Candy: I debated with myself long and hard about writing this. On one hand, I’m not sure what went on deserves to be dignified with a response. On the other hand, remaining silent might be interpreted as indifference, cowardice, turning a blind eye, or, worst of all, tacit approval of the shit we’ve seen being slung around in recent days. I finally decided I couldn’t keep my yap shut any longer, and the reason why I’m allowing the floodgates to open is this: ultimately, it’s not just about a specific blog, or a commenter, or a group commenters. Don’t get me wrong: I’m going to pick on one blog in particular, and pick on it hard because it exemplifies much that I find distasteful. But I want to also address an issue that I’ve seen over and over in many blogs—and I’m not just talking about romance blogs, either, though that’s what I’m going to talk about here, given the focus of this site. Essentially, there’s a type of discourse that goes along the lines of “You’re really mean, so you really need to watch your mouth, you ugly whore.” Most of the time, I shrug my shoulders and go “Eh,” or I tell myself not to let it bug me, because it’s the Internet tubes, man; sometimes, they do end up resembling dump trucks. But all that shrugging and sliding isn’t working any more.
So yeah, don’t know what brought on this rant? It exploded all over the place with what I thought was a pretty innocuous post about the presence of bloggers and author costumes at the RWA Nationals this year, but it really kind of started with this (now-deleted; praise Jah for Google caching) post at Cindy Cruciger’s (also known as FerfeLabat) about reviewers/bloggers. I’ve made jokes about how rack-obsessed that bunch is, and I’m still amused that these people found my breasteses even remotely squawkworthy, but in my opinion, the most hostile comments were directed towards Jane of Dear Author.
As the discussion about costumes got bigger and bigger over here at Smart Bitches—and let me tell you, I’m astonished this tempest in a teacup became the category 5 hurricane that it did—Cruciger and her commenters became increasingly prune-mouthed and disapproving, giving birth to two posts: one that pulled many comments, several of them out of context; and another to REALLY drive home what a buncha animals, animals we are over here.
Taking the high road is a tricky, tricky thing. If nothing else, if you indulge in the behaviors you condemn, you’re going to look like a huge, honking hypocrite. (Alliteration is always awesome.)
For example: check out this bit of commentary by Cruciger in response to Nora Roberts’ criticism of Kenyon’s ginormous swan hat: “There is such a thing as tact. It runs part and parcel with the ellusive [sic] “Professionalism” thing … I’ve heard. How is bashing an author on a public blog better than the BASH (Big-assed-swan-hat)?”
And then check out this bit of commentary by Cruciger about Jane of Dear Author: “It’s comments like that that made me think she was a 40 yo WASP. Classic disdain. You can’t buy that. You have to be born with it and it takes years to perfect.”
The double standard here is pretty staggering, especially since Nora Roberts was commenting on a) an author’s attire, and not the author herself, and b) an issue that was directly related to media perception of the romance genre and what it means to be a professional writer. I have yet to discern any sort of non-personal reason for Cruciger to post the pictures of us reviewers/commentators. She’s fond of talking about how on-line reviewers are free to snipe with impunity at authors on blogs, but I haven’t yet seen any of the review and commentary blogs—especially those with a decently large readership, like Dear Author—post photos of authors solely for personal commentary.
See what I mean? “Watch that mouth of yours, you whore.”
Keep in mind, I’m not saying I can’t understand why, say, Mancusi and Maverick felt personally attacked—because it’s natural for people to interpret these sorts of discussions as comments on their worth as persons as opposed to a debate on the viability of their choices—but I saw the thread as largely civil, while somewhat puzzling to me in its length and intensity. (I’m definitely still suffering from “Why are we so worked up about two hot chicks in tame miniskirts and stockings?” syndrome.)
The irony of Cruciger’s response becomes especially delicious when I review the comments Cruciger and some of her regulars made about our appearance for, near as I can tell, shits ‘n giggles, because that somehow gets a free pass, and then see how they howl and rage so very hard over what was said about Kenyon, Mancusi and Maverick over here at Smart Bitches. Look, I’m not denying that the discussion here was very loud and brusque in tone—but it centered on questions regarding professionalism, marketing in romance, conformity and the image of romance. I’m also not saying that people didn’t go over the line (*koff*DebSmith*koffkof*) in the 600+ comments we logged over the course of a week. But it’s important to note that NOT all of the comments were against costumes, nor were all of them critical of Mancusi, Maverick and Kenyon, as Cruciger implied when she characterized that particular thread as “taking 600 comments to to demoralize three writers.” I think the tone of the discussion here at Smart Bitches, while often hard-hitting and blunt, remained largely free of malice.
These differences in perception interest me. Certain types of people love to claim that we reviewers get to say whatever the hell we like about authors without having to face any consequences, but the people who make these claims the loudest seem to also be the ones who snipe frequently, snipe often and snipe messily at their targets. In fact, these are often people who actually HAVE targets, usually bloggers who set them off. There seems to be little awareness that what they’re doing is in any way inconsistent. What they do is a little bit of fun against thick-skinned people who know how to take it; what we reviewers/commentators/bloggers do? Is ENTIRELY different, and our victims are unsuspecting, sensitive little lambs.
Jane: I thought the debate on costumes was illuminating because not only was it a stand-in for the greater resentment felt towards the mainstream media for marginalizing romance, but also how important the issue of respect is to those careers are defined by the genre itself. It was an issue that was fraught with emotion but for the most part was spirited but not unkind. It is obvious that the two of the authors in question felt these were personal attacks and as Robin said, that would be natural. Yet, the discussion wasn’t about the person, but the idea of marketing and the time and place of appropriateness.
What grew out of this debate on Cindy Cruciger’s blog was demeaning to us all in the way that it turned a legitimate discussion into a mockery. In the rush to trample down everyone in their paths who did not hold similar beliefs, Cindy Cruciger and a group of e-published authors such as Selah March and Eva Gale engaged in the very acts that they purportedly despise: name calling, condescension, discussing personal appearance as if it had anything to do with ability or content. Cruciger engaged in a wholesale deletion of posts and comments.
I did not respond before because I felt, as I commented in the monstrous thread about costumes and bloggers, that these types of comments deserved no response merely because I felt that the point of posting it was to gain a response.
I believe that personal attacks are not appropriate and try very hard on the blog, particularly in a review, to not make it personal. If I say that the author is doing something with her books or her characters that I find objectionable, I don’t perceive that to be a personal attack. A personal attack to me would be posting a picture of an author and saying, “I can’t believe she could write a sex scene like that. She certainly doesn’t look like she could.” Which was, in essence, the gleeful statements that were made about the four bloggers on Cindy Crcuiger’s blog (which she has since deleted).
Cruciger’s blog has long been a haven for nasty comments like March’s in April when she stated “I’ve been publicly humiliated by award-winning authors in front of entire classrooms full of my peers because my stories dared to incorporate PLOT” and “Can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if you try, you might just be writing middle-of-the-road crap that alienates the people who write ME fan letters about my “gritty, realistic” characterization.” Which are as off putting to me as some believed that the verbiage from the “rebels of romance” page was. Other comments existed (until they were recently deleted) such as “Where did Karen Scott say she went on vacation again? I think someone saw her …” and then quoting the passage from a news article “Weird-Looking ‘Lake Snake’ Sought by Illinois Authorities”.
So yes, when I came across a post on Keishon’s blog and Selah March wanted to engage in a debate, I refused because I knew that I would only be subject to sarcasm and viputeration. When Cindy Cruciger posted our pictures or would make a comment about the state of DearAuthor, there was no point in responding. It seemed to me that either these people wanted the traffic from linking or that they were simply determined to be mean, neither of which deserved a response. But I suppose by remaining silent, I subjected others to this and perhaps I should have objected sooner. For that I would apologize. But, I don’t apologize for not wanting to support their careers or give them attention for which they don’t deserve.
Sarah: My reaction to both debates – the costumes and Candy’s rack – has been mostly to observe, but then, it takes a lot to set me off in general.
But my reaction to the discussion and what it turned into moved rapidly from “Holy cow” to, “Are you kidding me?” My perspective as someone who isn’t regularly called upon to defend romance, but does it anyway, is certainly different from those who posted in that thread. It’s not as if my career is based upon the genre, but for other authors, I can totally see their point. Ignoring the trolls, as is my habit, reading over Crusie, Roberts and other writer’s comments was certainly illuminating as to the other side of the debate: do costumes detract? Where is the line between fun and frippery that decreases respectability? Are costumes and dressing up in character for marketing purposes something that will be seen more frequently? Or is it reserved for other venues and not so much RWA?
But really, as Candy so rightly contrasted in her rant, how come it’s not ok for us to discuss or even question the presence of costumes, but it IS ok for others to not only discuss the presence of bloggers but comment upon our appearances and the way we look? WTF?
The amount of vitriol and cruelty was astonishing at the sites Candy linked to, and I have no patience for anyone who wants to throw mud when they don’t have anything of quality to add to the discussion – hence my decision to close comments on the original behemoth when it turned into a pile-on instead of anything meaningful.
No matter how much or how little I read on the sites Candy linked to, or in Google caches of the same, the more I’m thunderstruck. What really, really pissed me off is watching our site held up as the source of what’s wrong with the romance community online, when neither Candy, Jane, or I would ever dare criticize an author’s appearance as part of examining his or her books. There’s a line for us that we wouldn’t cross, no matter how much we didn’t like a novel. But to be accused of being the source of all that is crapful by those who cross that line blithely at our own expense is infuriating and disgusting.
That said, trolls aside, I am as usual exceptionally proud of how most of the time, folks on this site can debate and discuss topics wherein there is great disagreement operating within an environment of respect and consideration. Pity that a noxious few attempted to spoil it, but at this point, I’m happy to ignore them again.
Candy, Jane, and I debated about opening this thread to comments, because the last thing we want is a pile-on of hateration, or soothing pats on the head. However, we all agreed it was past time to respond. So in the comments, some ground rules:
1. This isn’t open season to attack us, or Cruciger, or anyone else. If you disagree with us, we trust you know how to do so respectfully. If you don’t, and post anyway, we’ll get crazy with the delete feature.
2. What we’re trying to address here is: What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?
3. Please keep the discussion focused on generalities and behaviors. This isn’t an opportunity to re-hash. And please, if you reference a specific instance on another site to underscore your point, please link. If your HTML breaks, no worries – we’ll fix it.
4. Everyone: take a deep breath. Have some chocolate. Then post.
Barbara Cartland kicked her dog???
Oh, Teddy why do you have to break my heart.
I have to add a big hurrah for M&M’s editor, Chris. Classy. None of these people were rude when they waded in the fray in defense of their decision. No matter which direction the debate took (I really like the dodging beer mugs analogy) they kept their cool and showed their professionalism by not drowning in the muck.
Why do you think sometimes the borderline-mean humor works and other times doesn’t? For instance, what’s the difference between the snake example at ferfe’s and the monica jackson “author calming visualization�
I’m not sure I’ll be able to cover all the nuances of why certain instances of mean humor work but some don’t, but I think it boils down to this: is the person making the joke a friend of yours, or at least friendly?
Monica and I aren’t BFF or anything, but we’re friendly. I dig her. She threatened me with the author calming visualization when I reviewed her book, and she took my review like a trooper (my reviews stop being kind right around B- territory, and In My Dreams got a C-). It was a joke, and we clearly understood it as such.
Cruciger, on the other hand? No such understanding. You read some of the posts she’s written, the ones about Karen Scott, Jane, Sarah and me, and there’s usually a strong current of hostility. I may or may not be over-interpreting these posts. Wouldn’t be the first time that happened.
It’s like having a friend call me a bitch vs. somebody who, if not an enemy, tends to view my behavior with a jaundiced eye. A mean joke works for me if it’s not mean-spirited, if that makes any sort of sense at all.
I’m second guessing, no doubt about it. I haven’t asked.
But Candy, maybe the reason ferfe dumped that particular example (the thread you saved a screen shot of) was because she finally came to the conclusion that it *was* inappropriate. I can’t see why else she would.
Perhaps proof that your argument has had some success.
Cruciger dumped the post before we started making any noise. I have no idea why she deleted it; I can only speculate, but I ain’t sharing the speculation in a public space. She has temporarily reinstated it, I think.
Whether or not she thinks it was inappropriate, the timing was interesting.
Also, a note to many of youse who’ve already commented: some of the comments about Cruciger & co. are REALLY treading the line. A couple even go over. My laptop battery’s almost entirely gone, so I won’t be doing any editing until later tonight, and I really, really hate editing comments, because it feels like censorship, but for serious: don’t go over the line. It makes me an unhappy panda, and you don’t want to be in close proximity to this unhappy panda.
Up there Bella said
For me (and if memory serves there were a couple of people there in agreement) the debate was about how authors’ behavior at professional settings affects the “outside world’s” perception of romance novels, romance writers, and romance readers. From that perspective, it makes eminent sense (to me—YMMV) to clean house first, then head outside to pick trash at the roadside.
Again, to me, it wasn’t about how adorable or otherwise any of them looked—anymore than it was about how Candy or Sarah or Sybil or Jane were dressed!—but about what image the RWA’s literacy signing presented to outsiders of what the romance genre is about. The authors, as members of the RWA, represent the organization at this event, whereas the bloggers? No more than any other reader of romances would.
So if Candy’s “feathergasm” picture had made it to the papers, the caption would have had to be “romance reader/fan/reviewer” instead of “best seller romance writer”—and that does make a difference, IMO.
But—as was repeated ad nauseam on the long ass thread—why are the extremes continuously trotted out here? There’s a huge area between the extremes, for goodness’s sake! Choose a comfortable spot for who you are somewhere along the continuum, and stop fretting about the extremes!
Great post.
First, I’m sorry I contributed to comments on the original thread getting shut down. No excuse except I had just finally had it.
Second, I think Sherrilyn Kenyon responded *beautifully* to this whole issue:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=135494181
Third, Tara Gelsomino wrote a brief piece about the RWA discussion as it relates to second and third wave feminism, and even though I disagree with her conceptualization of the issue (but am a *weeee* bit busy for the next couple of days and can’t yet write a coherent response) I think it’s part 2 (and maybe the REAL issue) of the RWA costume discussion. I also recommend reading the Steinem piece RfP linked to:
http://accessromance.com/gab/2007/07/23/frankly-my-dear/#comments
4. I actually think there’s far too little public discussion of controversial issues these days, which is one of the reasons I don’t think we (as a society) do it very well or comfortably. I don’t think people should be forced to speak when they don’t want to, but I do think the greatest danger to our most fundamental liberties is that we don’t feel the persistent need to protect them—or we forget that the things most important to our basic political and social integrity are also those things we need to actively nurture and protect.
6. Strong disagreement is not censorship. I think this needs to be reiterated like a million times.
Monica and I aren’t BFF or anything, but we’re friendly. I dig her. She threatened me with the author calming visualization when I reviewed her book, and she took my review like a trooper (my reviews stop being kind right around B- territory, and In My Dreams got a C-). It was a joke, and we clearly understood it as such.
I think the crucial element is that the author calming visualization was a joke on BOTH of you. THAT’s kind of where I draw the line (as an extension of your relationship and context points).
I didn’t have any chocolate; I had carrot cake instead – yummmmm!
I don’t know whether to be impressed or appalled at the way this little discussion took on a life of it’s own then multipled all over the place! It was so intelligent and so mature for so long then the longer it went on the more useless the conversation was. And nobody would give an inch of anything. That was just on this blog, then I started hearing about happenings on other blogs. WTF!! And for a while I couldn’t figure out how to disable the comments from coming to my email (I’ve got it now thank you very much). It reminded me of a pack of pitbulls attacking babies – pitiless.
And for what? Nothing was decided or resolved. No RWA board members stepped up and said “Alright already, let’s do this and this from now on.” Actually I don’t think anybody was listening after the first 300 posts.
I’m going on to long. To these people doing the mean girl act – you need a life.
I’ve been quiet throughout this cross blog “discussion.” Sarah and Candy have done an amazing job of leaving the forum open for communication and I, for one, appreciate it. I really enjoy Dear Author and love the fact that you are having cross blog debates…
Here is my opinion. Name calling, snide remarks, and insult slinging, fun though it may be to watch (much like a train wreck), has only one outcome. Lots of pissed off people and a train that derailed off topic.
Calling someone unprofessional in one side of the mouth then slamming them for the way the look, act, etc in another doesn’t deserve a response.
Taking comments out of context is libel. Plain and simple.
Ladies, I thought you all looked gorgeous in your pictures. 🙂 Sarah, I wish I glowed like you do when you’re pregnant. And the teething suggestions you gave me for my son has worked wonders. My husband, my son and I all thank you! Candy, hon, what can I say that hasn’t been said already. 🙂 You looked gorgeous (looove the cowboy hat)! And Jane, it was fantastic to put that lovely face to your blog.
My two cents, for what it’s worth. Have a great week ladies and thank you for keeping this weird world grounded.
Second, I think Sherrilyn Kenyon responded *beautifully* to this whole issue:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=135494181
She wears that hat in church? I’m now officially a fan of her. 🙂
I ordered some of her books from Amazon.de. I admit, I hadn’t come across her before, but I live in a place with few English books on the shelves.
This is very conflicting for me in a lot of senses. I think I tried to hash it out on my blog, but even there it doesn’t seem to sum it up well.
I will say that I don’t think it is personal to question behavior, because everyone has done something that they wish they hadn’t, and that the something shouldn’t, in most cases, define their lives. But that doesn’t omit it from comment. I have scolded a few and have been scolded by more, and I can appreciate them as people and they me after the fact. I think that behavior should be put in context, however. If it was a one time thing, or a continual hash, for example.
Jeez. I wish someone could get what I’m saying, because I sure as hell can’t.
And for what? Nothing was decided or resolved.
But does a discussion have to be resolved in any specific way to be valuable? I don’t think anyone really wanted universal action; it may be my perverse attachment to ambivalence, but I thought the fact that we could have such a comprehensive and sustained discussion of genre image was really remarkable. And I think I would have felt disappointed if all the various issues raised (and IMO there were A LOT) all got neatly tied up and delivered in the form of ANY resolution, formal or informal. But like I said, my love of ambivalence is fierce.
Earlier,—E said,
And I’ve been thinking, why doesn’t this ring true with/for me? After a bit of soul searching, I realized…
I would think it presumptuous of anyone to approach me at a professional event and tell me that—and more so if it’s someone I don’t know. I mean, s/he would be perfectly right, but unless it’s my boss and/or there’s a written dress code somewhere that I managed to mangle… well, let’s just say that it would be easy for me to interpret the motivation as anything but helpfulness.
Does that mean that my behaviour is exempt of scrutiny/criticism? Heavens, not at all! I’ve done plenty of stupid things, thank you, and will probably screw up a bit more in the years to come. That’s living, no? But dammit, if I do manage to sink my feet in all the way to my armpit, I want to know how, and when, and (if applicable) to whom, so I can learn from it.
It’s all in how it’s said, honestly it is!
DO: “This particular behavior is not acceptable/professional/desirable/allowed in this particular setting/environment/setting/situation, because….”
DON’T: “So and so is a tramp/an idiot/trash/stupid because s/he did this here!!!!”
This makes sense to me, I hope it does to you guys out there!
(the spamfoiler is scary!!! “across91” As in, “getting my point across”)
Taking comments out of context is libel. Plain and simple.
Jessica, thanks for the compliments. I thought RWA was peopled with beautiful women. I hate to correct you on this issue but I am really, really anal about it. Taking comments out of context may be rude or inappropriate or whatever adjective you want to put on it but it is not libel. Libel is a written factual untruth. Someday I’m going to do a whole blog post on this because it is easily misunderstood.
I am really interested in people’s opinions on what is considered a personal attack or criticism. Is there ever a time that personal criticism is allowable or is that always out. I recognize that if I put something out there for public consumption that I am exposing myself for criticism and frankly, I want it but not when its about my religion, my race, my sexual orientation, etc.
For example, I feel like LKH opened the door for us to speculate about her personal life affecting books because she has talked openly about characters being based on people in her life (her two husbands for example). I think other characters serve as a metaphor for her unhappy fans in her books.
But, even if an author does make a personal reference, are we free to speculate as to whether that personal conflict had any impact on her books? Does it matter if we set ourselves up as “reviewers”? Does it matter if we get compensation? If the only form of compensation is a free book, does that change?
If we were simply “readers” and not “reviewers”, would the standard be different?
If, as Lani suggested, we are somehow public personas, where is the line of criticism drawn?
I generally don’t post here just because I can’t follow all the conversations and keep up with them if I want to write (I must limit my addictions)
But I did feel the need to throw my two cents in on this~I tend to ramble so don’t be surprised if I don’t make a lot of sense.
A personal attack is just that… something personal.
Discussing a hat and a costume-this is critical discussion.
Going on about somebody’s rack veers into personal territory.
If people were using the hat/costume deal to make digs at the authors… personal.
Discussing whether or not they felt these things were appropriate for a writer’s convention, that’s critical discussion.
There’s a line between critical discussion and personal attack, but I suspect that line differs from person to person. Some stuff that sets one person off isn’t going to faze another so it falls to the individual to decide if they are crossing the line.
How do you decide if you’re crossing the line, eh, I’d think that if you have to ask yourself that, then you probably are crossing it.
If it isn’t something you’d feel comfortable saying in person, then it’s probably not smething you should say online either.
I dunno if any of that made sense but there you go. That’s my ramble for the night.
Didn’t follow the original – and apparently epic – thread. Also just went out and hunted down the Kenyon photo – LOL! And the issue everyone has is the hat?? But that opinion is neither here nor there…
I’ve had an on again/off again relationship with the RWA over the last several years, mainly because I think the organization fluctuates too wildly between fan-girls gathering to squee that La Nora peed in the stall next to them and striving desperately to be a legitimate and professional writer’s organization. The split (if not truly multiple) personality disorder that the RWA excretes is beyond exhausting. Anyone remember the “Defining Romance†kerfluffle two years ago in Reno? The fact is the RWA National Convention offers really excellent opportunities for would be writers to rub elbows and learn at the knees of their chosen elite. But it’s a package deal.
Frankly, I’m an avid attendee of fan-boy conventions (Comic-Con, World Con, etc) such that the “fashion violations†in question are so below my radar. I can absolutely empathize with both sides of the argument (less the mud slinging, natch). But again, the RWA is a constantly evolving entity and today’s kerfluffle (what an awesome word!!) is tomorrow’s modis operandi. To the poster who above seemed astonished that an official dress code could possibly result from this incident: if you think the hairy asshatting raised here on the outside is bad, you can bet your own fowl chapeau the twisted panties amongst the membership has reached astronomical proportions. It’s the unfortunate nature of the beast.
Blogs are like sex that way. Anyone can do it, but it takes a little work to make it worth shaving your legs. Rosemary, you are my new hero.
How do you decide if you’re crossing the line, eh, I’d think that if you have to ask yourself that, then you probably are crossing it.
Or it’s a delicate, but important, subject. In which case you might want to ask yourself the question, and maybe rephrase your comment, but not delete it.
I think often the criterion is: Are you about to derail the discussion? i.e. will your comment be personal enough, or sting enough, that the other(s) will feel compelled to stop and refute/discuss it? A really charged comment can make it almost impossible to get back to the original topic without a lot of baggage. There are times when it’s still important to make your comment, but it’s something to consider before you do it.
Think of it as the unfair thing that happens in family fights:
“I don’t like what you did” escalates and becomes personal with
“You always do that”, so naturally the other person answers
“Well, YOU always do THAT”.
By that point, everyone’s too upset to make sense.
I can only speak for myself. When I criticized wearing costumes at this event—and I can’t deny I was critical—it was an issue for me, not a personal attack on the authors who chose to wear them.
Obviously, I feel strongly about this for all the reasons I stated in the previous thread. It was, and is, a larger issue for me, and at the same time—I realize—a personal one. Again for reasons I stated previously.
But personal attacks are different things entirely, and twisting someone’s comments or opinions into something mean and spiteful is a different thing. And, imo, cheap and petty.
Disagree, fine. Attack the person rather than the opinion—skewing the opinion to suit yourself—not fine.
Posting photos of people to make nasty, and again petty, comment, not fine.
The reason, I think, the thread went on so long was that it evolved into larger and broader issues, and many posters had opinions on those issues.
Using socks to get your digs in? Cowardly and childish.
We all, writers, bloggers, readers, observers, should have a right to express our opinions in a rational and intelligent manner. And there will always be those who can’t express them in any way but childish hoo-ha.
the issue everyone has is the hat?
No, that’s really not the issue. I’m happy to say I don’t think Comment Thread Godzilla would have happened over simply a hat.
BTW, if you meant me—I’m not at all astonished at the idea that the dress code could be formalized. And I wish them joy in policing it 😛
I didn’t know I could do that. 😛
It’s cute, but I wasn’t going for quite that much snot; I was aiming more for wry. More like: 🙂
I will undoubtedly be sorry that I bothered to post this in the morning. But it’s not morning yet, is it?
Shall we take it from the top? (And wow…I’m feeling more than a little stalked, to be honest. It’s almost flattering. Though I’m sure that’s not how it was meant.)
â€I’ve been publicly humiliated by award-winning authors in front of entire classrooms full of my peers because my stories dared to incorporate PLOTâ€
Yep. Said it. Meant it. And would say it again, because the “award-winning authors†I referenced were seventy-year-old literature professors who disapproved of my story having a beginning, a middle and, incidentally, the happy ending that I’ve seen Jane tout as the prerequisite for a book to be a true “romance.†Incidentally, we agree on that point, so I’m rather surprised she referenced this.
“Can’t please all of the people all of the time, and if you try, you might just be writing middle-of-the-road crap that alienates the people who write ME fan letters about my ‘gritty, realistic’ characterization.â€
And again, yes, I said that. And if anyone out there believes, for an instant, that you can, in fact, please all of the people all of the time and not be writing pabulum, I’d ask you to email me privately and show me an example of it. I’ve run into people who can’t stomach Nora, who won’t read Austen, who despise Heyer. And so have you.
I believe my reference to “gritty and realistic” was ironic in intent. The folks to whom I was speaking got that, I think. I apologize if it came off otherwise to anyone else.
“So yes, when I came across a post on Keishon’s blog and Selah March wanted to engage in a debate, I refused because I knew that I would only be subject to sarcasm and viputeration.â€
I invite anyone to check Keishon’s blog post on the RITA winners and tell me I was anything but polite until Jane turned on me with the “I don’t recall addressing my comments to you.†In fact, I believe I was pretty polite after she turned on me. And when I then engaged in discussion with Sybil, and Jane returned to address my points, I was again polite, if slightly sarcastic. We’re apologizing for sarcasm now?
*checks title of blog*
Oh, good, I thought I was in the wrong place.
Jane and I have been knocking heads since way back when we debated whether a man could sleep with another woman after he’d already met the heroine and could we still call that a romance? And that’s fine. We’re both allowed to hold opinions—on each other, even—and speak them out loud. Is the smartest thing in the world for authors to be honest in public? Perhaps not. But no one has every accused me of being more smart than smart-assed. I’m ready to live with the consequences, whatever they may be.
The rest of this nonsense merits no comment from me. What’s occurred between myself and Jane was finished two days ago, as far as I’m concerned. I’m amazed it’s been dredged up again, but I honestly hope she feels better now.
Anyone is welcome to email me with a reply, or to comment at my blog. I’ll do what I can to keep up, but I won’t be responding to anyone here.
And for the record? I could pull a whole bunch of stuff out of context and make any number of people look like raving egomaniacs, but I don’t have that kind of time. It’s almost comforting to know that some people do. Makes me believe in the American way, somehow.
You all have yourselves a good night.
I believe making fun of someone’s personal taste (in clothing or hair or what have you) or appearance is pretty much always a personal attack unless the person about whom you are commenting is in on the joke and demonstrably enjoying the humor. Commenting on someone’s publicity photos? Skates the line, but in the end as long as you don’t slam the person wearing the clothes I think it is acceptable and indeed human nature to offer an opinion. But I feel strongly that such comments should be clearly labeled as opinion, and not used as an opportunity to axe grind or assassinate character.
As for whether only content is fair game or whether remarking on an author’s or a reviewer’s behavior is acceptable, it matters to me whether the behavior took place in a personal or professional setting. The line for me in that case is whether the person was acting in their professional capacity when the behavior took place. No one should be commenting about someone’s personal life unless they are themselves part of that person’s personal life. If you don’t know the author or reviewer personally, what the hell insight could you possibly offer? On the other hand, if the author/reviewer is acting in a professional capacity when (s)he does something goofy or questionable, I believe intelligent commentary is useful if you believe you can offer some insight. Otherwise, not so much. It’s sadly easy for people to use some public figure’s faux pas as an opportunity to ride their favorite hobby horse, and I think those people can be safely ignored, or better yet their obsessions mocked. I think the recent Don Imus spectacle clearly showed the difference between reasoned commentary and disingenuous showboating in this kind of situation.
spamfilter seem89 because it seems like I used italics 89 times
It’s late and I have to do something important tomorrow and I missed about the last 200 posts on the hat/socks thread, but I do think that I think this is an important discuss—not the hat/socks thread, this thread== and if I have a chance tomorrow I may have something intelligent to say. But I do stop by here and Dear Author every day that I have some free time because I love the discussions, even when I may not agree.
Jane said,
I’m struggling with the author’s personal life part of the question—it makes me uncomfortable, to be honest. Yet, LKH’s diatribes online make it waaaaaaaaaaay too tempting to indulge in such speculation—no matter what your professional/amateur standing.
But whether you are a “reviewer” or simply a “reader who shares his/her opinions on the books s/he reads,” you deserve the same respect you give, IMO.
People—other bloggers, authors, other reviewers, fans of authors whose books you’ve reviewed—should be able to take issue with your review without having to resort to cheap shots and name calling.
LOL! iffygenia – I believe that I was in fact referring to your post (you were way up there and I couldn’t bear to scroll around for a proper identification – I’m sorry!).
Beleive me, my friend, where there’s a large group and will… there’s a whip to keep a little law and order.
My comment about the “issue is the hat??” comes from too many years of working the Renaissance Faire and seeing the public in full tilt. I found the hat quite dashing in context. I suppose it never fails to amaze me how much lather can be worked up when people dress for fun rather than to the expectations off the surrounding society.
LUV the smiley with the glasses. Tres cool.
azteclady said:
I think this brings up another interesting question. With the “plogs” (or whatever the hell they call them) now on Amazon as well as the growing number of personal author blogs, some authors are choosing to share personal info with readers as well as to respond directly to reader criticism. Personally, I think some authors overshare in this context. And I also question whether LKH, for example, is wise to go mano a mano with some of the crazies who stalk her on line. What do you guys think? Does this kind of direct contact just encourage the crazies and their vicious attacks or is it a mostly effective marketing tool?
“What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?”
I think that it’s entirely acceptable to comment (negatively) on authorial behavior when that behavior has a *direct impact* on the public perception of their industry because it takes place at an industry convention. This kind of behavior would garner commentary in any other industry, so why not in publishing? There is no “special pass” for unprofessional behavior just because the professionals involved are “cute” or “wacky” or “romance writers”.
There are very few venues (clown cons, fan cons) where someone can be regarded as professional while in costume, and even in these cases, commentary on the costumes concerned and behavior of those in them is pretty standard – that’s the reason people are wearing the costumes in the first place. They *want* people to notice how much effort they put in to standing out, and talk about them.
If someone wants to attend an industry event where costumes are not expected, and flaunt those conventions, that’s also fine – their choice – but to then claim no one else is entitled to comment on their non-professional dress choice is sheer foolishness. On the other hand, if someone wore bog-standard professional dress to their conference, and then everyone talked about how they were “too fat” or “too old” or “too ugly” to wear those clothes, then that would be inappropriate commentary, because it’s about their *person*, not about their *decision* to use their dress to garner attention.
I would say that the same rules apply to journalists (which is essentially what bloggers are in this context), i.e. that if they are conforming to accepted industry standards, then it’s inappropriate to comment on their dress or behavior. If they are outside of industry standards, then their behavior and dress are fair game.
I believe that Hunter S. Thompson set the acceptable standards for the journalism industry, and if I *ever* read about the Bitches, or any other journalists/bloggers, crossing the sartorial or behavioral standards he set, then you can bet your bippy I’ll be discussing them in detail.
eggs.
Interesting to see that the world of original fic is much the same as that of fanfic—people confuse the author’s output for the author herself. So narrow of scope. The authors themselves do it, too—they take concrit as a scathing indictment of their quality as a human being, not of how well they write.
I think all the brouhaha about swan hats or hoochie outfits to promote books boils down to people being cranky they didn’t think of it themselves, so they put on a front about how OMG SCANDALOUS it is for others to do it. Major, major sour grapes.
And what I got out of the surprise that Jane wasn’t a 40ish WASP was the concept that disdain must, apparently, be only be a characteristic of white folk. Those of Asian descent apparently just aren’t capable of that emotion. LOL racism. <—sarcasm
I’d just like to say that I’ve rarely been so happy to be ignorant as I am now. I read the original blog thing and then ignored it, and now I’m going to continue to ignore it.
Thank you. You’ve been a great audience. I’ll be here all week.
For sale:
One pair of toe socks
One foot that should go in said socks but somehow went into my cyber mouth
My sincere apologies to anyone who read my comments on the linked posts and was offended in any way. It’s all too easy to write things and click that send button. On the internet, it’s also not the same as casual conversation, where one can judge another’s statements from facial expressions, tones, etc. I have a sense of humor that sometimes flies away from me (like a swan, a living one, anyway).
I do take romance seriously, because it’s the genre I love to read and write above all else. And fundraising for causes like literacy (I’ve worked for a charity for 14 years) is important to me and so is professionalism. But I also know life is short, too damnably so as I found out, yet again, at RWA with news of a fellow author’s death.
I kept wondering as the debate went on what Ronda would have done at the literacy signing. Would she have worn a swat hat? Or a suit? I don’t know. I’d like to think that she’d say to me, “Bonnie, wear a pyramid on your head with a suit and have a bunch of guys in white kilts carry you into the signing on a litter like Cleopatra.†That was Ronda. Always joking.
I respect the right of those who want to present a professional image of romance to a public that’s mocked it for so long. I surely think it would be tough to be called upon, time and again, to defend the genre.
But I also think swan hats are cool, and so are thigh highs. Are they suitable for the literacy signing? That’s a question best left to the powers that be at RWA. I do hope they give author guidelines at next year’s signing. It would be best for all.
Ten years ago I attended my first RWA conference. I was unpublished and awestruck at the plethora of authors and workshops on craft. It was cool, a professional organization that helped writers reach for their goals. I had a dream. I wanted to be a published author. I wasn’t sure I could do it, but I clung to that dream. I worked hard at it and achieved it. And to me, that’s what’s most important of all, what lies at the heart of each individual.
I say, follow your dreams, be it writing a book, wearing a swan hat, exploring Manga comics, or striving to make romance respectable.
Life is too short. Follow your dream and don’t let anyone stop you. Because the world IS filled with amazing possibilities and magic, and with a lot of hard work and belief in yourself, you can accomplish anything. Whether you wear a swan hat or thigh highs or a suit. Or even toe socks.
Lani, thank you so much – what a lovely thing to say. If I’m delightful, you’re fabulous.
While I’m here, I thought I’d do my RWA thing and state for the record: The board hasn’t discussed the dress of anyone at the literacy signing. In fact, this entire subject hasn’t come up at all. I’ll go so far as to stick my neck out and say – the chances of the RWA board discussing what authors wear to the lit signing are slim and none. Unless someone shows up as Lady Godiva – but that woman would have bigger problems to deal with than RWA. I think it’s illegal to walk around naked. (And holy God, how could we NOT talk about a naked author at the lit signing? Everyone would talk about that. I’m not sure what we, the board, would do about it – but as I said, there’s that legal thing…)
We’re beyond thrilled the publishers generously donate books, and we’re over the moon that authors agree to sign said books. I like to imagine a pair of human beings, one learning and one teaching – and a life forever changed by the education. Imagine if you couldn’t read. This event makes it possible for many people to receive the gift and joy of reading.
To me, all the rest is irrelevant. I see both sides of the coin, and won’t weigh in with an opinion. I’d merely be one in a sea of them.
But I will say, I saw Candy several times during the conference (Hey, Candy!) and not once did I notice her breasts. My bad – I’m sure they’re simply marvelous, but I was too busy looking at her face. She has lovely eyes.
The board hasn’t discussed the dress of anyone at the literacy signing. In fact, this entire subject hasn’t come up at all.
That sounds exactly as it should be. Like I said somewhere upthread, I think it’s added a lot of confusion that some commenters have confused blog discourse with “official” discussion. People commenting here isn’t the same as RWA making rules.
regarding the question in the post:
Similar issues have been brought up quite frequently on liberal and feminist blogs that I read and the line is usually drawn thusly:
If appearance is under the control of the person in question, and relates to the issue at hand, such discussions should not necessarily be condemned.
IE – discussing the grooming habits of any candidate complaining about another candidates grooming habits.
If both of these conditions are not met, then such comments are not contributing to the discussion and should not be condoned.
On feminist blogs especially, this includes even positive comments (except in “fluff” pieces where bloggers are sharing pictures from parties, or conventions, etc.) because, no matter how complimentary the intent, when the topic is something else altogether it tends to reinforce the idea that women’s worth is measured first and foremost by our appearance. (And this is mostly in reaction to comments about one’s worthiness as a receptacle for male desires, not how classy so and so looks.)
A lot of which is pretty much what a lot of other people have said – including Candy, Jane, and Sarah).
Plus, as others have said as well, discussions should stay about the topic in question, and not simply be gratuitous insults.
“Costumes at RWA are unprofessional” and “[blank] was acting unprofessionally” are different from “[blank] is unprofessional.” Usually, you should have more than one instance to back the last comment up. “[blank] is an unprofessional slut” – otoh -is just plain rude and not appropriate.
I’m completely bewildered by all of this. The topic of writer professionalism seems to set a match to the blogging community.
I’ve seen this same sort of “flame wars” when it comes to responding to reviews.
It seems that when it appears the author’s professionalism (including how tough their skin is or how they are perceived by the public etc.) all hell breaks loose.
The mantra that keeps running around in my head is “Restraint of tongue and pen.”
And keyboard.
Oops, my grammar skills seem to have deserted me.
It SHOULD read “When it appears the author’s professionalism is questioned…”
*rolls eyes* I need to follow my own darn mantra.
Okay, I must have been living in a cave for the last two weeks because I had no idea the costumes had caused such a big to-do.
If someone wants to dress up in a costume, more power to her. There are so many great authors out there, that it’s hard to stand out. If the authors thought the costumes might make them a little more visible, well good for them for being creative and thinking outside the box. I’m sure some readers got a kick out of it.
Would I do it? Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the event and what I thought was appropriate for it. (And money. Costumes cost money.) I wore a T-shirt with my book cover on it to a local signing I did. Was that a costume? Who gets to decide? And more importantly, who cares? To each their own, I say.
You basically have to do whatever makes you happy and whatever you’re comfortable with.
I define professionalism as turning in the best books I can on time, responding to my editor/agent’s questions/concerns, answering reader questions, and generally treating everyone the way I would want to be treated—with courtesy and respect.
What I wear or what I look like or if I dress up in a costume are all way, way, way down the list of what makes me a professional.
I, for one, was happy to see reviewers and bloggers at RWA. You know why? Because you guys *love* books. That’s why you have blogs and do reviews in the first place—because you love books. You create thoughtful discussions on books and the romance industry as a whole. I appreciate that and respect your right to do it, even if I don’t always agree with what you say.
And on the subject of reviews, every author will get good ones and bad ones. You have to treasure the good ones and take the bad ones with a grain of salt.
That’s another part of being a professional—being able to take *thoughtful* criticism without blowing up.
I think that attacking a person’s intelligence is a particularly nasty attack. For example, questioning another’s reading comprehension skills because they don’t agree with you, is an attack. Part of the fun of blogging is the off the cuff conversation. There is many a time when I wonder if I was reading the same thing as someone else. Does that mean it’s ok to go on another blog and talk about their intelligence? Just curious.
As for the question of whether or not it’s ok to speculate about an authors’ personal life, that’s definitely borderline. If I was disappointed in a book by an author I previously loved, sometimes I wonder if they’re overworked or stretching themselves too thin. I’d like to think that’s not too personal, but I’m not sure.
One last reference to the RWA/costume thing, something was niggling at me throughout. It was alluded to by several commenters, but I think Lilith Saintcrow put it quite well above. There’s definitely something to the idea that woman are judging other women by a male idea of professionalism. The whole power suit thing. I’m that person who feels that a lot of why romance does not get the respect it deserves is because it’s primarily by women and for women and it is focused on mushy, girly things like love and emotion. I’d kind of rather the romance community own it, rather than sweating what others think. Then again, I’m not comiung from an author POV, and I did relate to what others were saying.
This is kind of an old saw, but to what extent is a person’s viewpoint on what constitutes an attack influenced by factors like age, author vs. reader, regional differences etc.? For example, I’m an Irish/Italian/American girl from Lawn Guyland. A loud breed to be sure. Does that help account for why many things held up as attacks leave me scratching my head, and why I didn’t give a second glance to a swan hat?
What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all?
There most certainly should be a line and I think that the commenters on Cruciger’s blog definitely crossed it.
Since I don’t read that blog, I’m not sure if the comments about Candy’s “rack” started there or not. When I read comments on various blogs teasing Candy, it seemed that they were all made in good fun. On Cruciger’s blog, it just seemed that they made it sound sort of trashy. That is a personal attack.
Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?
That’s a definite gray area, imo. Attacking an author’s behavior while she’s at the grocery store in her pj’s and has a less than polite reaction to a fan would be wrong. Attacking an author who has attacked reviewers and/or fans for what they consider to be an attack on them is fair game. But I wouldn’t call that “attacking”. I would call it a public service. Seriously. There are several authors that I have no desire to read because of their behavior. Maybe that’s wrong, maybe it’s not.
I think DA does a great job of reviewing w/o critizing the content. I know that I don’t do that.