A Conversation with Kathryn Falk

I received an email today from the aol address that was given to me by a Romantic Times receptionist as the best way to reach Kathryn Falk. The email had a subject line: “cell phone for kathryn falk is 111-555-1212.”

There was no text to the email, so I did what any normal person would do. I called the number. Ok, first I talked to Candy, and THEN I called the number. When Ms. Falk returned my message, I spoke with her about the recent message attributed to her by several varying sources.

I asked her if she posted the long comment on Scott’s site, or if it was someone posing as her:

It was both. I’m so not into that, and someone hacks into my computer from here. Some of the words were definitely from my lectures, but I don’t ever do blogs. I’m not in the industry. I know people are upset but I don’t go on the blogs. That’s not something I’m involved in.


She went on to discuss some of her other projects involving wheelchair accessible cabins, veteran support, soldier support, and work with other charities.


When I asked why someone would pose as her, she said,

Carol said it sounded like me, and it probably is me, but I’m retired…. Carol says it my words about positivity and positive energy, but not the rest.

There’s nothing I can do about it, but I’m not set up to go online. That’s not my focus. Someone took my words but that isn’t me.

But it’s not important. People shouldn’t get off on controversy or nastiness, when it’s more important to be positive to attract good things…. When you fill your bowl of abundance with love, you receive love.

Falk went on at length about some of her projects involving soldiers and local support, and about her farm in Texas. When I asked her why someone at Romantic Times would say publicly online that the message had come from her, and if that bothered her, she said:

It was my voice, and my stuff that was said. I’d say it. I’m sure that what I said was pretty positive. I usually am.


It seemed to me that Falk was seeking to distance herself from the comments attributed to her on Scott’s site as she tried equally to make it clear how distant she is from the romance industry. She writes one letter a month for Romantic Times, she said, and has very little involvement beyond that.

Most of her comments dealt with the power of positive thinking and the advantageous effects of contributing positive energy, and at no time did she say, “Yes, I wrote those words.”

She said it sounded like her, it was something she would say, and that she was sure that it was more of the positive New Age message that she sought to communicate at all times.

So was it Kathryn Falk? Enquiring minds still are not sure.


Comments are Closed

  1. 1
    kate r says:

    my guess it was the following mix:
    a whole boatload of cocktails, some women talking and talking, a handy laptop.

    The next day, a hangover and fuzzy memories.


  2. 2
    Sarah Frantz says:

    Um, talk about personality disorders.  “It probably is me”?!?!  “It was my voice”?!?!  She might never have said that it definitely WAS her, but she never categorically denied that it was NOT her, either.  She sure doesn’t seem upset that someone hacked her account or that Ms. Stacy was claiming it was her.

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Elaine says:

    Stranger and stranger.

  5. 5
    shuzluva says:

    I have been watching events unfold simply agog. All I can say now is:


  6. 6
    Walt says:

    Maybe she has a clone that does her correspondence while she rests on her ethereal platform floating above us all…

  7. 7
    Caryle says:

    I’m so confused…

  8. 8
    jmc says:

    It was both (her and not her)?
    It was probably her?
    The words are definitely from her lectures?  (And someone stole them and posted under her name?)
    She’s not part of the industry?  (Er, then why have her bio online at RT?)

    I’m having flashback’s to the AG’s testimony—I don’t recall.  I don’t remember having that recollection.  Because it was safer for him to be seen as a moron than it was to tell the truth.  Same here?

    If she’s not set up to go online, how did someone hack her computer and post from it?

    Just wondering.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    Madeline says:

    Signs point to “I had a flunky write it for me. So it was kind of me. But I don’t want to admit it.”

  11. 11
    Catherine J. says:

    So she can’t say whether it was her or not? Hmmmm.

    My money’s either on “wrote it and doesn’t want to admit it” or “ordered a flunky to write it.”

  12. 12
    jmc says:

    Flashbacks, not flashback’s.

  13. 13
    Carrie Lofty says:

    I call bullshit.

    See, when I read the phrase “hacks into my computer,” I start imagining Denzel Washington or somesuch trying to clear his name in an international drugs/nukes/hostages/secretbabies thriller—not a poor, maligned, aw shucks professional. A little too cloak and dagger.

  14. 14
    Alessia Brio says:

    My kids lie better than that.

  15. 15
    Jonquil says:

    “Carol said it sounded like me, and it probably is me, but I’m retired…. “

    Whoa.  Our Lady of the non sequitur.

    I’m with everybody else; this could be the literal truth if she’d told somebody else to type it for her.

  16. 16
    Najida says:

    My evil twin did it!
    (Did that go out in the 80’s with Jane Seymour movies?)

  17. 17
    Amy E says:

    It probably is her… frantically trying to distance herself from her own words on the advice of a desperately-needed PR person.  My money’s on ‘backtracking at Warp 9, Cap’n!’

  18. 18
    Candy says:

    It was both? How hilarious is that? What, was her purple polka-dotted magic gnome from outer space, Hieronymous, posting on her behalf? Or is she All About Eve to Tony Catanzaro’s Baby Jane? This non-answer is so slippery that it’s an answer in and of itself.

  19. 19
    Teddy Pig says:

    I vote for Candy’s response as the best explanation of these twisted events EVA!

    BONUS POINTS Candy! For the cinematic allusion making obscure reference to the RT Hyatt Homophobes-R-US mess they still have not explained without fucking up and pissing people off even more.

  20. 20

    It was obviously her because any sane person’s response to “there are words attributed to you on a website that aren’t yours” is OMG! let me clarify immediately and try to understand why someone is impersonating me.

  21. 21
    Phyllis says:

    I’m just guessing that she has no idea how deep the sh** is, in which she is standing. She probably said/wrote some of that, but it’s out of context.

    I doubt she’s the one who said that Dear Author is causing suicides. Just her own professional suicide!

  22. 22
    dl says:

    Another looser…does she know Tony?

    I vote for cocktails, laptop, & hangover (followed by soberness, regret, & humiliation). 

    Candy’s right about the slippery non-answer being an answer in an of itself.  She has forfeited any shred of respect or sympathy I might have felt.

  23. 23

    I like spinsterwitch’s theory.

  24. 24
    Lia says:

    “…someone hacks into my computer from here…”

    “I’m not set up to go online…”

    ai yi yi…

    Somebody send this to Jon Stewart.  It’s too good not to share.  D’you think she’d do a guest spot on the Colbert Report?

  25. 25
    azteclady says:


    The stupid, it be contagious.

  26. 26
    Teddy Pig says:

    Hmmm, blaming Hackers…

    1995! Angelina Jolie and Jonny Lee Miller.

    Corrupt corporate execs seek to blame hackers to cover up their crime.

    Did I win?

  27. 27
    MamaNice says:

    dl: I’m sorry – but I have to do this, it’s killing me: it’s “LOSER.”

    As to Falk…is she running for office anytime soon?

    My word? “you42” Now, Ms. Falk, which you would that be?

  28. 28
    Flo says:

    This woman should enter into politics.  She’d be perfect for ANY administration…

  29. 29
    Charlene says:

    Sounds like a deadly combination of mimosas and laptops to me.

    (Spamblock: clearly18. I’m not sure it’s clear with respect to Kathryn Falk.)

  30. 30
    DS says:

    Re: Looser

    I’m not dl but I think she and I might have hung out in some of the same general areas. 

    Looser is a reference to a loser who spells loser looser.

    Just saying.

  31. 31
    Kat says:

    Maybe the two booksellers mentioned in the letter/comment can confirm or deny…

    (Word verification: who36. Who, indeed?)

  32. 32
    Colleen says:

    I am very tempted to send the following email to RT:

    To whom it may concern:

    A friend of mine receives your magazine which I have been contemplating subscribing to for some time now.  Several days ago someone claiming to be your CEO posted a rather disturbing reply to a review on “Dear Author.com.”  The reply was so disturbing that many people doubted it was truly Ms. Falk.  When she was contacted by Sarah from “Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Romances.com” her explanation was that someone was able to “hack” into her computer and took words she used in previous documents to create the reply. 

    If your company’s computer security is so lacking that someone can get into your CEO’s computer, how can you possibly guarantee my personal information is at all safe?  I will not be subscribing to your magazine until your company can publicly declare the security of it’s computers.  In addition, while I had been planning to attend your convention in 2008, once again I am not comfortable in submitting the kind of personal information that would be so easily accessible to this supposed hacker. 

    I advised those that I know who subscribe to your magazine and/or have attended one of your conferences in recent years pull a copy of their credit report and add fraud alerts to it.  I am astounded that in this day and age a company of your size does not have better computer security.  Your CEO’s seemingly nonchalant attitude that someone can get into her computer and impersonate her using documents on said computer is astounding and cause for great concern. 

    Until this matter is resolved I will not be a consumer of your products and will encourage others to act in kind. 

    (keep in mind I don’t buy for a SECOND that someone can hack into her computer)

  33. 33
    Teddy Pig says:

    It was Karen’s review that set her off I think Dear Author did the first review but the old bat posted on Karen’s blog.

  34. 34
    Suisan says:

    I’m with Alessia Brio. My kids lie better than that. They would NEVER say:

    I don’t know how all my clothes got on the floor. Someone who was pretending to be me broke into the house, opened up the drawers in only my room, and sprinkled the clothes all over the floor and I don’t know why. Uh huh.

    If someone used my name on a piece I didn’t write or on a essay length comment I’d be furious. I’d have retractions posted all over the place. I’d hire security at the office. I’d get a PR girl on it right away.

    She wrote it, but she’s confused as to why anyone would disagree with all her “positive” and “helpful” comments, so she’s trying to diminish the whole thing. To quote the author of the comment in question, “to nip it in the bud”, so to speak.


  35. 35

    Whew.  This is soooooo weird.  I’m not sure I understand any of it. 
    Does anybody know what’s REALLY going on?  *shakes head*
    In the words of a writer on Romance Divas “Ah edrama”.  Gotta love it.

  36. 36
    Kalen Hughes says:

    I’m just gonna clutch my crystal and stumble towards the kitchen for a big, stiff whisky.

  37. 37

    I’ve read and read and read this on blog after blog and still can’t manage to get my knickers in a twist, whether she said it or not.

  38. 38
    EGS says:

    She did it yet she didn’t do it.  Huh?

  39. 39
    Beth says:

    I can’t render judgment on whether she wrote it or not, because I get stuck at the part where someone emails their PERSONAL CELL PHONE NUMBER to a stranger, presumably in order to address a very specific issue – and then really clearly doesn’t have anything to say. It seems like if it’s an effort to back-pedal, then you’d have clear statement worked out before sending off your digits. And if it’s an effort to deny it was you, then you’d… ya know, actually deny it was you.

    I mean, you don’t say “Call me so I can explain!” unless you’ve actually prepared an explanation. And yet she told you to call. Her cell phone.

    I can’t get past it: what’s her MOTIVAYYYYY-shun??? It will keep me awake, trying to figure it out. Well, until I just decide that fuck it, she’s been doing too much E.  A logical conclusion, I think.

  40. 40
    kate r says:

    yeah, that’s what I said, Beth. Kinda. Drugs.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top