excellent point. And there’s no real way to debate that without more information.
So what I would like to know:
Did the publisher promise something to Stuart and drop the ball, or is Stuart wanting something extra the publisher is not obligated or capable of producing?
If I dropped the ball for one of my people, I would much rather have them approach me about it than read about it on their blog. Was this done, and it was blogged about because the publisher did nothing, or was the blog post done without taking that action?
I don’t think Miss Snark’s general message was wholly wrong, either. While an author shouldn’t feel obligated to shut up and just take it, posting diatribes about how badly the people who are selling your books suck is hardly a way to negotiate. I’ve had people do that just to get out of a contract, so I’m naturally suspicious of the motives of those who do. In the end, it’s your professional image that suffers.
So what I would like to know:
Did the publisher promise something to Stuart and drop the ball, or is Stuart wanting something extra the publisher is not obligated or capable of producing?
Anne Stuart gave an explanation on the Story Broads blog:
Mira had screwed up on a number of things, leaving me with a lower print run and not the kind of placement I needed.
So if that’s what happened then presumably Mira knew they’d messed up. I don’t know anything about publishing, but is a print run something that can be fixed at a later date? Can books go back quickly for a second print run? And, to look on the bright side of all this controversy, which, from the sound of it has upset Anne Stuart and her friends, maybe it’s helped raise her profile and got her some more sales? Anyway, if Mira were at fault, and the book sold well, I can’t see any reason why Mira would be annoyed with Anne Stuart.
‘Mira had screwed up on a number of things, leaving me with a lower print run and not the kind of placement I needed.
So if that’s what happened then presumably Mira knew they’d messed up.’
That’s what started all this?
If that’s what Miss Snark was commenting on, she had a point. It wasn’t necessary for Anne to make that comment on her blog, and it does come off as a bit unprofessional. But it certainly wasn’t worth anyone getting wired about, or anyone else getting wired about someone getting wired about it. It was just a tired author venting a little stress. I hear worse than that every day.
So my opinion is: Anne was not WRONG to post the comment on her blog, but it wasn’t necessary to do so. And a simple fact of life—the first amendment gives you the right to say what you like, but it does not protect you from actions resulting from those words.
Now let’s should go have a margarita and talk about Napoli. Better yet, go stick SBTB stickers on the Metro ads.
Oh dear, I seem to have confused things a bit. I think what happened was that Anne Stuart made a comment in her interview published at AAR. In that she spoke about a number of her publishers, including Mira. It was posted on 29 October. Miss Snark’s post, written on 3 November refers to the comments made by Anne Stuart and posted at AAR. Anne Stuart’s comments on the Story Broads blog were made on 6 November and I mentioned them because they seemed to clarify what the specific problems with Mira had been. But if you read it in full, it doesn’t seem to me that she’s said anything particularly bad about Mira. And her original comments at AAR were about a lot of different publishers. She also said, in the AAR interview that ‘right now I’m pretty disillusioned about the lack of support from them. I’ll get over it’, and that’s precisely what she did, because she had got over it by the 9th of November.
Mistress Stef, just to correct a few misconceptions:
– Anne Stuart didn’t state her opinion of Mira on her blog—not initially, anyway. She stated her opinion in an interview at All About Romance, in answer to a question LLB posed.
– A lot of people have been bringing up the fact that free speech means dealing with the backlash of the speech, which is all well and true and good, but Anne Stuart herself hasn’t reacted (directly and publicly, anyway) to this brouhaha, nor has she tried to duck responsibility, backtrack or justify her words. Just thought I’d like to point that out.
‘She also said, in the AAR interview that ‘right now I’m pretty disillusioned about the lack of support from them. I’ll get over it’, and that’s precisely what she did, because she had got over it by the 9th of November.’
Okay…if she’s over it, why isn’t everyone else?
but Anne Stuart herself hasn’t reacted (directly and publicly, anyway) to this brouhaha, nor has she tried to duck responsibility, backtrack or justify her words. Just thought I’d like to point that out.
Okay..and another person said she’s over it. So why are other people leaping to defend something that is apparently a non-issue?
Okay…if she’s over it, why isn’t everyone else?
Well, I imagine she was over her original disappointment with Mira, and on 30 October Isabel Swift (Vice President Author & Asset Development at Harlequin) posted about how she and some colleagues had formed a ‘imaginary buddies of Anne Stuart’ group because they love her books so much. So probably if things had stopped there, Anne Stuart and Mira would both have been fine and ‘over it’. But maybe Anne Stuart’s been upset by some of the comments made by Miss Snark/people who agree with Miss Snark. That would explain why Jenny Crusie got involved, in defence of her friend. Also, it seems like the discussion’s really gone beyond what Anne Stuart said and onto the topic of what’s professional behaviour for authors, and whether or not authors should speak publicly about problems within the industry.
Like Robin said, other authors have criticised aspects of the industry. Robin mentioned an article by Candice Proctor which the RWA declined to publish in the RWR and Jenny Crusie wrote an essay on why category romance isn’t given much respect which criticises the attitudes of publishers, editors and authors. There are probably other authors saying similar things. It’s also related to what Laura Kinsale’s said in comments on this blog about her writing being art. Other writers didn’t entirely agree, and were of the opinion that their works were products. I can see both sides of the argument, but it does seem that there’s a divide between (a) the writers who see their work as art and want it to be appreciated and might therefore feel inclined to speak out when their publishers/the industry aren’t, in their opinion, doing enough to promote the books and (b) the writers who are worried about keeping their jobs/who perhaps see their books more in terms of ‘products’/for entertainment (maybe not at the stage when they’re writing, but certainly once they’re in the hands of the publisher). It seems to me that these two groups might have rather different ideas of what constitutes ‘professional’ behaviour.
And there are probably lots of less vocal people who either don’t think about these issues, or don’t talk about them publicly.
Anyway, I’m speculating here, basing my opinions on comments I’ve read online, so I could be completely wrong, but that’s the impression I’ve got.
That makes sense. There’s certainly many valid reasons to complain about the industry.
So the reason it got so out of hand is (your opinion) that nasty things were said after the actual issue was resolved?
So the reason it got so out of hand is (your opinion) that nasty things were said after the actual issue was resolved?
Well, it seems that way to me. It was Miss Snark who got personal by calling Anne Stuart a nitwit and started talking about ‘clue cake’. It was also Miss Snark who started off the discussion about what is or isn’t professional behaviour. Jenny Crusie didn’t like her friend being called a nitwit, and she didn’t like the reference to ‘clue cake’. She also didn’t agree on the issue of what’s appropriate professional behaviour for a writer. So yes, it seems to me that as far as Anne Stuart and Mira were concerned the issue had been resolved, but then things got really, really heated because of Miss Snark’s comments. That said, it wasn’t just because Miss Snark said ‘nasty things’, it was also because the issue of what constitutes professional behaviour seems to be one which provokes a lot of controversy.
“It’s happening right now with Witliz’s comments, just in rebuttal. The pile-on mentality is the one thing that makes me most uncomfortable about the blog or messageboard situation…”
Robin,
I posted on the Jenny Crusie blog about Witliz. I didn’t realize I was adding to the pile-on mentality until you said something. I will be careful in the future. I just found what she said to be kind of threatening – here is a sample:
“I’d hate for both of you fine writers to learn that the hard way, and I’d really hate for you both to go down together. But it’s possible if neither one of you cultivates the fine art of gratitude as well as learning the fine art of grace, even in the face of getting dissed.
For the commenters, aka ex-snarklings, who just dissed Miss Snark…It’s not a good idea to burn a bridge this publicly, ‘cos if I recognize you, so will others.
Really, the best thing anybody can do that feels slighted is to keep mouth shut, and remember to be grateful for what you’ve been given.”
As of today I think only about 3 people commented on the site about what Witliz said. Does that constitute a pile-on? I am not being smart, I really don’t know. Or is it what was being said to Witliz? Who, yes I did call witless…(rolls eyes, after being caught by Mom…)
And Candy – your cat pics are fab!
oooh! Verification word: strength31
‘it was also because the issue of what constitutes professional behaviour seems to be one which provokes a lot of controversy.’
That’s what I’m curious about. It had seemed to me that Ms. Stuart opened the door by posting the less than flattering comment about her publisher. Why is it that Miss Snark is condemned for posting her opinion of that comment, yet Ms. Stuart and Ms. Crusie are lauded for speaking out on their own blogs in a similar vein?
Isn’t the root issue that people should be able to say what they like on their own blog? If so, why doesn’t that ideal also cover Miss Snark?
Unless she somehow produced legal paperwork that proved beyond a doubt that Miss Stuart is a nitwit, it’s simply her opinion.
If Stuart should be allowed to post her opinion about her publisher without repercussions, then MS should be allowed to post her opinion of that opinion as well.
You can’t have it both ways. Either your blog is your sanctuary, or everyone starts getting censored from now on. Nobody makes you read it, and to cause a major fuss just sends more people to look at it—and gives people more incentive to write this sort of thing.
Isn’t the root issue that people should be able to say what they like on their own blog? If so, why doesn’t that ideal also cover Miss Snark?
Again, just my impression, but there seem to be lots of different issues, including the one you raise. Some others are
1) Is it better to make negative comments about an individual (e.g. Anne Stuart) or about a group of unnamed individuals (Mira)?
2) Is it better to make comments while anonymous or when posting under one’s own name?
3) Some people think it’s brave of writers to criticise certain aspects of the publishing industry and they think that any attempt so silence/criticise such people is a form of censorship. Other people think it’s stupid and/or unprofessional/unwise to criticise one’s publisher.
4) All the people involved have fans – Miss Snark has her Snarklings, Anne Stuart has friends and admirers and so does Jenny Crusie. Some people may be responding out of loyalty, not just because of the other issues.
5) Controversies get people worked up and generate lots of posts
Which of these issues get particular people posting will vary from one individual to another. My reason for commenting is that I’d noticed another primary source (Anne Stuart’s blog post) that hadn’t been mentioned, and as it seemed to answer one of the questions you asked, I posted it. I like Jenny Crusie’s books, have only come across one book by Anne Stuart, and not knowing anything about publishing have at various times read both Crusie’s and Miss Snark’s comments on the industry with interest. I haven’t thought through my position on the anonymity and the right-to-post-on-one’s-own-blog issues yet.
First of all, I haven’t noticed anybody attempting to argue that Anne Stuart had a right to voice her opinion without repercussions. Pointing out a situtation is unfair is different from saying somebody has a right to something. I also didn’t notice anybody saying that Miss Snark had no right to her opinions. What I have noticed is a great deal of disagreement, both polite and not-so-polite.
Also, you present a false dichotomy with the “everybody gets to say anything they want vs. everybody gets censored.” There’s lots of happy middle ground there—such as the spirited (if occasionally ugly) disagreement and debate we’ve been seeing over this issue.
Laura V.: excellent breakdown of the issues people are getting all het up over.
Thanks, Candy and Laura, for clarifying. I honestly had no clue why everyone was getting so riled.
I still don’t see what all the hubbub was about. Seemed like just another game of snark-tag to me.
These Romance blogland disputes always seem to come down to power and issues of respect/disrespect. I’ve got a colleague at work who says that every meeting we hold at my company is less about the agenda items and more about reinforcing the hierarchy of power within the department & reaffirming allegiances. Which is what seems to be happening here, in part. I look around at the participants & ask: Who’s got the power? Is that what they are doing, sorting that question out?
Is the publisher the most powerful, and are authors permitted to disrespect that entity, or is that not forgivable? Are authors’ allegiances primarily to the publisher because of the business relationship or to themselves & to each other?
And who’s more powerful, an anonymous blogger who claims to be an agent, or an author who’s sold a lot of copies & who puts her name out there? Is it heinous when the former disrespects the latter?
A blog really feels like a power base, if it’s got a lot of traffic from fans or friends or fellow travelers. Do these affiliates feel that they owe their liege support & take up arms when their blog’s hostess is disrespected?
More often than not, when one of these disputes blows up, it really seems to come down to giving propers. Whether reviewers/bloggers are allowed to disrespect authors, and still expect to publish, and whether authors are allowed to disrespect publishers, and still expect wholehearted support for their books, & etc.
By Jove, I do believe you’ve hit the heart of it, sherryfair. In fact, to give couple more kicks to a horse long since dead, the LaBrecque/Wallace review brouhaha makes a lot more sense when viewed from this perspective. People weren’t too worked up about the review, which, let’s face it, wasn’t all THAT mean (especially not in a world with Mrs. Giggles in it), and I still don’t buy the whole “Oh, honey, you’re making such an AWFUL mistake by speaking out that way; let us show you how us professionals behave” spiel. The fact that Wallace was supposedly an aspiring author was the crux of the issue, and the offers to help were ways to assert power over her.
This Anne Stuart/Miss Snark kerfuffle is somewhat different, but I think reactions were so strong and disproportionate because of the power dynamics at play.
I don’t mean to keep kicking this dead horse but I’ve been way busy so just one quick one.
I see this as a very simple and personal issue for me:
1. Anne Stuart responded honestly to a question about her publisher.
2. Miss Snark, who is cheap entertainment if she is anything wrote in her blog that AS shouldn’t speak her mind (i.e. practice free speech) and any author who follows her example will suffer, suffer, suffer. Yes, that is her opinion and she is entitled to it.
3. J. Crusie, who’s work I love, says that AS should speak her mind even when it means criticizing her publisher, (i.e practice free speech) in fact every author can speak their mind.
I’ve been hearing other writers say what Miss Snark said and frankly it pisses me off and makes me feel threatened. I think they and Miss Snark are trying to assert power over me. I don’t like it and don’t see their attitude as being productive for me.
J. Crusie, on the other hand, makes me feel empowered. I think she’s trying to tell the truth from her perspective and in her world things aren’t that bad. I like that better.
That’s my opinion. Kind of simple I admit but my braincells are kind of fried right now and I can’t see a better way to describe it anyway. If that’s pile on mentality, sorry, some days I’m the piler, some days I’m the pilee. (teehee)
For the record, I don’t get the gripe about anonymoty (sp) at all. I’m not planning on putting my real name on the internet anytime soon.
I don’t know what your comments were, Vicki, but just for the record I think there’s a big difference between commenting on, arguing with, or rebutting someone’s comments and piling on them. The pile on, IMO, is all about those comments about how poster x is “crazy,” or some such label directed at the poster him/herself. Those comments are, IMO, personally directed and require much less thought than an actual response to the words as separate from the poster (especially since, for the most part, we don’t personally know one another in blogland). I know some people have no problem with the pile on, but I’m not a fan of it. Although in this case it’s clear that it’s not just authors who get lambasted in blogland. 😉
I’m coming late to this (thank God) but since so many people were asking why I posted the blog . . .
On Nov. 3, Miss Snark called Anne Stuart the Nitwit of the Day. On Nov 9, she posted a blog about Anne Stuart that said “Cause once is never ever enough times to be the nitwit of the day.” On Nov. 11 she posted a blog about Anne Stuart called “Nitwitery Follow up.” At that point, I asked Anne Stuart if she had run over Miss Snark’s dog. When she said, “No,” I posted my blog. Miss Snark stopped harassing Anne Stuart, very possibly for reasons having nothing to do with my blog. Anne Stuart and I went back to our regularly scheduled lives. Everybody lived happily ever after.
Hoping that clears up any questions about my motivation . . .