Sarah: Darlene’s last post highlighted something that I’ve been pondering ever since this whole kerfluffle blew up in such windy fashion:
For the record, I have zero information about the personal lives of my current ebook publishers and editors. I don’t know if they’re married, gay, straight, have children, have financial problems or have been medicated for anything.
And I’d just as soon keep it that way. What I want from my publisher is for them to publish and promote my books, not become my new best friend.
The incredibly loyal comments from happy Triskelion authors here that display an almost cult-like devotion to the “family” of the publishing house makes me wonder: is this overwrought drama surrounding any criticism a part of the reason why romance as a business isn’t taken seriously?
I don’t regularly read blogs and message boards devoted to other genres, but do mystery authors get all huffy and start tossing their feather boas in agitated fashion when someone says something disparaging about their publishing house? Does this bizarre quirk of culture exist in any other genre?
Why is there this attitude in the romance world that we must all get along and hold hands and sing no matter what our professional disputes? Why is it that so often in the minor and major kerfluffles, professional criticism is taken personally?
In this particular case, it’s easier and far more entertaining to point fingers as to what should or should not have been done in the case of the entry itself, and avoid the actual matter of the situation: can you establish a career with some degree of confidence if your publisher is Triskelion? Given the tone of recent communications, and now the public behavior of the authors who support the firm and react as if someone insulted their mothers, if I were a writer shopping a manuscript, I would have my reservations. It’s one thing to say, “I’ve never had financial problems with Triskelion and this is a minor wrinkle in what has been a smooth publishing process.” But if the number one accusation is, “You’re not being nice!” then how is anyone supposed to take any subsequent argument seriously?
I think it’s symptomatic of the “be nice culture” of surrounding romance, and I won’t hurt the feelings of my Fem Soc prof by attempting to diagnose WHY that culture exists, but the same thing often happens when we post a particularly cranky review of an author that people love love love, oh, how could we be so mean?! There’s a pressure and expectation to not rock the boat, to not dis the authors or the books, to react with love and kittens and not level any harsh analysis.
I understand that writing is a solitary business and other writers are the ones that often best understand the ramifications of that career choice, but hey, I have had friends at work who supported me. I never took it personally when they might harsh on a company policy, even if I agreed with it. So what is it with the personal investment in what should be a professional business interaction?
Criticism isn’t always “nice.” But sometimes it’s necessary, since keeping unprofessional behavior and financial and ethical shenanigans under the blanket cover of “it’s not nice to talk about it” just hurts people who enter into agreements without that knowledge.
Candy: What I find especially interesting is how many criticisms and commentary are construed as personal attacks, or signs that we bear ill-will towards specific people. Trista Whatserface, for example, was convinced that you’d posted Northman’s e-mail out of spite—which was puzzling, because neither of us knew anything about her before yesterday, and as far as I knew, you posted the e-mail because it was newsworthy. In a trainwrecky way, sure, but while there might’ve been plenty of the fascinated horror that accompanies the rubbernecking of any sort of wreck, there wasn’t any actual malice. Projection, much? The accusations that we were attempting to twist the story for our own ends were also strange—the vast majority of the post was Northman’s e-mail, for one, and for another, other than interest in the goings-on in the industry, neither of us has any sort of vested interest in Triskelion.
Now, here comes the part where I talk out of my ass—even more than usual, I mean: 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 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. Other circles are every bit as vicious, they’re just a bit more quiet about it—I’ve heard horror stories from professors of mine about the incredibly bloody (and largely pointless) infighting in academia, for example.
I’m not sure if the inability to not personalize every goddamn thing is a major part of the reason why romance isn’t taken seriously, but I do think that people use kerfuffles like these to justify their prejudices about the genre, its readers and its producers. It doesn’t necessarily create the prejudice, but it certainly doesn’t help dispel it, know what I mean?
Sarah: I think the “should’ve I or shouldn’t have I” question screened the issue so much that my reaction to it is to consider why there was such a reaction. As someone pointed out in comments to that entry, email is forwarded to news outlets all the time and with verification of the source, it’s news. It’s not like the FWD phenomenon is a new one.
But I am curious about the idea that some women-run presses skew to the overly-personal. There are certainly some that are run by women and are exceptionally professional, but then I wonder if the personal-professional mix just happens with certain types of people regardless of gender.
Either way, being called a slimy trashy bottom feeder was certainly a bit of a surprise. I feel like I need to put that on a tshirt.
Candy: As far as I’m concerned, the only legitimate beef with our posting was the inclusion of the TMI—but that struck me as a careless mistake, not a malicious one, and one that you fixed with much quickness once somebody showed you the light AND BE HEALED IN THE NAME OF JEEEEEEEE-ZUS.
The continuation of the slanging match even after you removed the info strikes me as, well, people focusing on something irrelevant so they don’t have to address the meat of the issue, i.e., what the fuck is going on with Triskelion. It’s easy to pile on and say “ZOMG LOOK AT THE MEAN GIRLS LET’S BAN THEM FROM THE INTERNETS” because it allows them to attack something utterly peripheral (our tone, whether or not we should’ve done it, etc.) without addressing the substance of what’s going on.
And yeah, I’m not saying that all women-run businesses work that way, just some of them. And I think you’re probably right in that the personality regardless of gender tends to affect the way the business is run, though I think women are more likely to face cultural pressure to behave and interact in ways that lead to “rah-rah happy fuzzy cheerleader with OMG PONIES and never say an unkind word and pleeeeze be my BFF” attitudes.
Sarah: I think you’re right that the “OMG kittens and ponies BFF” contingent might be on the estrogen side of the spectrum, and not just in publishing. But seeing as we are usually writing about romance and the business thereof, it definitely recurs within the business world du romance with a shocking frequency. And really, it’s the thing about the romance business world that drives me batty the fastest. What is the damn problem?! It is ok to disagree and have dissenting opinions.
Fractious communities exist all over the wild, wicked internet in just about every subject, so I’m not saying that romance is the only one that hosts a community of nutty crazysauce people who can’t argue without resorting to name calling – and can I just say how bummed I am that the Stupid Style of Arguing reared its pathos-laden head, when for a really long ass time we’d managed to have fractious yet respectful and somewhat professional discussions, with helpful interjections from the BUTTSECKS owl?
Ah, well. Back to our regularly scheduled Bitchery. As you pointed out, the internet, it is serious business.
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.)
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.
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..
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.
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.
Caroline: of course it is! That was a totally deliberate use of hypocrisy. Might even qualify for irony, but I have to check with Alanis Morissette first.
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:
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.
Poison Ivy: I haven’t the foggiest what a verso vs. a recto are – but I’m not in publishing except through blog software.
So can you tell me before I hurt myself laughing at all the possible naughty uses of the word “recto?”
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.)
Now that’s just wonky – the first page is on the left? Are they meant to be read as if they were in Hebrew?
Wow. And thanks for the explanation.
It’s entirely appropriate that the glossary of terms has entries like “colophon” and “recto.” To say nothing of “cockled.”