It’s Not So Secret, Is It?

Our schadenfreude-o-meters are pegged solidly in the red today, dear readers. Perhaps it’s spring fever, perhaps it’s the pollen in the air, but people sure are acting like they need big, heaping servings of clue cake, and perhaps some valium. For a stellar example, look no further than Karen Scott’s blog, where somebody alleging to be Kathryn Falk, CEO of Romantic Times magazine, posted a long (and we do mean looooong) diatribe against All Meanies in the Blogosphere (or whatever the hell those kids are calling it these days).

Some choice bits:

I have heard from several people on your post who are saddened by what they read today. One person mentioned has offered her resignation. Another is contemplating suicide. Is that what you intended for your blog? Do you want this on your conscience?

To most of us who devote our lives to publishing, romance is uplifting and increases joyfulness. These intensely negative and vituperative postings make our role so much harder and—most important, cause booksellers and others to doubt their own dedication.

Anyone who thinks this kind of dialogue on a blog is valuable is truly sick in the heart and the head.

And, even better:

The blog in question that you posted, bashing one or more publishers and authors, is detrimental to the principles of romance. If you have influence, please spend your time helping our romance community. People are sensitive and a string of suicides is not what is needed.

We here at Smart Bitches have a lot to say about this. Of COURSE we do.

 

Candy: So between a) Tony Catanzaro (or somebody pretending to be Catanzaro) telling us what he’s going to do with all that junk, all that junk inside his trunk and b) Kathryn Falk (or somebody pretending to be Falk) inundating us with smotheringly insipid New Age treacle meant to disguise vituperative shit that essentially boils down to “You mean girls are making sensitive types commit suicide, all because you’re JELUS H0RS who wish you had as much money as me,” a variation of Haldane’s maxim comes to mind: People are not only dumber than we suppose; they are dumber than we CAN suppose. (Well, one of our commenters is apparently convinced that Tony, like the universe, is definitely queerer than we can suppose, but we’ll leave that line of inquiry alone, eh?)

Aaaanyhoozenhauer, the part of Falk’s diatribe that makes me scratch my head hardest is the accusation that “a string of suicides”  might very well be attributable to Karen Scott’s review of Ben’s Wildflower and, presumably, other reviews and commentary of romance novels along that vein. The sheer weight of the irony resulting from telling other people to play nice while pulling some seriously dubious crap with the passive-aggressive guilt-tripping and not-so-veiled threats could stop a charging rhinoceros cold.

WHY are people so vigorously denying that pure liquid crap sometimes flows out of the publishing houses? Crap sells! Carole Lynn is apparently selling like mofuckin’ gangbusters. Cassie Edwards is a bestseller. So’s Connie Mason. Own your love of crap! Embrace it like a lover.

As for the relevance of Romantic Times: you know, a couple years ago, when Smart Bitches was just starting out, I actually went to their website and tallied up the grades of the books they reviewed. (It’s quite easy to do: just search by rating and look at the numbers of results.) I no longer remember what they are exactly, but I remember that something like 70% were 4+ star reviews. [When I have a moment at work I’ll conduct another impromptu analysis and look at their grade curve.] The fact of the matter is, their grades are vastly inflated, and I tend to mentally adjust when I see a grade being quoted on a cover. Four and a half stars and gushy lovey hearts all over? It’ll probably merit a C—that is, if I can make myself finish it.

And the homophobic hijinx at the latest convention makes me madder than hell, but I’m also completely unsurprised. Fear of the gay cooties will make people do the damndest things.

Sarah: What I don’t get is (a) why will people never learn that smearing the pathos onto your argument does not make it more attractive and brilliant but instead makes you look like a complete tool? (b) Hasn’t RT proved itself irrelevant enough already? I know they just had their conference, but now there’s tales of homophobic chicanery that makes the RWA RITA presentation in Atlanta look like a sewing circle populated by all those nice old ladies you see in Hallmark cards.

Furthermore, on one hand I have an unverifiable denial from someone alleging to be Kathryn Falk in my inbox saying, “I don’t know nothing about ranting on blogs” and I read on Dear Author that an RT individual confirmed it was indeed Falk responding to Scott.

According to the email I received, a person alleging to be Kathryn Falk says she “don’t do much with the internet,” and that she’s “not familiar with rants on blogs.” The person writing goes on to say that she “did hear that someone named Betty posted a blog fessing up about one from me” but in light of the revelation on Dear Author that Falk is defending her rant makes this email seem like the left hand of RT and the right hand of RT might need a tushy to introduce the two of them. 

My general reaction to the whole kerfluffle has been an unintelligible sound along the lines of, “Ghurk?”

I take it for granted that folks must know that RT is the romance equivalent of those movie reviewers who always give glowing reviews to movies that stink up the entire known universe, but why would Falk take exception to a review about an Ellora’s Cave publication and not any other book by any other publisher that has been given a poor review on a site such as ours?

Behold the anonymous (but impeccably reliable—we know this person) source who reveals a whole world of hurt going on behind the scenes. And by “hurt” I mean, “unfettered importance and financial power:”

“Here is all you need to know about Ellora’s Cave’s relationship with Kathryn Falk—when Kathryn says jump, EC asks how high. It has been this way for several years now, but especially so in the last year. EC spent phenomenal money on RT this year because Kathryn kept asking for more. A while ago, Kathryn came up with a brilliant idea. She wanted to start a new age line of books. But she had a problem. She didn’t want to invest any of her time or money into it. So what does she do? Give the people at EC the hard sell. And what do the EC folks do? Say yes as quickly as they possibly can. And so, The Lotus Circle was born.

Later, Kathryn gave The Lotus Circle her book, The Secret Explained, a book that purports to explain The Secret. Um, doesn’t The Secret already explain The Secret? Anyway, all that is to explain to you that Katherine is in bed with EC in a big way, and has a vested interest in defending it.

So, Kathryn finds out about the EC bashing and proceeds to write her own reply to it on Karen’s blog. And yes, that was her. She implies that someone threatened to quit over the mean comments written and someone else is near suicide. Not true, as far as I know.

(At this point, we’d like to clarify that by “Ellora’s Cave,” we’re referring to certain Higher-Up Mucky-Mucks, and not the organization as a whole, because our Impeccable Anonymous Source has indicated that many authors and editors are less than happy about the new directions the company has taken, and are probably watching the whole internet kerfluffle with a mixture of horror and awe.)

Candy:Yeah, I love how Falk talks about positive energy and hard work being all you need to do well in the business, and then we find out there’s some seriously shady dealings going on with her book and new publishing line.

Sarah: Perhaps we ought to consult the Magic 8 Ball:

1. Was it Kathryn Falk?

“Signs point to yes.”

2. Has RT finally revealed itself to be the irrelevant mess of hokey fluff Sarah & Candy always thought it was?

“It is in the stars.” (Or in the chocolate starfish, maybe).

3. Did the RT’s convention discrimination against gay romance rip the ugly festering scab off of the general discrimination against gays among some staid old-time-bastions of romance and send a clear message that gay romance has no place with mainstream romance any more than roosters have riding the shoulders of convention attendees?

“Without a doubt.”

3.5 Did said discrimination and chicanery reveal, again, how out-of-touch and irrelevant RT is?

“Ask Again Later.”

4. Will RT’s convention behavior and the fabulous lunacy of Falk lead to any changes? Or will people still read RT, and buy Cassie Edwards and Carol Lynne and other authors whose writing sucks a big wang?

“Sarah, come on now. I’m a Magic 8 Ball. Give me SOMETHING mysterious to work with here.”

 

Comments are Closed

  1. Elaine says:

    Thanks for the SB commentary on this important subject.  (I used to buy RT off the newstand for a short while back in the 90s, until I realized that they never seemed to rate anything below a three, and a three was pretty much “take this out to the burn barrel with tongs.”)

  2. That Betty person who emailed you is a hoaxer, doing nothing but trolling. She trolled over at Karen Scott’s earlier, claiming she was behind all of this, then (it appeared) quickly made a few sock puppet posts along the lines of “Betty, you so fuuuunny!”

    This whole thing is incredibly disheartening. I posted earlier about the importance of reader blogs and tried to avoid much of the RT letter situation but boy, it just keeps getting wierder and wierder.

  3. Teddy Pig says:

    But as a Gay man could I really care what RT or RWA thinks about me? no…

    Do I care what that old bat wrote in Karens blog? no…

    See, this has nothing really to do with me because most Gay people could give a flying fuck about RT or RWA or hell eBooks for the most part.

    You want to know what twists me beyond my usual known cranky bitterness and makes me want to do nasty evil things things to those guys till they pass out from the horror of people laughing at them at the next convention.

    They did this to a fellow woman writer named Laura Buambach… of all the saints I know. A person who has been nothing but supportive, and nice, and calm, and caring, to a crazy fucked up asshole gay guy like me since day one.

    I want their ass on a paper plate with fries please.

  4. Jane says:

    I am sure that I will get crucified for this, but my understanding as to why Gay Romances are reviewed in the RT is because it is believed that the audience that buys RT is not interested in Gay Romances.  I don’t think that is homophobic.  I think that is a business decision.  RT is a fan-zine and is responsive to their fans and if their fan base isn’t response to Gay Romances I don’t see it being irresponsible to not put forth time, money, and effort into reviewing man on man love books.

  5. Thanks for leaping into the fray, SB’s.  The past few days have left me scratching my head, wondering what the hell is going on in romanceland?

    And that massive “thunk” you hear is all the heads hitting the desks of the hard working romance writers, editors and publishers who’ve been trying for years to get across the ideas that 1. We’re professionals and 2. Romance readers and writers don’t want to be treated like little girls (or boys) in need of protection from the big bad real world.

  6. Mel-O-Drama says:

    I think “Wow” just about covers my reaction perfectly.

    Sigh.

  7. L.E. Bryce says:

    I was waiting for you Smart Bitches to post about the RT kerfluffle.  Being an author of m/m romance, I’m relieved I didn’t waste my money or my time going to Houston.

  8. Teddy Pig says:

    Jane,

    I saw that comment by Jules Jones that was upset over RT and their practice of not reviewing Gay Romance.

    But… I think most people, at least me, were more upset over Laura Baumbach’s mis-treatment by RT (as a group) at the convention where they sold her space to promote Gay Romance and then backed out of it last minute without even common decency and respect to notify her.

    That is pretty bad. I honestly have no problem with RT or RWA or anybody in the business stating they are homophobic and their readers are conservatives so no Gay Romance whatever.

    But… when you sell something and make promises you have no intention of keeping. Then their fearless leader ranted and wailed about Karen’s harsh review causing suicides and how woman writers should always be supported.

    That to me is more then just a loony moral hypocrite, that’s a liar and needs to be addressed.

  9. Flo says:

    Yeah I read about Baumbach’s treatment on another blog (I’ve been browsing for an hour and my head is spinning with all the crazy flying about) and just couldn’t believe it.

    If they were going to be scabs about the whole thing and homophobic, then give the woman her money back.  At least THAT much the group could do.  But no, doesn’t seem like they even offered her that much.  Which is shitty business practice and can get them a legal suite (although I have no idea… it just seems that way since they didn’t fulfill their part of their contract).

    Who cares if not everyone likes gay erotica or romance?  Not all romance and erotica flips my Bic or fills my twinkie… so what?  Just that it’s out there and available should have people shouting “AMEN!”  And the arrogant little twats whining about a BLOG bringing people’s joy down then backing an institution that spits all over someone else’s choice in “joy”… yeah.  I hate hypocrisy.  It gets my panties in a wad.

  10. Jane says:

    I honestly don’t know what to think about the RT convention issue.  I was told that Laura was offered a full refund of her convention fees even before she came because she was so upset over her book not being reviewed even though she was told that the book would not be reviewed if she bought ad space.

    I haven’t talked to Laura and I am really conflicted on this issue.

  11. Teddy Pig says:

    Well seems Jules Jones got the same thing pulled on him too by the same group of people.

    I think I would go with Laura’s tale simply because I would not spend that type of money to go there and be treated like dirt.

  12. Nora Roberts says:

    ~And that massive “thunk” you hear is all the heads hitting the desks of the hard working romance writers, editors and publishers who’ve been trying for years to get across the ideas that 1. We’re professionals and 2. Romance readers and writers don’t want to be treated like little girls (or boys) in need of protection from the big bad real world.~

    And then some.

  13. Rinda says:

    Funny—I posted earlier that RomanceLand had gone crazy.  It has. 

    There was a comment on Laura’s blog about this being a problem with space in RT.  Huh?  So, if say…ten more straight romances came up for review…

    Something isn’t making sense.

  14. Ann Aguirre says:

    I’m pretty sure Jules is a woman, Teddy.

    Hypocrisy angers me as well. On one hand, you have a crazy new age-y message preaching sisterhood, positivity and solidarity among women. On the other, we have a woman who owns a small publishing company, who doesn’t deserve the same treatment as others because her romances are m/m? Okay, the magazine doesn’t review those stories, but if they accepted her fees for the convention, they were obligated not to discriminate. So is the Hyatt, for that matter.

    Or does it not qualify as romance, harking back to that old and ridiculous discussion regarding the need to define the genre. Is RT saying love isn’t love unless it’s breeder-based? That pisses me off.

  15. Jules Jones says:

    Teddy Pig,

    I’m not upset about RT not reviewing gay romance. My view has always been that people who don’t like it shouldn’t have to read it, so long as they don’t try to stop other people reading it, and I was saying that back in my fanfic days when some of my fellow slash fanfic writers were being… intemperate… towards anti-slash people who’d simply said that they’d like slash on fic sites labelled so they could avoid it. So as far as I’m concerned, if a fanzine doesn’t want to review m/m, that’s their decision.

    What I don’t like is the way RT has pulled a bait-and-switch on gay romance writers. There was a period when RT had material posted on its website which led authors to believe that a review would follow as a result of buying ad space. My view of that was not coloured by what other m/m writers had said, because I hadn’t seen anything about it. I’d simply wandered over to the website to have a look at the advertising rates, and found something that made me go “huh?”, because it felt to me like a strong suggestion that reviews would not happen unless you gave them money. I’m actually out of science fiction culture, not romance culture, and there’s a very strong feeling there about “Money flows towards the author”, so I took note of this as a possible red flag. I wish now that I’d taken a copy of it.

    Some time *after* this, I heard stuff about RT refusing to review m/m books that had been advertised, but refusing to refund the money for the ad. And that the people involved had not been told ahead of time that they were excluded from the “buy an ad, get a review” system.

    That’s what I object to—the taking of money under false pretences.

    (And I’m a Kinsey 0 woman—Jules is used a nickname for both men and women in the UK, and I had no idea when I started writing that it’s seen as male-only in the US.)

  16. Just to let you all know…it’s a full moon today.  I’m just saying.

  17. Joanne says:

    As usual, the SB have summed it all up perfectly….  “Ghurk?”

  18. Teddy Pig says:

    Well, sorry for the flub.

    See, I am just a ignorant Gay man who has not been around long enough to know all the writers.

    But you know what.

    I am getting the feeling most of the time I can comfortably side with the writers. Especially when I am getting the feeling they have to deal with some real slime covered nut jobs.

  19. Jules Jones says:

    S’okay, Teddy, you’re far from the first and I doubt you’ll be the last. 🙂 It did make me go “what on earth?” when I first started getting the “he” references, because I started in fanfic, where it is assumed that anyone writing slash is female until proven otherwise. Because there are an awful lot of women out there reading and writing m/m romance…

  20. Selah March says:

    …my understanding as to why Gay Romances are reviewed in the RT is because it is believed that the audience that buys RT is not interested in Gay Romances.  I don’t think that is homophobic.  I think that is a business decision.  RT is a fan-zine and is responsive to their fans and if their fan base isn’t response to Gay Romances I don’t see it being irresponsible to not put forth time, money, and effort into reviewing man on man love books.

    This is what Carol Stacy had to say on Ms. Baumbach’s blog about why RT takes money for ads from M/M authors, but doesn’t post reviews:

    My decision is based on my “print” readership and the fact that the majority of my “print readers” are not interested in m/m books at this time.

    Will someone explain to me how this jibes with the fact that RT publishes many, MANY reviews of ebooks every month, specifically in the erotica section? I’m clearly missing something.

    Seriously. I think I’ve missed a point here, somewhere.

  21. Catherine J. says:

    I have heard from several people on your post who are saddened by what they read today. One person mentioned has offered her resignation. Another is contemplating suicide. Is that what you intended for your blog? Do you want this on your conscience?

    Okay, I’m a newbie here on Smart Bitches and I’m certainly not a published writer or very experienced in the romance business. But please excuse me if I call bullshit on this in a BIG way.

    One thing I do know about is fanfiction and online fiction. I’ve been in the communities since I was twelve, and I know a bit about interaction and online warfare tactics. And this tactic is an old, familiar one.

    Sometimes an author is unable to take the criticism leveled at them, and they move into passive-aggressive warfare by trying to make the critic feel guilty. I’ve even known a few who posted messages pretending to be someone else, reporting that the criticized author had been driven to suicide by the MEEEEAN comments from the critics. I have never encountered a case where such extravagant claims turned out to be true; it’s the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum, which most mature people don’t do over Internet critique. Such threats usually come from fourteen-year-olds.

    Whoever the commenter is, Kathryn Falk or just a dedicated troll, they feel the need to shore up their position by making their critics feel guilty—thus striking back without actually being forced to answer any difficult questions. If there really was nothing to the criticism, then this poster would be able to say as such, and to show why. All the fluff about sensitive feelings is a way of avoiding the question, which really makes me think something is up.

  22. DS says:

    Undisclosed conflict of interest much?  I knew RT was always hawking one thing or another when I was reading it late 80’s/early 90’s.  Did Falk own stock in Fabio?  Blue-green algae? She reminded me of the neighbor who used to sell Mary Kay/Starlite Vitamins/what have you.  I used to drive by my own driveway if I saw her out.

    I had also heard that buying ad space would greatly enhance a book’s chance of being reviewed.

  23. You’re so right about the “thunk” of hard-working romance authors’ heads hitting the desk. You’re also dead on about other Ellora’s Cave authors watching in awe and horror. This one certainly is. Oh, and you forgot to mention the “thud” as our jaws hit the floor.

    Bad reviews are a part of the business, and this is a business. Professional authors know that. We expect some lukewarm reviews and even some bad ones. Not everyone’s going to love our babies the way we do. Once we turn a book loose on the world, it’s a product and open to critique the way any other product on the market is.

    What has my head reeling is the firestorm that followed those reviews, not to mention the lengthy, rambling, eyeball-burn-inducing response from Ms. Falk and the follow-ups to it.

    All the vitriol, the negative energy, the astonishing meanness on display has totally astounded me.

    I may have to give up my treasured self-image as a confirmed cynic. I never would have guessed those reviews would spawn such a blazing firestorm of reaction.

  24. Carrie Lofty says:

    I truly sympathize with Lauren and respect how she stood up for herself in Houston. Makes me wonder if all of this will have blown over by Nationals, or if this is just the beginning of a very active Summer of Asshattery. I have a difficult enough time convincing my friends and family that my chosen profession, within the particular genre of romance, is legitimate. Widespread knowledge of behavior like this would only make mine a more difficult task.

  25. Kalen Hughes says:

    I had also heard that buying ad space would greatly enhance a book’s chance of being reviewed.

    I know crap-all about getting an eBook or such reviewed in RT, but don’t they pretty much review all the print romances from the major houses as a matter of course? I didn’t buy an ad and I was reviewed.

    Of course I have been told via the gossip vine that if I bought an ad I’d get a better review. Don’t know if there’s any truth in that either.

  26. Candy says:

    Dear Kathryn Falk and Tony Catanzaro:

    (Saw this on I Can Has Cheezburger and couldn’t resist.)

  27. Shannon C. says:

    Wow. This trainwreck is certainly interesting. And, as I said elsewhere, every time this subject comes up, I find myself wondering if people in other genres get their panties in a knot over bad reviews the same way people in romancelandia do.

    I also think this stuff does need to be discussed, and I appreciate the blogs I read (including this one) because y’all don’t pull any punches, and interesting things about the state of the romance genre are discussed.

    Aaaand now I’m going to bed, and I’ll just pray this made sense to somebody.

  28. Another Sarah says:

    May I say Holy C-Cup Mantitties, Batman?

    Thanks to insomnia, I went and read the origin of Romance Wankâ„¢: Round #348294.  [Of course, labeling anything in the romance genre “wank” amuses me so much more than, say House or Grey’s Anatomy.] 

    But this is nothing less than wank, though it makes anything in fandom wank look like fluffy bunnies and sunshine.

    FALK: “Anyone who thinks this kind of dialogue on a blog is valuable is truly sick in the heart and the head.”

    …A case of heart burn and a head cold?

  29. Monica says:

    Well, I was at RT and I can tell you that everything Laura said was correct.  The whole conference was buzzing about her unfair treatment.  Especially when there were other m/m authors who were allowed to set out their promo items.  I personally believe that the excuse the Hyatt gave Laura was a pile of shit but what else could you expect from a state that has outlawed dildoes and vibrators? 

    I also know that it didn’t stop RT from advertising Laura’s books on a giant videoscreen.  AND she had to inform people who were buying her books just exactly what they were buying (as if they didn’t already know). 

    But sadly, this is also the nature of the beast.  Of course they were going to take her money.  Businesses have very few scruples when it comes to making money.  And in all actuality, if they had known that the Hyatt was going to take down her stuff, I doubt that that they would have taken her money only to have to give it back.  It doesn’t make any business sense. 

    What was cowardly and wrong was the fact that they stood by and allowed the Hyatt to do it.  They should have stood by Laura and defended her right to have her promo items with everyone else. 

    But if I can defend RT (or at least their convention) I will say that aside from this, the convention was amazing.  I had the best time and I will definitely go again.  It’s a chance to be surrounded by not only other authors like at nationals, but readers and booksellers as well.  The convention is open to everyone. 

    And I think that there is a lot to be said for a place where you can be surrounded by people who are into what you are.  Why do you think Trekkie and ComicCon conventions do so well?   

    I don’t read RT and never will.  I don’t take stock in book reviews just like I don’t in movie reviews.  I read what I like.

  30. Marianne McA says:

    I still want to know who the ‘insensitive’ author of ‘sensitive books’ that ‘makes millions but still lurks around the Internet because she has a tremendous need to be in control’ is?

    Would many authors make that much, or can we work out by a process of elimination who Ms Falk feels such compassion for? (Does Nora have anything to confess? Is all her thoughtful participation just a cover for an attempt to gain dominance over romance readers and muffle all dissenting voices? Enquiring minds…)

    Got to say, the more I read this letter, the more I enjoy it.

  31. I just have to add a little something about the “Gret Stet of Texas.”  If you ever have the opportunity to buy aides d’amour in Austin, I highly recommend the experience.  There’s nothing like shopping for an educational modal or a personal massager.  And Forbidden Fruit is such a treat of a shop.  Ah, dear old Austin.

  32. Amy E says:

    I still want to know who the ‘insensitive’ author of ‘sensitive books’ that ‘makes millions but still lurks around the Internet because she has a tremendous need to be in control’ is?

    Mememememe!  Oh, pick me!  I so want it to be me.

  33. Amy E says:

    … mostly for the millions.

    Hey, I may be insensitive and controlling, but I’m as money-hungry as the next insensitive controlling bitch.

  34. Nora Roberts says:

    ~(Does Nora have anything to confess? Is all her thoughtful participation just a cover for an attempt to gain dominance over romance readers and muffle all dissenting voices? Enquiring minds…)~

    I have been unmasked. And yes, YES, one day I will rule over all Romancelandia.

  35. Pleeeeeeze, pleeeze, pick me!  I want to make millions!  Everyone will assure you I’m an insensitive bitch!  Just ask my family!  Really, I can be insensitive with the best of them!

    Ohmigod, all those exclamation points!  Tony’s bad habits are catching!

  36. Sunita says:

    Marianne, I knew at once who had to be the author who makes millions but “still lurks around the Internet because she has a tremendous need to be in control.”  Who but Nora could Rule The Blogosphere without even having a blog? That is why we respect her so much and the long-distance mind control of the Oompa Loompas is so successful.

    I puzzled for long seconds over “we all hurt unless we are heatless.”  I thought maybe it was a shout-out to the paranormal craze, or a recognition of English winters since she is Lady of Barrow, but then Jane kindly put a [sic] after it in her post and cleared up the mystery.

    It is a bit frightening, though, that a person with this (lack of) command of the written word, not to mention these, well, let’s call them “ideas” about how publishing and business in general should work, has so much influence.  Ouch.

  37. Erastes says:

    Reply to Jane:

    I’m sure this has already been said but RT were told, in no uncertain terms that 56 percent of people polled WERE interested in m/m romance and would buy the magazine if it reviewed it!  Instead of taking this as a sound business pointed (which any sane business identity would) they decided to say “Oh Poot we got the wrong result, probably because all those gay loving writers joined in”

    Which was rather the point of the poll!

    So their constant insistence that it “wouldn’t be a sound business proposition” is complete nonsense

    And even so, why not do a trial run on the website?  If they don’t have a reviewer one is easily found, and if no-one is reading/buying the books from direct links at the end of the trial period then all of us will shut up and agree with RT.

    RT may not like to admit they are homophobic but they ARE –  no matter much they pretty it up with business jargon.

    Either one embraces, or one excludes, and the more one excludes, the more prejudiced one appears.

  38. Sarah Frantz says:

    And one last point re: RT and writers of gay m/m erotica and romance.  If they’re not going to review, they shouldn’t take their ad revenue and publish m/m ads.  If they’re so worried about their poor little readers, advertising should be included in that ban.  But no, let’s take the money of the m/m writers and publish their ads, but then not review them because our readers aren’t interested in reading about that kind of stuff.  They just want to look at the pretty pictures.  Or not.  Or something.

  39. I want to know when the reader bloggers are going to set up their own conventions?

    Seriously. I’m sure there must be a few people with experience setting cons up who would help, and I know quite a few writers who would go…

  40. Carol Stacy says:

    It’s interesting that all of you have ignored the part of my post that said WE DID PUT LAURA’S MATERIALS OUT (sans the poster) despite the hotel’s objection.

    LAURA DID PARTICIPATE in our Book Fair equal to any other author there and had the ability to display whatever she wanted.

    LAURA advertises (i.e. spends her money with RT) with full knowledge that at this time we will not review m/m books.

    WE OFFERED HER A FULL REFUND to the convention and she opted to attend—her decision.

    When I wrote the post on Laura’s site I knew I would be attacked but I wrote it anyway because I wanted to get the facts correct.

    Carol Stacy

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