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.
yes I think it was an ethically questionable thing to do for the Trisk author(s) to forward the email originally, but that IMO doesn’t mean that everyone in the subsequent chain shares the same level of responsibility or even that the ethical burden isn’t potentially outweighed by the importance of the issues discussed to the authors themselves.
Hopping on the agreeing-with-Robin bandwagon here. (I mean, Nora did it, and following the WWND Law of Ethics…)
I think the SBs acted according to their journalistic instincts in posting the letter. It makes me uncomfortable to hear myself think, “They shouldn’t have done that,” when I’m normally a big supporter of whistleblowers and the media they use to get out their message.
But I still would’ve preferred the note be paraphrased (preferably at the source) to comply with the rules of the loop. I understand Candy’s rationale that a paraphrase or summary might be construed as twisting the story to their own interpretation, but isn’t that what journalists do? They filter the information and make a judgment call.
IMO, the same noble purpose (warning prospective Trisk authors away from a bad publishing situation) could have been served in a less inflammatory way and might have inspired less hysterics on the part of Northman’s defenders.
I actually think this has as much to do with blog culture in general as it does with Romance-landia. Bloggers sometimes have to choose between fireworks (which bring lots of hits) and reasoned debate. Do they want to be more like a newspaper or a tabloid?
But that’s a whole ‘nother topic, respectfully submitted.
“But I still contend that had there been no TMI personal info included in the email, either as written or posted, that a lot of drama and debate around the ethics and implications of its revelation would be absent.”
Robin I agree – and I’m probably going to be in the minority on this – BUT… I think it was important to read the TMI in the context of the email (I didn’t need the facts – by the time I saw the post it had already been edited – but I understood that this woman used a situation with her daughter in an email to authors as some sort of excuse). Beyond the tone, the sarcasm, the immaturity of the response – THAT fact put it over the edge for me.
It really painted the picture that this woman should not be in the position she was/is going to be – whatever.
I get it. We all feel bad for the kid. But as someone said earlier – this isn’t about a teenager. This is about a publisher who has gone off her rocker – and should serve as a warning to ANYONE who is putting their hopes of getting “published” into her hands.
Oooooo, my MFA is actucally going to come in handy today. LOL! These are the names for the front and back sides of a page. “Recto” is the right-hand page in an open book, and the back of that page (the left-hand side) is the “verso”.
I think it was important to read the TMI in the context of the email…. Beyond the tone, the sarcasm, the immaturity of the response – THAT fact put it over the edge for me.
That was my point in posting the letter unedited. Folks can suspect my yearning for sensationalism all they want, but I do in fact try to make sure anything I post is attributable to more than one source. I was a little stunned at the vitriolic response, though I understand that there’s a grey area in terms of whether the email was private or not. To my mind: YahooGroup != private. Especially considering I had received the info multiple times.
Moreover, I posted the whole shebang simply because I thought each part, start to finish, demonstrated a Series of Unfortunate & Very Bad Decisions that reflect poorly on the professionalism and the conduct of the head of a publishing house, one that’s both recognized by RWA and actively seeking romance manuscripts for publication. Ergo, that’s news.
Thank you Sarah and Candy and the Bitchery for this informative (and slightly entertaining) discussion.
Moreover, I posted the whole shebang simply because…
I see your point, Sarah, and it makes a lot of sense.
However, because we disagreed, I have no choice but to end this argument South Philly style:
You’re dead to me.
(And then we never speak again and I tell everyone you’re a whore. Hey, it works for my in-laws….)
Great good God on Great good God on a pogo stick, what a disaster! Reading the comments for these two related posts has kept me busy for HOURS. And after looking at Triskelion’s website, I suddenly find Ms. Northman’s behavior less surprising. Mainly because of this blurb from the bottom of the front page:
“On a more serious note:
Triskelion Publishing has always been willing to take a chance on new authors. One of them whose two books appear in this month’s new releases waited ten years to get published.
Rochelle Rae Hensler is losing her battle with cancer. Please take a moment to look over her books.
Look at the News section for more about Ovarian cancer. “
Did I just read a blurb that basically said “read this woman’s book because she has cancer?” Because that is sure as hell what it looked like to me, and that just… I have no words. I am all for making people aware of ovarian cancer, but the idea that people should look at her book because she had it is (I think) incredibly insulting to her as an author. Maybe it’s just me, but I would want my books judged on their merit, not on the fact I waited 10 years to find a publisher, or that I was losing my battle with cancer. UGH. Not to mention how much I dislike the implied attitude of “we are so awesome because we published this person when no one else would, and she has cancer and all other publishers are mean and HATE new authors.”
However, because we disagreed, I have no choice but to end this argument South Philly style:
You’re dead to me.
(And then we never speak again and I tell everyone you’re a whore. Hey, it works for my in-laws….)
Jeri, I have no idea how to respond, because Pittsburgh-style would mean we have to get together, drink bad beer and eat some sausage or something. Maybe go to a game?
So whatever, I got your beer right here.
Now see I would have just shown a picture of the author with these really teary eyes and a pleading expression.
Then put under it.
Buy This Book Or The Writer Gets It.
I Adore Cheap Sentiment
– Bette Davis
Did I just read a blurb that basically said “read this woman’s book because she has cancer?†Because that is sure as hell what it looked like to me, and that just… I have no words. I am all for making people aware of ovarian cancer, but the idea that people should look at her book because she had it is (I think) incredibly insulting to her as an author. Maybe it’s just me, but I would want my books judged on their merit, not on the fact I waited 10 years to find a publisher, or that I was losing my battle with cancer. UGH. Not to mention how much I dislike the implied attitude of “we are so awesome because we published this person when no one else would, and she has cancer and all other publishers are mean and HATE new authors.â€
Whatever the purpose or way this sounded, it certainly has helped that author’s sales. She’s been the number one bestseller there for several weeks – at least since that blurb was put up on the website.
Not that I’m bitter 😉
Seriously, the author’s situation is extremely sad, but I often questioned the judgment of bringing her personal pain so out into the open like that. I can only assume she gave permission of some sort.
OK, I’m not sure why my god on a pogo stick comment developed a stutter, but sorry about that.
Leslie –
Well, I guess I’m glad it’s working… sort of. It would really suck to have your personal business out there on a platter and then NOT increase your sales. But again I think I’d always wonder if people were buying my books because they thought they were good, or because I had cancer. But I guess if they’re getting sold, then maybe that’s the bottom line. It’s just not an advertising tactic that appeals to me personally.
I received same email yesterday morning and what interested me was Triskelion’s disinvitation. I thought Northman made poor choice in talking about her family problems for whatever reason, but didn’t realize that people would see that as important to show the problems Triskelion presents as a potential publisher.
I debated posting the Allison Kelley part in full and even though I had permission to post via THE LEAK, I wasn’t sure of the appropriateness of it. I didn’t have any personal investment, either financial or emotional, in Triskelion or its authors and therefore the posting of it didn’t affect me personally. But Sybil received the same email from the same LEAK and urged me not to post any part of the email. I had emailed Triskelion and RWA and recieved responses that I felt comfortable posting. Had I not received those emails, would I have posted some sort of the email. Probably.
Does the LEAK show bad judgment in forwarding the email? I guess I don’t know. It contained information that was important to be publicized because there are alot of authors out there that read these “reader” oriented blogs. What implication does it have for me as a reader? (pick up and drink once or three times depending on your game). Not alot except I have enjoyed Trisk authors in the past and will in the future, I hope, as I don’t think that I am going to burn the whole forest because of a few bad trees. I’m still frustrated that Lynne Connolly’s Rose and Richard series isn’t finding the light of day.
My eyebrows were raised when I read people writing off Trisk because of its bookstore and covers. Samhain sells jewelry and other non related book items at its store that I think it doesn’t even own. Ditto with Barnes and Noble and Borders. The covers at alot of houses are bad. I think some of the covers at Samhain are very cheesy.
I know that this whole episode makes me nervous because some people (referencing some comments and not the SBs) clearly believe that anything that is emailed is fare game for forwarding. I do not believe that. I believe that we should have the same rights of privacy in this digital age as we do in the paper age. What people send to me is confidential and personal and I believe, until proven otherwise, that what I send to others is personal and confidential.
Finally, and this may get me skewered, I have a problem with raising Nora Roberts up as the oracle of all that is good, that she is above being singled out for bad behavior (and I am not saying she did anything that was bad here), but then on the other hand saying she is just one of the washed or unwashed masses. If we are all equals here and entitled to equal weight being given to each opinion regardless of our name, our booksales, or our position (writer, reader, beggarman, thief), then we are all subject to the same “shame on yous” as everyone else, regardless of whether those shame on yous are justified.
Finally, I do think that there is a greater need for professionalism in the romance genre. Theresa Meyers handled this exquisitely and it gives me a lot of admiration for her.
~But I still contend that had there been no TMI personal info included in the email, either as written or posted, that a lot of drama and debate around the ethics and implications of its revelation would be absent.~
I think it is great that Robin and Nora take the high road and attach only the best of intentions to “The Leaks” actions. There has been a great deal of hand wringing in this thread over how the entire subject and supporting documentation was handled and self review is admirable.
The fact that some participants have expressed such concerns, however insubstantial, suggests that somewhere in and amongst the “ends justifies the means” method of blog broadcasting, bad things happened. I’m not in any way shape or form invested in Triskelions troubles. What interests me is gossip and how it spreads. What keeps me reading this thread and other related threads is how people justify what they do and say.
When I zeroed in on one of the negative driving factors fanning the flames, “Everyone else is doing it too”, I thought it was sad but interesting that no one agreed. The two people willing to even address it knee jerked as far over to the nice side as humanly possible considering how inhumane this public stoning of a complete stranger and her daughter is.
If we are going to say and do bad things, why do we need pretense? I am probably the only person on earth who thinks this way. Please don’t get all defensive and riteous on me again. I’m not saying this kind of thing is wrong. It’s the way of the web. Informative? Yes. Educational? Definitely. Reprehensible and downright nasty? Well that’s the best part, isn’t it? Why deny it?
“Finally, and this may get me skewered, I have a problem with raising Nora Roberts up as the oracle of all that is good, that she is above being singled out for bad behavior…”
Certainly not skewered – maybe just a little fried. Seriously Jane – I think the issue people had was that she was singled out at all. People were posting their opinions – including Nora. There was no reason for the poster to call attention specifically to her OTHER than because she happens to be Nora.
It was just really innappropriate -I thought – in that kind of discussion. It was as if the poster was holding her to some higher standard (Was it Paragon of All Womanly Virtue – I forget) when all she was doing was stating her opinion like everyone else.
Many people shared Nora’s opinion, and posted as much, but she was the only one to get the “shame on you” response.
Well her and Sarah and Candy – who were called several things that would were really uncalled for.
It’s a good thing you guys have a sense of humor about it!
Jane, my objection was—and I think the objection of others was—that I was the only commentor singled out and named for shame. It was that poster who took me out of the box, imo.
I guess what I am saying is that we readers and commenters need to be careful about raising someone up on a pedestal because if we do it often then there is the tendency to single that pedestal standing person out when he or she is giving an opinion that is disagreed with, even if there are a chorus of others also disagreeing.
And, god, lest I be stoned here, I think that Nora, you had every right to respond to the singling out. I just felt uncomfortable with the pile on.
“I know that this whole episode makes me nervous because some people (referencing some comments and not the SBs) clearly believe that anything that is emailed is fare game for forwarding. I do not believe that. I believe that we should have the same rights of privacy in this digital age as we do in the paper age.”
I fully agree with this based on the situation of The Originator sending The Leak a note “one on one” about a “personal matter” because The Leak had that type of “personal relationship” with The Originator to begin with. Then The Leak forwarding said note would be very very wrong and it would be GOSSIP.
No argument.
BUT! If I was part of that “loop” of 200 people and got something like this, I would be amazed at the audacity to assume my business with them included their ability to lay their personal problems on me and expect confidentiality on top of it.
I think this note crossed a professional line in what I would consider to be an abusive manner. I think the originator was in the wrong and on top of it placed the people who received this note in an untenable position if they actually had valid issues to address at this time.
The first and last rule of acting professionally is to keep your personal life to yourself. It is one thing to expose personal matters inadvertently, it is plainly another to do so with intent to use that information in regards to your business activities.
What do you do with that information anyway? You know, I think it is along the line of… Don’t bother me with your stupid business problems right now people because look at what a mess my private life is.
Wow, Jane you know, if I had received that note I would so want to share the uncomfortable experience of unsolicited personal matters divulged in a work forum and framed as a business practice.
It may not be illegal but it does not make for a comfortable working environment.
My eyebrows were raised when I read people writing off Trisk because of its bookstore and covers. Samhain sells jewelry and other non related book items at its store that I think it doesn’t even own. Ditto with Barnes and Noble and Borders.
Yes, but Borders and B&N are not publishers, they are stores. If I went to the Penguin Books website and their online catalog was full of lipstick and socks, that would be pretty WTF, don’t you think?
If Triskelion wants to be taken seriously as a publisher, especially a publisher just expanding into print books, they need to focus on books, period.
I fully agree with this based on the situation of The Originator sending
The Leak a note “one on one” about a “personal matter” because The Leak
had that type of “personal relationship” with The Originator to begin
with. Then The Leak forwarding said note would be very very wrong and it
would be GOSSIP.
No argument.
BUT! If I was part of that “loop” of 200 people and got something like
this, I would be amazed at the audacity to assume my business with them
included their ability to lay their personal problems on me and expect
confidentiality on top of it.
So.
~ First hand source passing on information is gossip.
~ Second or third hand source passing on information is not gossip.
The more people in on it, the less gossipy. This gets me back to the defense that “everyone else was doing it so passing it along is a public service”.
It’s like money laundering!
“Personal Relationship” matter versus “Business Matter”.
“Professional Behavior” versus creating an “Uncomfortable Situation”.
I sent it to the Bitches and the Ja(y)nes. I sent it to a friend I often email.
That’s it. I didn’t send it to Sybil. I didn’t send it to any other bloggers. So any blogger other than the Ja(y)nes and the Bitches who says they know who I am and they got it from me is mistaken. Perhaps someone else forwarded it on to them, I don’t know. But while I did forward it after it had been forwarded to me by several different people, I did not wallpaper the internet with it.
I don’t want to argue my motives. If I had to do it again I wouldn’t.
“Samhain sells jewelry and other non related book items at its store that I think it doesn’t even own.”
You are so right and I have pointed out several times that back end store is their worse mis-step in that whole site.
“Personal Relationship†matter versus “Business Matterâ€.
“Professional Behavior†versus creating an “Uncomfortable Situationâ€.
But you and I wouldn’t know about it without “The Leak”. Or maybe it was taking on a life of it’s own and would have bubbled up to the surface eventualy. It is business news, certainly. Jane took a source and followed up with it—what most ethical reporters would do. The SB’s took the raw, unedited material and posted it for disection (haven’t read that thread BTW because discussions like that make me physically ill). Over and over they seemed to equate a lack of malice with a lack of responsibility for the outcome. If intent was not evil and bad things result, then we must hold them harmless? Ok. Or as with these kinds of trainwrecks, it’s no ones’ fault but the idiot who sent the original email out in the first place. Also an interesting justification and dodge of the bullet.
This thread began with a post discussing the process, not the (basically irrelevent) topic that was propelled by the process. Triskelion isn’t the first and it won’t be the last to get sucked into this process.
(The process being “blasted from the back rooms of the web where most people know the parties involved out onto the public whipping post for indifferent and cynical dissection” in case anyone is unclear what I mean by that generic term.)
On a side note, I agree with Jane. Emails should be considered private, even unprofessional business emails. It’s not a right, it’s an unwritten rule of civility.
“The SB’s took the raw, unedited material and posted it for disection (haven’t read that thread BTW because discussions like that make me physically ill). Over and over they seemed to equate a lack of malice with a lack of responsibility for the outcome.”
I think you have already decided that you are defending the note as “confidential personal material” despite apparent indicators that it was in no way private.
I see as it as a highly improper business practice of abusing those who do business with you by divulging “personal information” in a mass mailing.
I read a much darker intent into that note and would have been very annoyed to have gotten it. I would not have even the slightest problem sharing it nor would I feel I had given even my implied consent to that person to keep such inappropriate behavior confidential.
Hold that thought Teddy, it’s an interesting one. Let’s shift over to Jane and Nora’s thread where they take exception to Nora being singled out for censure. If I read the justification for this being an out of line spotlight, they are saying Nora should not be singled out for saying what numerous other people have essentially said as well. Ergo, everyone else is saying it, why pick on Nora? Because she is the high dollar target in the shooting range?
Does the fact that everyone else is doing itsaying it make her less of a target in the same way that the gossip dillution theory (Money laundering) works?
~If I read the justification for this being an out of line spotlight, they are saying Nora should not be singled out for saying what numerous other people have essentially said as well. Ergo, everyone else is saying it, why pick on Nora? Because she is the high dollar target in the shooting range?~
Apples/footballs.
No one should be singled out for expressing an opinion in reasonable terms. Whether or not others share that opinion. If it’s expressed reasonably one should not be singled out for the shame game because she’s a known name. And in this case, that was the only reason it was done.
It’s not a matter of follow-the-leader, or my friends all did it, so why can’t I sort of justification, which is how you’re equating the forwarding of the post.
Whether I agree with that justification or not, culling out one person because they’re recognizable in the industry isn’t at all the same thing.
I think Nora supported her opinion with well thought out reasoning and I agreed with it.
I think the BIG issue I had was over the “sneering” which accompanied the “cherry picking” of her comments alone.
Which is again “inappropriate behavior”.
I cannot even begin to address “money laundering” because I think that is also way outside of this discussion and implies “criminal intent”.
If we are going to say and do bad things, why do we need pretense? I am probably the only person on earth who thinks this way. Please don’t get all defensive and riteous on me again. I’m not saying this kind of thing is wrong. It’s the way of the web. Informative? Yes. Educational? Definitely. Reprehensible and downright nasty? Well that’s the best part, isn’t it? Why deny it?
You’re not saying it’s wrong, you’re just saying it’s reprehensible and downright nasty. Am I missing some obvious sarcasm or are you sincerely trying to give neutral connotation to the words “reprehensible” and “nasty”? Right now I’m interpreting it as sarcasm because I don’t see how an alternate definition would work.
Oh, nevermind, having read the rest of the comments I see you fall into the “it was wrong” camp.
When I zeroed in on one of the negative driving factors fanning the flames, “Everyone else is doing it tooâ€, I thought it was sad but interesting that no one agreed. The two people willing to even address it knee jerked as far over to the nice side as humanly possible considering how inhumane this public stoning of a complete stranger and her daughter is.
Assuming I was one of the two, I consider my response one of careful and close reading, but hey, whatever. That we disagreed does not make my reading anything but different from yours, and, I believe, very supportable given the text of The Leak’s posts.
Beyond that, though, I just want to point out that I have not attacked Northman either personally or professionally. I have stated more than once that I feel sorry for her AND her child, and I have also indicated my belief that her email demonstrates severe emotional distress and a blurring of personal/professional boundaries that, IMO, must have had *some* effect on Trisk, whatever that is. As gossip, IMO the non-personal part of the email (which is the bulk of it) has very low value on the scale of fascinating, and the “gossip” part was, as others have pointed out, mentioned here after the actual portion was removed from the email by some of the folks who were supposedly on Northman’s side. Since I (thankfully) read the email after that info was removed, the irony of finding out what it said from people lambasting Sarah was disturbing, to say the least.
IMO the only easy position to take here is that of “it was wrong to post the email,” and generally those morally absolutist positions are really appealing, in part because they don’t require a lot of messy moral and ethical reconciliation. But I have personally found them to be largely unworkable in life, leading to an eventual position of either forced hypocrisy or disillusionment (or both).
I don’t doubt your sincerity in taking a strong moral stance regarding this situation, but I see most of the objectionable language coming from the extreme arguments on either side. A good number of us, though, have been sincerely grappling with and debating the ins and outs of what happened here, both with Trisk and with the history of the email posting. There are some complicated issues on both sides, IMO, and some evidentiary weight for both positions (yes on posting email v. no on posting email). I don’t see that as knee jerk or nice or anything else that suggests an escape from moral responsibility of confrontation of the hard questions. It may not have the moral appeal of out and out condemnation of the posting, but *for me* moral absolutism creates the same level of discomfort as the ethically nebulous ambiguous here, albeit for somewhat different reasons. For me (and I’m not speaking for anyone else or declaring my position superior), justice is rarely contemplated from a position of moral certainty, and ethical clarity is something to arrive at rather than start with.
Late and likely redundant but… (plus nothing more than a humble reader)
If we take the Leak at his/her word (and apparently Candy/SBSarah have had previous dealings with this person, and so they do), then:
First, this person does not belong to the loop where GN posted the original message, will all its inappropriate and unprofessional TMI.
Second, GN herself started the rant with “since so and so are passing my emails around, then I’ll do it too, neener” (wild paraphrasing here), and proceeded to post a business email from RWA.
Third, by the time the Leak forwarded this to the SBs, s/he had received it from multiple channels.
Fourth, the Leak states that at this point s/he didn’t consider the content of the post private—which is in no way out of the realm of common sense, IMNSHO.
So.
Was it wrong to post the TMI, even without malicious intent? Yes, and it was removed from the post as soon as that observation was made.
Is it a shame that everyone still knows what it said because a lot of the people in the comments pretty much spilled the beans? Yes.
Do I think that GN needs a break? Hell, yes—preferably in the form of less professional responsibility so she can dedicate more time and energy to coping with the personal. Again, IMNSHO.
Was it wrong for the Leak to forward the email in toto to the SBs? Hell no. At that point in time it was pretty much common knowledge to those in any way remotely connected to the publisher, and a good few who weren’t (like say, oh, the Leak? who didn’t belong to the loop and is not an author, but had received it from different sources).
Was it wrong for the SBs to post it—without the TMI? Double hell, no. Again, to the SBs knowledge this was already going around, with all the drama and TMI.
Was there are more elegant (classy?) way to do this? As far as I’m concerned: meh, perhaps, but I still don’t see wrongdoing here.
Isn’t it more to the point, insofar as authors and readers are concerned, that GN’s email shows an appalling lack of professionalism—even removing all mention to the personal TMI? (“with me/us or against me/us”????? Hello, WTF?)
Isn’t it more to the point that, by she herself posting a private email to over 200 people, GN pretty much waived her own right to privacy? Particularly with the “tit-for-tat” middle school tone in which she did it?
Isn’t it more to the point that, by including the personal TMI in a supposedly professional communication, she violated the privacy of the people involved? Can that be considered professional behaviour anywhere?
Isn’t even more to the point that, as Teddy Pig points out, the inclusion of the personal TMI reads like a blatant attempt at manipulation? (i.e., be patient with me on the business front because my personal life is such a mess)
That’s $.02 by the way.
Damnit! That was “Was there a more elegant…” not “are”
(And of course I have to post right after Robin, who expresses herself so much better than I can… *sigh*)
Was the official email sent to Triskelion by RWA not something that was supposed to be shared with the company, since the whole company was affected? Was it only for GH?
Just curious.
It’s not a matter of follow-the-leader, or my friends all did it, so why can’t I sort of justification, which is how you’re equating the forwarding of the post.
Whether I agree with that justification or not, culling out one person because they’re recognizable in the industry isn’t at all the same thing.
Nora. I didn’t read that thread so I don’t know if what you said (which by comments in this thread indicate was similar to what everyone else said) merited a “shame on you†post as the representative of the collective comments. If you had not been among the people posting would they have said anything to anyone else? I can only go by Janes’ post where she indicates her impression was they picked on you because you were a high profile target.
I guess the question I can’t definitively answer is: Were they pissed at everyone and took it out on you or do they just dislike you specifically and took an opportunity to take a cheap shot? It seemed as if they were holding you to a higher standard than the “washed or unwashed masses†if I go by comments in this thread. And everyone seemed to agree that you should be no more subject to or exempt from attack than anyone else posting. So. You weren’t doing anything everyone else wasn’t doing (right or wrong) and it was wrong to single you out of the crowd.
It is the same rational as “The Leak†used.
You’re not saying it’s wrong, you’re just saying it’s reprehensible and downright nasty. Am I missing some obvious sarcasm or are you sincerely trying to give neutral connotation to the words “reprehensible†and “nasty� Right now I’m interpreting it as sarcasm because I don’t see how an alternate definition would work.
Arethusa. What you are missing is the original post was about whether or not the SB’s were – for want of a better word – wrong in their handling of the original tip. I believe the original discussion that prompted this thread is no different from a hundred like it that came before and the hundreds more that will sadly follow. Personally, threads like that make me sick. I would like to see them evolve into something better, and less damaging. But the entertainment value is what keeps them coming. The information presented and knowledge gained seems to justify, or maybe a better word is mitigate, the fall out. Is it bad? Some of it is bad. Some of it is very bad. Some people seem to like the bad and could care less about the good that also comes out of it. I would like to know how otherwise good people can engage in discussion like that one? How do they rationalize their participation?
Robin. There are no moral absolutes but there is honesty about what happened. Faced with the same material, and I am not holding her up as a better example, Jane chose to take a journalistic route. The SB’s took an entertainment route and then tried to couch it in a moral blanket of “people need to know this shit don’t kill the messenger”. Pretending this is anything other than the equivalent of a public whipping for the judgement and entertainment of readers is what is wrong about the entire discussion.
If we are going cow tipping don’t pretend we’re at a public poetry reading.
Jane & FerfeLaBat,
I must respectfully disagree with something you said.
I think that people should have some privacy when they send some memos / letters whether hand-written, typed or digital.
BUT the rules change if you send an email out to some two hundred people. It’s no longer private.
If I hand-wrote a letter and made two hundred copies and mailed them out to two hundred people, most of whom I’ve never met, my letter is no longer private.
If I wrote an email to my best friend…and her alone, then it shouldn’t be passed around if I asked her not to.
That’s the difference.
There are no moral absolutes but there is honesty about what happened. Faced with the same material, and I am not holding her up as a better example, Jane chose to take a journalistic route. The SB’s took an entertainment route and then tried to couch it in a moral blanket of “people need to know this shit don’t kill the messengerâ€. Pretending this is anything other than the equivalent of a public whipping for the judgement and entertainment of readers is what is wrong about the entire discussion.
Ah, yes, honesty and journalistic integrity. Now I have nothing but respect for Jane and certainly no objections to the way she handled the information she received. But I still find your contrast both a stretch and a personal judgment on your part. As for the notion of journalistic standards, would those be the same standards the NYT followed when they sat for a year on the evidence they had of warrantless domestic surveillance? Or perhaps the large newspaper I am familiar with that changed some phrasing in an editorial piece without the permission of the author because the opinions editor disagreed with the political position of the editorialist? Or what about the U.S. newspapers that refused to run the stories about Florida’s purging of the voter records preceding the 2000 election? Or every major news outlet’s coverage of Daniel and Anna Nicole Smith’s deaths, as well as the ensuring DNA and paternity cases? Or maybe Ken Starr’s inclusion of all the details of Monica Lewinsky and Clinton’s sexual contact in his “report”?
IMO, should even the most respectable journalism deny the lure of a good story, such an assertion would be completely disingenuous. Further, just watching Fox News for an hour makes it clear that journalism is HARDLY unbiased and free from interpretive presentation. Also, as someone pointed out somewhere, printing what someone presents for public consumption may be “official,” but there is no guarantee it’s any more accurate than something forwarded from a “source” and then printed. Does this issue carry the moral imperative of Enron? Hell, no. But I think the type of lines you are trying to draw are extremely artificial. Was Gail Northman’s trust violated? Yes. Should she be pissed? I would be. Did some people act before they really thought. Maybe. I think all those things can be true without nailing someone for forwarding it to various bloggers, the SBs for reprinting it, or others from reading it and commenting. And IMO Northman’s email was hot news precisely because there was so much unconfirmed information regarding the RWA’s un-invitation of Trisk floating around on various blogs. That made it news, and it also made it a headline. Just like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/nyregion/19six.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
My point, so inarticulately made, wasn’t toward Nora at all. It was made toward the commenters. If we hold Nora’s comments up to be all powerful because of who she is rather than because they are well reasoned, then we shouldn’t be surprised when others hold her up to be villified because of who she is and not because of the contents of her statement. And I guess, now I am sorry I brought it up. Sorry Ms. Roberts. Sorry SBs.
I don’t really understand the money laundering analogy.
And I don’t want to be held up as an example of anything. Sybil and I debated this post/don’t post thing for a while yesterday and I was persuaded by her arguments. I think I stated earlier that, at the end of the day, had I not received any word from RWA or Triskelion, I would have posted something from the email.
My point, so inarticulately made, wasn’t toward Nora at all. It was made toward the commenters. If we hold Nora’s comments up to be all powerful because of who she is rather than because they are well reasoned, then we shouldn’t be surprised when others hold her up to be villified because of who she is and not because of the contents of her statement.
FWIW, I thought your point was clearly made, but since I’ll likely never be a convert to the church of WWND?, I may have been more inclined to draw the meaning I did from your comments.
Actually, though, I’m glad you brought it up, because IMO hovering at the edge of this whole discussion is a question of how authority is conferred and transferred and interpreted in the Romance community. Whose word is believed more easily and who feels they have more to prove? Who seems inherently more worthy of respect or disrespect? Do we treat some people more gently than others, and is the revelation of Northman’s email about bringing someone high low or about the result of insider distrust of corporate authority? Or both? So even though you weren’t specifically addressing those issues, I think they’re actually relevant to this discussion in a number of ways.