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.
I thought about this a lot, and I finally wrote a blog post about it. Basically, as someone commented on my LJ earlier today: if it’s the Internet, it might be personal, but you cannot expect it to be private.
I’m sorry, but I call bullshit. The TMI given by the writer of the original email was distributed to over 200 people, on a supposedly-professional loop comprising fellow authors and editors. I happen to agree with Teddy Pig that it was an emotionally manipulative move, but the fact still remains that you can’t scream “confidential” when someone’s sent something to over 200 people. It just does not compute.
I think Jane and Ferfe have valid points, but their points should probably be addressed to the original writer of the TMI and not to Sarah and Candy, who got a story and ran with it. There IS TMI in this whole thing, but it’s not Sarah and Candy’s fault. Posting the email in its entirety was good journalistic practice on their part, giving us all the information available. They’re not to blame for the original writer’s faux pas.
So, FWIW, there’s my two pence. Additionally, I think the fact that we can discuss these issues for the most part calmly and rationally, disagreeing but not name-calling, (well, again, for the most part) is wonderful.
But that’s just me.
Angelle. Good point. Would you have forwarded it? Don’t answer. But even though you clearly delineate the differences I am wondering if I could have or would have – minus the TMI section.
Robin. Journalists ain’t what they were in Edward R. Murrow’s day that’s for sure. Recently my local paper (editor of which is a very good friend) ran what I felt was a hit piece on woman I know and admire. The facts of the piece were documented fairly well but she was not given a chance to address the charges in the piece. It was completely one sided.
Another editor I know said she would rather blow her own brains out rather than cover another second of the Anna Nicole crap. Several important stories were killed or delayed for that circus in her paper that week.
Are the blogs reflecting journalism or is jounalism decaying because of the blogs?
Imus was fired not because of what he said but because of who he said it about. Gails daughter falls under the same protection as the basket ball team in my opinion.
Throwing the email out there in its entirety also threw an innocent person under the bus.
Most newspapers do their best to verify sources and get as much of the facts as reasonably possible before running a story. Bias or slant not with standing, they don’t usually throw out raw news.
Compelling examples you gave, btw. Very compelling.
Lillith. Yeah. Can’t argue with that and I haven’t even tried. Some things are just a given. Still. While I understand how easy it is to focus so hard on one piece and completely skim and miss the innocent bystander, one persons unfortunate actions do not justify an unedited broadcast of those actions. Someone down the line thinking rationally should be able to syphon off the TMI and just say “Here is where she reveals way the hell TMI and what seems to be an attempt to manipulate personal sympathy for issues unrelated to the business”.
So if the original email loop is private—with a “do not forward” restriction—is that voided whenever anyone feels like ignoring the rule they agreed to abide by when signing up for the loop? If it’s perfectly okay to do this, why do the people who do it remain anonymous?
So if the original email loop is private—with a “do not forward†restriction—is that voided whenever anyone feels like ignoring the rule they agreed to abide by when signing up for the loop? If it’s perfectly okay to do this, why do the people who do it remain anonymous?
That is an obfuscatory straw man.
First of all, even if a loop is private with a do not forward restriction, what is Northman doing airing family biz like that on it? It was a professional loop, not a family therapy meeting.
Second of all, the do not forward restriction does not apply if someone is whistleblowing—i.e., breaking that provision in order to warn other authors of the very real risk of trusting your books, your copyrights, and your royalties to this company and having Something Dreadful happen.
Third of all, whistleblowers get to stay anonymous to protect them from retaliation. Nobody held a gun to Northman’s head and made her write such a threatening, unprofessional, highly personal, inflammatory, you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us spiel. She gave up anonymity when she decided to act unprofessionally, in a way that jeopardizes the authors and editors that have placed their trust, their goods, and their time in that company.
Last of all, being picky over who forwarded the email does not change the fact that Candy and Sarah acted just like journalists, verifying the story and scooping it, providing the information to the romance community at large.
Are the blogs reflecting journalism or is jounalism decaying because of the blogs?
Imus was fired not because of what he said but because of who he said it about. Gails daughter falls under the same protection as the basket ball team in my opinion.
Throwing the email out there in its entirety also threw an innocent person under the bus.
IMO, if blogs are having any effect on journalism, it should be to strengthen the values of investigation and responsible reporting. Anything less than that isn’t, IMO, the fault of bloggers, but of journalists themselves.
The Imus situation is interesting, Ferfe, because some of his critics had made similarly inflammatory comments in the past. I am probably in the minority in thinking that Imus should not have been fired, even though what he said was awful. IMO, his willingness to take responsibility for what he said, to not justify or explain it away was a HUGE plus, and the fact that he was still willing to go and personally apologize to those girls was another mark in his favor from me. And while I felt sorry for those girls, I think there’s a fine line between fostering the emotional and esteem growth of college aged kids (capable of voting, technical adults, and covered by FERPA) and paternalistically disempowering by making them feel doubly weak in not being able to confront ugly speech. But I can talk forever about what I think are screwed up attempts to protect people from conflict that would prepare them to realize that being offended is a part of life and not necessarily the result of discrimination or hate speech. Anyway, I kind of liked Candice Rice’s editorial (she’s Condi’s liberal sister): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rice11apr11,0,3674928.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
In terms of Gail Northman, I think that totally without thinking and totally without intending to, she threw her own underage daughter under that bus. I’m not blaming her for that, just saying that IMO she broke the privacy of her daughter by emailing a group that large when she didn’t know all the people on it and they were professional associates, not trusted friends. And I think she had a higher obligation to her daughter than Imus did to the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
That doesn’t mean that I think anything that someone writes online should be fair game. That argument really disturbs me because it eclipses the fact that other people *make choices* about how to handle that information. And those choices come with judgments and implications. I don’t think what the SBs did was wrong, but it’s not all that comfortable to me, either, because of the way the whole thing went down. A few more hours might have allowed for notice and the right to reply, which IMO would have made a difference. BUT, in the big mix of everything, I don’t think there’s a cut and dried answer here, and I don’t think it all boils down to malice or gossip or whatever, even if there are shades of some of that in the chain of emailing that occurred. And, as people have been saying in defense of Northman, sometimes we all do things we might think twice about given the benefit of hindsight.
“Imus was fired not because of what he said but because of who he said it
about. Gails daughter falls under the same protection as the basket ball
team in my opinion.
Throwing the email out there in its entirety also threw an innocent person
under the bus.”
Let’s see if I can refocus this issue in a common sense everyday approach that most people will be able to understand.
If I found out my mother typed a letter to all her business clients announcing my current occupational field to the world and that missive ended up being read on Jerry Springer.
Who would I be buying the preloaded Uzi for?
Jerry Springer… or my dear dear dear mother?
FerfeLaBat,
Absolutely!
That poor girl should’ve been left alone.
But let’s look at WHO TOLD THE STORY.
It was her mom—Gail Northman.
If she hadn’t said anything about her daughter in that email, which was sent to some two hundred people, most of whom strangers to her and her family, nobody would’ve known about it.
Even if SBTB didn’t post the letter in its entirety, a lot more than just those two hundred people would’ve read about it—as the letter was being forwarded left and right from what I can tell.
So to me, it was Gail’s fault.
BTW—as for your question—No, I wouldn’t forward any letters sent to me UNLESS the person who forwarded it told me it was okay. But then that’s just me. And that’s why if there’s something I don’t want forwarded everywhere, I MAKE SURE whatever I send to someone is private—meaning a very small circle of people, not hundreds of people—and tell them not to forward or quote me on it.
Ellie M—a lot of sources remain anonymous unless some laws were broken. Look at the CIA leak case. The sources were divulged after some long legal battles, but only because it was treasonous to endanger the lives of the CIA covert-ops officers.
She gave up anonymity when she decided to act unprofessionally, in a way that jeopardizes the authors and editors that have placed their trust, their goods, and their time in that company.
I think this is a straw man argument. The inclusion of personal information in no way jeopardizes the authors and editors that placed their trust, etc. in that company.
The same information could have been disseminated without reposting the entirety of the emails as is done in other journalistic endeavors. The decision to post is subject to scrutiny just as is the email itself.
There is a concept called “expectation of privacy” in the law. It generally applies to acts performed in the home and so forth but if Gail Northman had an expectation of privacy because of the a confidentiality agreement that individuals had to agree before joining, then she could be justified in feeling that whatever rant was made could be made public.
As for the whistleblowing issue, the law is pretty clear on that issue and I don’t know that this “leak” would be entitled to that protection. I guess I would have to take a closer look.
Everyone who rec’d said email has a choice. To post or not to post. It could have been done differently. Everyone who blogs is subject to criticism. Those who believe that this was wrong have the right to that belief. Those who believe that the SBs did right also have the right to that belief.
And I think Elle’s point was that if the information should have been shared why should she or he feel compelled to post anonymously? She isn’t questioning the right of the person to do so. But the fact is that whistleblowers do come out, if you want to return to the Saintcrow analogy. Do I think the person should come out? No. I think that she or he should keep her/his head down and wait for this to blow over because outing would do a lot of damage to the rep in potential epublishers’ eyes, in my personal opinion.
then she could be justified in feeling that whatever rant was made could be made public.
ugh. That should read, she could be justified in feeling that whatever rant was made would not be made public.
“expectation of privacyâ€
Right and in a working forum (It has been pointed out in the other thread she demands people to be involved in these dang loops) I have an “expectation of professionalism” and not some appeal to emotion being used to leverage my sympathy.
Jane,
Once again raise a question because I think that one of your points may not be valid. (I do agree what bloggers’ decision to post the letter may be under scrutiny—it’s again, a public forum.)
…she could be justified in feeling that whatever rant was made would not be made public.
She knew that her emails were being forwarded. She said so in the rant.
So why is she justified in believing that whatever she said will be kept confidential and not be made public by one of those who were forwarding her emails before?
And I must be flogged for making so many grammatical mistakes!!!!! Sorry, Jane!
No, Angelle, that salient point was made on my blog by a commenter with the initials NR. 😉 I am just thinking in legal terms here and I am kind of drawing on some long ago remembered legal principles.
Should she have an expectation of privacy given that there were past breaches of the agreement? In contract law, a forgiving of a past breach doesn’t necessarily mean that a party can continue to breach and it doesn’t render the contract void (as opposed to voidable by one party).
So just because she knew of past problems doesn’t mean she isn’t entitled to everyone complying with the terms of the agreement that they digitally signed. I.e., just because you speed today and they give you a pass doesn’t mean they can’t ticket you the next time.
I think that Gail made a huge mistake in the language of her post. But what she hasn’t done is missed royalty payments and promised things she can’t deliver because she is not actually in charge until June. So I don’t know how past Trisk problems can actually be blamed on her.
Unfortunately, her choice of wording was inflammatory and unprofessional but maybe she doesn’t yet realize what it means to be the head of a business. She does now.
Psh. That’s a gross mis-reading of Teddy Pig’s point, I think. This is more along the lines of:
– Private communication passed on to more public venues is wrong, and gossip.
– E-mails sent out to Internet groups with members in the triple digits that are passed on to more public venues is less likely to be morally questionable, because the expectations of privacy aren’t quite the same.
I’m with Jane: your money laundering analogy is so off-the-wall, I’m not really getting it.
Wait—WHAT? How have we tried to duck responsibility?
First of all, we’ve apologized—numerous times, I think—for the slip-up regarding the TMI. We have, in fact, admitted that it was awful and careless, and Sarah fixed it once we realized the ramifications.
How much more ownage do we need here? Do we need to pay for Northman’s family therapy bills? What?
Second of all, I’m willing to admit, especially now that I’ve cooled down after getting all het up from the hysterical name-calling on Wednesday and Thursday, that there’s a lot of grey area in posting that e-mail on our blog, and I’ve seen compelling arguments made as to whether we should’ve posted it or not. We’ve given our reasons for why we, personally, didn’t think there was a massive breach of privacy or confidentiality, and I’ve already repeated them for the umpteenth time, so blah blah blah blah expectations of privacy cakes. Like I said on Sybil’s blog, I don’t think what we did was 100% kosher, but I also don’t think that we’re Teh Ebil, and I stand by Sarah’s decision.
Was there a moral blanket? If so, it’s pretty damn thin, and it’s certainly not keeping me warm. About all we said was that the item was newsworthy, not merely gossipy, and that (barring the thoughtlessness and carelessness with the TMI), we didn’t do anything especially evil. Did we somehow attempt to don a superheroine cape and claim to bring succor to the newbie author masses? I don’t recall so, and if we did, we should quit doing that shit RIGHT NOW because capes are a singularly bad idea—they get caught in things, if nothing else, plus they increase the friction coefficient when flying.
It was neither, really. What’s with your obsession with the public whipping, anyway? We didn’t want any whippings—public, private or otherwise. We wanted more information, and we wanted to see what people thought about the situation. That was it, and that was all—f’real.
See, there’s a constant stream of accusations running along the lines of “They’re doing it to be mean and/or to generate more hits and more revenue and/or to bring down poor widdle Triskelion/Gail Northman/Gail Northamn’s children/Gail Northman’s sainted mother,” but let me tell you this: Sarah and I? We’re not nearly that calculating. It’s Fly By The Seat Of Your Pants day, every day. To be honest, Sarah and I were convinced this was going to be a really small blip on the radar, and we wondered to each other if anyone would show up and confirm or disprove the information. Boy, were we in for a surprise.
Comparisons and analogies to journalism and the like are just that: comparisons and analogies. Smart Bitches isn’t a news agency. Sarah and I aren’t journalists.
Speaking of which:
Holy shit, you did NOT just blame the decaying standards of journalistic integrity on the rise of blogging, did you? I mean, as a former reporter, surely you’ve seen this coming for a long time, long before the Internet, much less blogs, became the force to be reckoned with that they are now, right? You’re joking, yes? Please? Because you’re a lot of things, but you’re not screamingly stupid.
Personally, I have three words that sum up the problems with the American mass media (two if you count the hyphenated word as one): for-profit media. OK, fine, two more words: media oligopolies.
But that’s another debate for another day.
Dude, what? Are you inhabiting a parallel universe and reading an entirely different discussion here? Because what I’ve seen these past few days can be called a lot of things, but “cynical” and “indifferent” aren’t two of them. In fact, “impassioned,” “idealistic,” “absolutist” and “enraged” come a lot closer. Is today opposite day? Or are you taking a Derrida-esque approach to language?
And now, some things Robin said that pricked my interest:
You’ve nailed it. There was plenty of thoughtlessness going around that day, and we’re truly sorry we didn’t catch the TMI thing before it was posted. That was pretty egregious on ALL accounts—but especially on Northman’s part for posting it in the first place, and us for not taking note of it and editing it out as soon as we saw it.
That was beautifully put. I’ve been spending a shockingly huge amount of my mental energy thinking about this for the past two days, and I’ve been having fits. On one hand, if I were Northman, I’d be livid about the whole situation. (But then, if I were Northman, I wouldn’t have written that e-mail in the first place, but that is, I suppose, beside the point.) On the other hand, (and with all due caveats regarding the TMI, which: our bad), I don’t think what we did was THAT awful, even if not exactly the most elegant way to get the information across. But the accusations of malice and cynicism and attempts to attention whore, etc. etc. really burn my biscuit—they make me sputtery in the way I used to get when I was young and family members would accuse me of things I HADN’T done, to the extent that I felt like pointing out things I COULD be blamed for so they would at least get something right. But on the third hand (pretend I’m Shiva for tonight), I’m hardly an impartial party, and I don’t know if my justifications are no more than an effort to tamp down and reconcile mass amounts of cognitive dissonance. I do feel a pit yawn in my stomach when I read what some people have written about us and our motives—and I’m not talking about hysteria and vitriol displayed by some of the commenters on the previous thread, or even shit-stirrers like Ferfe. I’m talking about people who have read this blog for years and who, while not necessarily friends of mine, are on friendly personal terms with me; I value their opinion, and seeing them say these things makes me wonder if there’s a grain of truth in it, and if they’re seeing something I don’t because I don’t have the necessary distance and clarity.
My conclusions stand, but they’re not settled by any means on any kind of solid foundation, and I don’t think I’ll ever reconcile the many different bits that are pulling me in different directions right now. Moral ambiguity FOR THE WIN!
Also, everybody: Take 3 sips! I replied (partially) to Robin with 1,300 words, bitches!
Also, Jane talks about law! 3 more sips! Wheeeeee drunken Fridays. (Except I’m allergic to alcohol. Ha.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse
Re: is this overwrought drama surrounding any criticism a part of the reason why romance as a business isn’t taken seriously?
IMO no, that is most definitely not the reason. I’ve been reading romance novels for years and they’ve always had a bad rep.
I also understand, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong LOL, that most of this drama started with reviewers, bloggers, readers and authors going at it on the WWW. It might give it an even worse rep between the romance community, but I doubt people from other genres are much interested in all this bruhaha, and if they do happenn to stumble upon it, well, it can’t do the genre much good now, can it?
…or even shit-stirrers like Ferfe.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Jane,
I have been thinking about what you are telling us about the privacy agreement.
I keep coming back to the information presented above…
“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…”
She is insisting on forcing her business associates into these loops and having them participate. That is basically forcing people to sign that agreement of privacy in order to have their work be fully represented in the company and I believe you when you say there is one in effect.
I think there is grounds then for the participants expecting her to maintain these loops at a respectful business or professional level, which now sets up my argument that this was an abuse of a business relationship. Since she insists these loops are part of her business practice.
I think a good attorney would have a field day with that privacy agreement since the intent of these emails are now under a constraint but can be looked at as a form of record.
I think my issue with the jewelry on the Trisk page is that it is in the New Releases book section. I could understand if they had a “Merchandise” link that was separate – some publishing houses as well as stores do – you know T-Shirts, mousepads, ad-infinitum. But that jewelry is taking up New Release book space from their authors.
Also – question for my own curiosity – is it ‘kerfluffle’ or ‘kerfuffle’? I’m dying to use that word going forward, but I want to get it right 🙂
According to Merriam-Webster, it’s kerfuffle.
TP – it’s late and I just signed on so I don’t have a long thoughtful answer for you. I don’t know that there is a confidentiality agreement. I was arguing that point based on a “what if” scenario.
I do find that part about participation on the loop to be a requirement a bit odd. I didn’t understand if the participation was on trisk’s general loop or the private loop or what? Because I can see as a publisher wanting to see your authors out there promoting themselves if you are going to invest in them but I don’t get purpose if it is related to the private loop.
Privacy issues are really a gray area in the law absent an agreement and even then it can be sticky.
Actor A calls his daughter on the phone, is unable to reach her, and leaves an abusive message.
Ex-wife releases abusive content of message to press.
News? Or terrrible breach of privacy?
Either way, Actor A. should have his ass kicked for taking out his ill temper on his child. Ex-wife’s public release of A’s bad behavior might be reprehensible, but it does not change the fact of the verbal abuse of the child, nor does it excuse the man’s childishly vindictive behavior.
* * *
Publisher X threatens contract authors with excommunication if she is not given their complete and unquestioning support, and in the course of illustrating her own beleaguered situation, slanders her own daughter.
Whether or not the daughter is actually misbehaving, the ‘with or against’ policy is relevant to people who might be considering doing business with Publisher X, and so is the fact that her judgement is poor enough to make such statements against her own child to hundreds of people who do not know or care about the kid. Never mind the poor judgement of expecting that a system with known breaches of confidentiality is going to suddenly stop leaking. How would she have felt if her daughter blogged that she thought her mother was cheating on her father? No way for readers of either statement to prove or disprove the claim, but incredibly disrespectful of the other party.
Why is this relevant and newsworthy? If Editor X will make such statements about her own child, what might she say about a writer with whom she was having a serious difference of opinion?
When somebody in a position of authority is acting like she’s got a serious lack of judgement like this, it’s worth bringing up when people will be depending on her judgement for some or all of their income.
And my 2cents—anybody who thinks you can fit a Maxwell Smart “cone of silence” over 200 people is either incredibly naive or … well, fill in your own blank, I can’t choose just one word.
We get enough bullshit from the corporate media and Tony Snow-job. Whether it’s small-press uproar or government coverup, I’d rather get the unpleasant facts and make my own judgements. And nobody has suggested that the information Sarah and Candy printed was anything but fact.
Either way, Actor A. should have his ass kicked for taking out his ill temper on his child. Ex-wife’s public release of A’s bad behavior might be reprehensible, but it does not change the fact of the verbal abuse of the child, nor does it excuse the man’s childishly vindictive behavior.
I don’t remember it being stated as fact that the ex-wife released it, and in fact I think it’s quite likely she didn’t. The tape was part of a court case, and if you don’t think a filing clerk at the courthouse making $18,000 a year wouldn’t be tempted by a $50,000 or more cheque from TMZ or the Enquirer, especially when so many people will blame the mother automatically…
“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.”
It was the author’s choice. I was one of the editors involved. We were told of the situation, privately by the senior editors at Trisk and asked if we wanted to help by trying to get the books out fast. We did, and we got the book edited and out as fast as we could so she could see them before she was put on to the morphine treatment she has to look forward to, at which point she may become pretty much non compos mentis. At no time did any of us say anything about the author’s illness outside private mails.
She herself announced it on one of the public loops. It was her choice, and it is part of her own personal therapy in facing the illness. It is nothing to do with anything else. I admire her bravery .
BTW I enjoyed the books very much. I’d buy them in any case.
Pardon me for going off topic since we are sharing…
I have been HIV Positive since 1989. Back then, when I was diagnosed I was told I had ONLY five years to live. Obviously a bitch such as myself does not die that easily no matter how much you would wish otherwise.
Instead, five years later I watched my lover John die from AIDS, first his mind and then his body went very quickly within about a years time after we first started noticing symptoms. I only bring this up to explain why I may turned into what could be called a bitch on wheels.
So I am sitting here smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer and typing on my computer as I play the SB drinking game and I have just taken 3 sips.
Bet you can not guess what that rule was?
Ya wanna know something?
NO ONE at my current job knows I am HIV anything. I do not in any way live my life around my illness unless the topic would be helpful to share like my old boss who died of cancer. We talked about having to take all the medications and struggle with the side effects etc etc.
I would personally die a thousand deaths before I would allow anyone to treat me differently because of my rather sordid terminal illness. I say sordid because it is made even more vicious in public because of the sexual stigmas placed around it.
Yeah, in my opinion all of us, each and every one, will eventually and most certainly die.
I just hope someone here will take a gun and shoot my ass if I ever throw a public pity party over my particular situation or ask you to buy my new book because I am “a victim” of AIDS.
Now was that 4 sips when you realize you probably are going to hell?
Thank you, Smart Bitches. For all your snarkaliciousness, but especially for waving the big flag about a potentially unbalanced employer.
The business side of writing is confusing and painful enough without having to take on my publisher’s personal problems.
Whatever Ms. Northman’s defenders say about her personal style and goodness she made these comments on a professional loop. She’s not an author—she’s one of those who are in charge of the company.
I don’t depend on fellow authors for my book’s success so I can disregard their personal whining. But I am dependent upon the publisher. So claiming that Northman is justified because others share personal info on the loop doesn’t hold water for me.
As one of the people running the company, and soon to be the woman at the top, I believe Northman should hold herself to a more professional standard. I certainly want my publisher to act professionally whenever she is representing the company. And when she writes on the Triskelion loop, even if it is private, she is representing the company. I’d think every one of the authors would be clamoring in outrage instead of defending her behavior. So bizarre. I do NOT want to drink that kool-aid.
I am so grateful to the SBs that I know about this BEFORE getting involved with Triskelion. To me this is truly helpful information for authors.
sip, sip, sipping the KoolAid
we got the book edited and out as fast as we could so she could see them before she was put on to the morphine
That’s what I assumed. I don’t love Triskelion’s website but the “Author has cancer” item isn’t on my bitch-list. It’s just a pity the ENTIRE site looks like a vanity site full of personal-interest items, not a professional site with ONE personal touch.
There ARE times when the professional should make room for the personal. That does NOT mean threatening, TMI emails. It means expediting that author’s print process was a kind thing to do. I can argue for or against the “look at her books” plea. Often people want to educate about their condition. Often employers, professional associations, colleagues want to make a gesture.
Big differences between the much-forwarded email and the cancer statement:
The gravity of the situation. The end of a life is different from other domestic upheaval.
Having something to lose. As that author’s life expectancy is short (and her illness bears no stigma), no harm done. OTOH Northman has a lot to lose, and ranting or TMIing can do her AND others professional and personal harm.
The power dynamic. The author’s situation isn’t a threat to others with Triskelion. Northman’s in a different position, and she strongly invoked that power dynamic in her email. With us/against us? That says “I’m the heavy”. She SAID she’s a threat.
The forethought. The cancer item sounds crafted for public viewing, i.e. someone thought about what it conveyed. Not all emails have to be crafted for the public (a large Yahoo group isn’t as public as the website) but they have to be professional. And the larger the TO: list, the more “public” the audience.
Heh. Just saw Mollita’s comment. Guess she and I both thought the situation smelled of KoolAid. Now THERE was a study in leadership. eek!
The publisher as cult: next on Channel 9.
Now see, I just put them both in the same category.
Unprofessional decisions and utterly poor taste.