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.
I don’t think that Candy, SB Sarah, Jane, Nora Roberts or Jennifer Crusie personally attacked anyone.
What I do think happened is that people read more into the comments that were made based on their own prejudices and opinions (TeddyPig’s rant about Nora’s “normal” and that it was some type ofgay bashing). Nora and Jennifer’s expressed their own personal opinions of a lack of professionalism in the wearing of costumes (which I happen to agree with…could you picture John Grishman dressing up as a character in his book to sign books?)
If Liz and Marianne felt personally attacked perhaps they were also feeling like they did not make the best decision about dressing up like the characters in their books (despite their denials to the contrary). Perhaps they should have thought WWND before dressing up … after all, as was proven in Nora’s many posts here she is one classy lady. And if you’re spouting off about being the “rebels of romance” than shouldn’t you expect that your message might not be accepted by the mainstream romance audience.
Keep up the great work Candy, SB Sarah and Jane…if there wasn’t some controversy on your sites you’d be doing something wrong. Personally, I admire your intelligence, snarkiness and great attitude…in fact I wish I could be your next door neighbors so we could be snarky together.
Diane
I interpreted the comments about the swan hat and other forms of costumes at the RWA literacy signing as basically this:
The literacy signing is the biggest public joint event for romance writers. There are over 450 writers at this event and what you do during that event will inevitably reflect back on them. So you may be comfortable with a Swan Hat and that’s cool but perhaps some of the other 450 authors might not be thrilled with the idea of a swan hat representing them. And it might be common courtesy to leave it at home that one time.
Single singings, fan events, go for it. But just at this group event where your actions reflect on others, it might be prudent to not go too overboard out of consideration for the others who wouldn’t wear swan hats.
That’s it. I don’t see the feminism angle, I don’t see the ‘women are self-hating’ or the ‘you’re trying to stifle freedom of expression’ angle. I basically see a ‘common courtesy’ angle.
Now, the marketing question/author branding question kicked off by the swan hat is an interesting one and I found it very thought-provoking. It’s too bad during the course of that, a few (and only a few) comments veered into personal attacks and even sadder that this jumped to other blogs where the discourse eroded further.
Love the summer kerfuffle line, that sums it up.
Thought the two writers in stockings were very cute. Had they wanted to look slutty there’s plenty of items at Fredrick’s of Hollywood. Instead they were CUTE. I wish I could still fit into cute things again! Enjoy it, girls, enjoy!
The hat was Kenyon’s business, and if it made her feel good and pleased her fans, then more power to her, she wasn’t hurting anyone. You griper-girls out there grow a sense of humor for goshy-goodness!
(I would not have anything with an ass sitting on my head though, too much opportunity for bad jokes, as has been shown in all those blogs, but that’s just me.)
Smart Bitches, I hope you turn up at every RWA & RT event that you like. I will welcome you with smiles and drinks and give you the props you’ve earned. You are awesome and way more interesting than many of the pros I met at that event.
YOU deliver real reviews, no sugar-drenched oh-we-lurv-them-alllll page fillers as seen in a certain romance-angled magazine. Many’s the time I’ve been taken in by their gushes only to find the book actively reeked to the point that had to be flushed.
Of course I find those tree-killers to be an inspiration from the “If they bought that piece of bleep, they’re gonna love MY stuff!” school.
Love you, love your blog, don’t stop the signal.
Corrina, yes, yes and YES!!! Exactly!
Professional courtesy for your fellow authors during THE one big professional event that gives outsiders (press and others) THE public face of RWA—which, lest we forget, is a professional writers’ organization.
The debate is NOT, and it has never been, about whether MM/LM were cute or not, nor whether I or anyone else wishes she would look as good as they do in thighs and short skirts—it IS about whether costumes were appropriate at that ONE event.
Wearing “what you want” and “be yourself, don’t let them get you down” are all good and well until you step on someone else’s right to be perceived as professionals. Here’s where the courtesy should have kicked in.
(This is a clumsy parallel, but it works in my head: I can wear shorts and a tank top anywhere I want in the US, but it would be rather disrespectful if I were to stroll thus attired into a funeral home during a wake for a friend.)
And even though it’s been said and said and said… there IS a huge huge, humongous, wide ass range of choices between costume and “power professional bitch with huge shoulderpads” (to quote Lilith Saintcrow waaaaaaaaaay up there)
Azteclady, I think that’s the best summation yet. I salute you.
LKH’s diatribes online make it waaaaaaaaaaay too tempting to indulge in such speculation—no matter what your professional/amateur standing.
I think the point with LKH’s diatribes is not so much that she identifies with her characters to an extent not all authors do, but the subtext between the lines: I love them so much, how can you be so mean an not love them (ie. write negative reviews); maybe you’re too stupid to understand them. The usual problem of whether an author should defend herself? I’m sure LKH thinks she defends her characters, but since they are her creation, she defends herself.
Ok, back to topic. 🙂
I think it’s the line from I to You/She that gets crossed with personal attacks. It’s fine to say, I don’t like threesomes because I think it’s bad moral, and I won’t read X’s books because of that. It’s not fine to say, X is a slut because she writes those immoral threesomes.
I didn’t read the original thread about the costumes here. I love this blog, but since I struggle to find the time to keep up with Dear Author, where I am one of Jane’s blogging partners, I don’t make it here that often.
I did read the posts pertaining to Kenyon, Maverick and Mancusi’s clothes at Dear Author, and the discussion there seemed pretty civil to me. Since I didn’t have a strong opinion on the matter, I didn’t comment.
I also read some of the comments on Cruciger’s blog. Some of them I could overlook but I thought that the comments about Candy’s breasts were way too personal and that the comparison of Jane to a 40 year old WASP sounded, as Angela said, racist. These and some others were, in my opinion, beyond the pale.
I didn’t comment on these posts because Jane felt that it was better if we didn’t diginify them with a response.
Now that the topic is on the table, I will say that as a friend of Jane’s, I really hurt for her when reading these comments. She doesn’t deserve them.
And to clear up a point—Jane is, as she herself has said, a “just the facts” person. She is that way even with her friends. I haven’t read Keishon’s thread, but I expect that her comment there was nothing more than an expression of surprise and of her personal relcutance to enter into a conversation that she feared might turn hostile. I doubt her aim was to project disdain, she is just businesslike. That’s Jane. It doesn’t mean she doesn’t love the genre—she wouldn’t be blogging if she didn’t.
As for what constitutes a personal attack. I don’t have a definition, but I personally reread what I’m about to post on open-to-the-public venues carefully to see if it could reasonably be construed as a personal attack. So that’s one test, in my opinion.
Hmmmm…When I reviewed the links, the whole of the comments on Cruciger’s page seemed to be more of an exchange of emails amongst friends that somehow ended up posted on a blog.
I…I really can’t seem to explain what I’m thinking without making it seem like I’m either defending them or attacking them, but I’m not intentionally doing either. I’m accusing them of bad judgement call. They should have moved the discussion that was between (essentially) three people OFF the public forum into a private email. When they leave a private discussion in the public eye, they have to realize that the personal (and I’m pretty sure that everyone agrees that they were personal) comments are going to come under attack.
But, on the other hand, they feel as though the people they were discussing (or attacking, depending on your view) went after them first, so all’s fair and all that. (And, to call it like I see it, this entire post seems to do the same thing. “Well, she started it.”)
There seems to be back-story that is fueling a majority of the vitrol that casual blog readers don’t know and don’t care about. (I’m labeleing myself as one of the casual ones.) It ends up making the vitrol-spewer look childish and mean.
I do believe that the posts started off observationally (mildly shit stirring, but nothing too bad) and decended from there.
The moral of this stream of conciousness post is – I like to believe that most people can tell the difference between an emotional rant and an intellectual rant, and take both with a grain of salt.
…and, at the same time, should blog publishers be held responsible for the things that are said in the comments on their blog?
If a commenter is saying things like, “Obviously, author is a closet ass-freak who was sexually abused by their mother because of this passage,” and the owner didn’t delete it, then some people feel that they are endorsing that thought, when in reality they’re ignoring it.
It seems that some people think that it is the publisher/owner’s duty to keep everything civil, and if the discussion is NOT civil, it is the publisher/owner’s fault.
Must comment on the idea that one should go up to authors and personally tell them if they look bad.
This is so not a good idea. But I once did it.
I won’t give details, as I want to follow the rules set down for this thread, but suffice it to say that where and how something is conveyed often determines whether a comment is construed as a personal attack, shrugged off as meaningless, or taken seriously.
A forum like this is a good place to consider the appropriateness of professional attire. We know we are writing these comments for the universe to see, and those of us with an iota of good sense are thoughtful and careful about what we say.
As for those who are rash, at least that explains certain rather badly written books. And I am not pointing the finger at anyone by saying this. People who don’t think well don’t write well, either.
So I went home and asked my 22 year old son about cosplay (costume play for those unaware of the origin of the word), which he’s seen frequently at Comicon. And he tells me that is it a fan thing.
Those who write the comics, the industry professionals don’t do it.
So I say a couple authors were dressed that way at the RWA literacy signing and he kind of wrinkles his forehead and says. “Eh… not such a great idea.”
And then I tell him they looked pretty cute that way.
He shrugs. “Well, maybe that’s different.”
So, eh? Maybe not such a great idea if you can’t get away with it.
Cheers,
Janet/Cricket
….should blog publishers be held responsible for the things that are said in the comments on their blog? If a commenter is saying things like, “Obviously, author is a closet ass-freak who was sexually abused by their mother because of this passage,” and the owner didn’t delete it, then some people feel that they are endorsing that thought, when in reality they’re ignoring it.
It seems that some people think that it is the publisher/owner’s duty to keep everything civil, and if the discussion is NOT civil, it is the publisher/owner’s fault.
That’s a really good question, because certainly Candy and I don’t delete or edit comments unless the HTML mis-code inside is seriously wonking up the page, or if someone emails and begs us to change the mother of all unintentional typos. The latter is rare, and the former, meh, it happens.
Most of the time, I personally figure that folks who read this site know that (a) our opinions are usually expressed clearly in the entries and in the comments we write, and (b) if someone displays unappealing or downright awful behavior in the comments, other readers know that we don’t condone the statement (unless we say so in a further comment).
This has become a bigger issue in other sites I read. One blog that’s severely contentious and devoted to, oddly enough, the town I live in, has a disclaimer that you are responsible for your comments, and that the owners of the site nor the server hosts of the site are responsible for visitor comments.
I’d hate to have to put a disclaimer like that on SBTB, but really, I don’t see it happening. Around here, we get het up about swan hats and asshats, but we don’t get personal (often) or threaten the mayor or the city council. On that other site? Oh, man. For the love of God, don’t bring up taxes, commuting options, or OMG leaf disposal services provided by the township. Seriously.
I’m suddenly having flashbacks to my oldest sister wearing a black lace minidress (at age 40) to my wedding. As azteclady said, I don’t begrudge her the right to wear it but my wedding wasn’t really the most appropriate place for it.
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?
IMO, comments and critiques about the *work* of an author or reviewer is fair game. Just like anyone is free to critique my blog or one of my class lectures or my lecture notes. I’ve put it out there for people to see/hear/use and it’s therefore fair game.
When it moves from being about the work and becomes personal about the person creating the work, it becomes much easier to cross that line. Frankly, I think that attacks of anything should be avoided. It’s possible to criticize and offer opinions without being vicious and nasty. There’s a difference between “That dress maybe wasn’t the best choice for your sister’s wedding” and “I can’t believe you wore such a slut dress to your sister’s wedding!” Neither actually calls the person a slut but one certainly implies it and is much nastier than the other.
People are free to think what they want about anyone and anything. But those same words should not necessarily come out, verbatim, of their mouths. Sometimes a little judicious filtering can get the same idea across in a much nicer way. Which, IMO, Nora and others managed to do while some of those reacting did not.
(Almost 9 years later and I still haven’t gotten over that black lace minidress at my wedding)(I also have never said a thing to her about it)(although my father did and never forgave her for it until the day he died)
I think it’s all a matter of perception. Somebody mentioned above (can’t remember who, sorry) that when something is said on the internet, you miss out on body language, tone and facial expressions. And that’s a big loss when it comes tpo understanding something, especially as some people have very dry senses of humor.
I think a lot of comments on the linked blogs were distasteful. But then I also think that this blog and Dear Author and another couple of unmentionables which have turned into romanceland’s equivalent of Tabloid magazines, have also made me cringe in the past. But I rarely speak up because there’s also the possibility that I’m misinterpreting.
To me, there are a number of blogs that are controversial. There’s this one, Dear Author, Mrs. Giggles and a few others. I include Ferfe in that mix. The only difference is that she doesn’t apear to be part of this crowd.
My view of a personal attack could be another person’s idea of professional criticism.
A personal attack in my book is when I can’t make myself read the entire blog post/comment. It’s instinct for me. I don’t believe there is a definition that will suit everybody.
Thank you Jane for the clarification on libel. I’d love to see that post one day!
*Hugs Deb on the black lace minidress*
I’ve only read this thread, not the actual trainwreck in question, or any other commentary than this post, but…
…to be unfortunately and horribly provocative, it sounds to me like that this was at base a discussion of what are the acceptable standards of female modesty even if not everyone saw it those terms. That the standards of female modesty in question were the ones you fear are used by others outside the group, to judge whether said group of woman are worthy/professional doesn’t actually make it any less radioactive. If anything, it makes it much more incendiary, because that makes it even more about power; power one might have no alternative but to submit to.
Add in a big ol’ dollop ‘I’m only pointing this out for you/our own good’ and hoooooooo, boooooy.
No surprise it all turns into a politics and religion level trainwreck, beacause fundamentally ‘modesty’ pretty much *is* a religious and political and power thing.
I can’t see how such a discussion, can ever escape from having a subtext of being a personal attack on any woman who feels she would fall afoul of such things, or her friends would fall afoul of such things, or any fellow human being who would come up against it —just due to the underlying assumption that there should even be such a thing as a standard of female modesty. It pretty much invites being taken as a standing to accusation of immodesty against any woman who might feel they’re not ‘with the program’.
And ‘immodesty’ can get a person killed in some parts of the world, as I’m sure we’re all aware. That those adjudged of it still get screwed over even in our supposedly ‘enlightened’ societies, makes exercises that smack of separating the modest sheep from the immodest goats —whatever the initial noble motives—not exactly things conducive to feminist or feminine solidarity, or popular with those who are threatened by the process. Where the set of those who are threatened is the set of every woman alive or dead.
Or at least it seems to me. And I’m just a guy…
So, I’m afraid this all sounds utterly doomed from the start, even when the genesis of it was likely innocently, if naively, meant, and even if you did manage to hold it to being superficially civil for a while. Because the underlying assumptions of such a debate are I think inherently uncivil regardless of the form, even if getting judged to a modesty standard is indeed the way of the world (as alas it is). A red rag to everybody who hates that freakin’ stupid game, and frankly who doesn’t?
…
Having now lit the match over the gasoline, cue another 600 post thread, whilst I run for the hills in stark abject terror at y’alls response to me having got completely the wrong end of the stick 🙂
I really am not seeing the female modesty portion of the issue. Had it been a male romance writer wearing the the now infamous hat, then I think people would still have remarked on it and some would have been uncomfortable with it representing them at an RWA multi-author event.
As someone said, fans dress up at San Diego Comic Con and some companies hire actors to walk around in costume and it’s great fun but the creators do not dress in costume. And it’s not because they don’t look good in them, stereotypes aside, some of them are pretty damn hot. It’s because they want to present themselves, not a character.
Not everything is a feminist issue nor should it be.
I think Candy’s rack is great, btw, and don’t see any problem with bloggers or journalists attending RWA national.
“…and, at the same time, should blog publishers be held responsible for the things that are said in the comments on their blog?”
Well, as far as that question goes, again, it depends on the comments.
I think that blog owners have a responsibility to delete comments that venture into threats. (see: Kathy Sierra)
I admire bloggers that delete or admonish commenters for certain abusive comments, but – as a fellow blogger – I understand that isn’t always practical or even helpful.
“Not everything is a feminist issue nor should it be.”
Of course it isn’t – is anyone here saying that everything is?
“I really am not seeing the female modesty portion of the issue.”
My impression was that the modesty comments were in regard to remarks like those about Candy’s appearance. Comments like those are really beside the point. Unless you want to make the point how cool or not cool looking she is – which is either a compliment (in which case it doesn’t include half of what was said) or is very much a juvenile insult – often packaged with a whole lotta sexist assumptions about women’s bodies.
Which does relate back to what is professional and what is not. There should be a middle ground between “costume” and “power suit” but that middle ground isn’t always easy to determine – in part because when people hear “professional attire” a lot of us tend to think of men in suits. In a world in which the media spends even a millisecond on Clinton’s cleavage (can we see to much of it? Not enough?) there’s often going to be a bit of sexism flitting through discussions about what constitutes professional attire for women.
To me the difference is whether you are discussing an issue versus a specific individual. I felt that the initial issues were whether costumes were appropriate to the specific venue and the marketing idea of “rebels of romance”. Discussing the issues didn’t seem to be a personal attack. Compared to a direct comment regarding an individual independent of any issue-the 40 year old WASP comment. Or well the people who don’t approve are just jealous old hags/old guard.
I’ve only read this thread, not the actual trainwreck in question, or any other commentary than this post, but…
…to be unfortunately and horribly provocative, it sounds to me like that this was at base a discussion of what are the acceptable standards of female modesty even if not everyone saw it those terms.
I really think people should read the initial discussion first before commenting, because no, the issue was not “acceptable standards of female modesty.” At all.
It was: Is wearing a “costume” of any kind acceptable in that particular venue, and whether or not authors should consider how their “costume” will reflect on other authors, most especially since this particular genre has a very tough time being taken seriously. Does an author of this genre damage the credibility of others when she wears a big ol’ swan on the top of her head to a RWA sponsored event open to the public and press.
The issue directly at hand is whether or not authors are allowed on a public forum such as this to voice their opinion on a big ol’ swan hat, as it relates to the issues of credibility and respect for the genre and other authors, without being accused of personally attacking other authors.
Having read most of the discussion from the original thread, much of it very enlightening and intelligent, I tend to agree with those saying the big ol’ swan hat and/or micro-minis does have a negative impact on how people perceive romance writers in general. And that’s really all I’m going to say about that.
As far as the subject at hand in this particular post, I think authors have a right to respectfully voice any opinion they might have on any subject that affects their industry. Even in a public forum like this. They also have the right to bring up other authors if they feel it will illustrate their point, as long as it’s done respectfully.
Way upthread, megalith said (in response to my LKH crack),
Speaking only for myself, obviously: as much as I enjoy interacting with authors online, and as much as blogs, forums, websites, whathaveyou, seem cool to me, what I pay good money for are books that I enjoy. Books I think are well written—characters I come to care about, plot that makes sense, a world I can picture clearly, vividly, in my head. There are authors out there who don’t even have a website of their own (Linda Howard comes to mind) and yet their books sell and sell and sell.
Marketing is important, yes, but the product is what, in the end, matters. I may buy one book because I like the author’s online/public persona, but s/he wont’ become an “autobuy” unless his/her writing deserves it.
On the other hand, some public/online behaviour may put me off an author completely—it’s gotta be rather extreme, it’s true, but it can happen (and has, for me).
==============================
Somewhere above, Vaughan Williams said,
The comment ends with a “
<---sarcasm", but I'm going to reply here taking the quote at face value.
Considering that there were at least two
major bestselling authors in agreement that costumes at that particular venue weren’t such a good idea—and I honestly can’t recall reading anything indicating that either Ms Roberts nor Ms Crusie were scandalized by the manga-esque attire nor the swanhat—well, claiming their opinion stems from sour grapes because they—mucho money muchos books authors that they are—“didn’t think of it first”?
That’s facetious at best, or else disingenuous.
And that’s not even going into the “hoochie” thing.
==============================
Darlene Marshall, thank you *blush*
==============================
AJArend, you beat me to it! skapusniak, there really was nothing about religion or ‘feminine modesty’ involved there—overtly or otherwise. Please do read the thread, and check out the pictures posted in a previous thread, and you’ll see how far off the mark that observation is.
azteclady quoted me, so I’mma quote her back.
It hardly seems sporting to take something out of context and then insult me for a supposed slight I never actually made.
But let’s go with the fallacy that I was serious when I said that those griping about the swan hat and hoochie outfits were expressing “sour grapes”—is it impossible that even extremely popular, well-sold authors could be capable of jealousy for a marketing ploy they would have liked to utilize, had they thought of it first?
Not to disparage either Ms. Roberts or Ms. Crusie, both of whom were used as examples by azteclady, but in the interest of playing devil’s advocate, popularity is not a promise that the popular author is beyond such petty things, just that what and how they’re writing has hit the “kink” of the masses at the time.
I mean, author “Jane Doe” might well be a fabulous writer and have sold more volumes than God, but she could still be a 24 carat biatch. Amirite?
This is just out of curiosity, but have male writers ever been known to dress up as their main characters for a book signing or other writing event?
That is the main question for me. If the answer is yes, then the costume debate is just so much kerfuffle, but if the answer is no, then maybe Nora had a valid point.
To answer one of your questions, I think a personal attack would be defined as someone saying, Candy, your blog really stinks, you’re a goddamn liar, and I hate your guts. Something completely rude and in your face mean and nasty.
I was the recipient of a thirty minute “intervention” to get me to give up my “addiction” to that “trash”—romance novels. Some respect for the genre would be nice.
On line behavior does kinda matter to the readers who visit SB. I started reading Jennifer Crusie after a neat comment she made here and alas, I an now an RFG.
I bought Kalen’s book, just because she is always so nice here at SB and liked it a lot.
Other authors—not so much.
~Not to disparage either Ms. Roberts or Ms. Crusie, both of whom were used as examples by azteclady, but in the interest of playing devil’s advocate, popularity is not a promise that the popular author is beyond such petty things, just that what and how they’re writing has hit the “kink†of the masses at the time.~
Perhaps none of us are above ‘petty things’, but if the comments by myself and Jennie had been read, I think it would be extremely hard to find any sour grapes in the mix.
And I think with a career spanning 26 years, maybe I can claim to have done just a bit more than hit the ‘kink of the masses at the time’.
And to claim petty behavior or sour grapes, imo, dilutes the ISSUE. To ascribe motives or feelings underlying very clear, very articulate, very specific opinions is reaching.
Costumes have been around for other events and venues for years and years. I could have chosen to wear one at any time. I haven’t, not because I didn’t think of it, but because I don’t care for the ploy.
Plain, simple, factual.
I think we should all be allowed our opinions, and others should be allowed to agree or disagree—without assigning motives not expressed.
I guess I’m kinda baffled by the—if it looks good on you, it’s okay. But that’s the opinion held by others—and they’re entitled to it. And I don’t assume they have underlying motives or biases for holding that opinion.
azteclady said”
I agree with this. And it is equally true of reviewers and bloggers as it is of authors. There are online communities that I no longer feel comfortable visiting, either because the blogger’s mantra when faced with dissenting comments seems to be “You will assimilate; resistance is futile”, or because the forum moderation is so passive that it verges on encouraging personal attacks and intimidation. For example, I no longer post on the Amazon threads because there simply is no discernible moderation there, and it leads to unbelievably abusive threads.
I think this kind of bad behavior is ultimately self-defeating because in the end no one feels safe. And if you don’t feel safe, you’re either going to leave or you’re going to feed each other pablum rather than engage in insightful discussion. That, I learned from teaching art, where everyone’s ass is constantly hanging out there, or you’re not doing it right. heh, heh
So, where comments have the effect of bullying or intimidation, or stifling someone’s right to argue their point, that also reads to me like a personal attack.
I think Sarah and Candy do a good job of wrangling posters who cross the line, but I have also seen the SB community act effectively to police itself—which I find very impressive, frankly. As for the Ferfelabat/Cruciger threads…no comment.
Sorry to double post, but a bit of serious clarification seems necessary:
1) The above quote was meant as a general comment and was in NO WAY directed at anyone here.
2) By “safe” I did not mean “walking on eggshells” or treating each other like delicate little flowers.
Uh, okay. Think that’ll do it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled…stuff.
Vaughan Williams, you are right—it is unsporting, and it’s no excuse that other people have done it.
I apologize for quoting that paragraph out of context. It’s no excuse but upon reading it, I wasn’t sure.
On the other hand, and as long as the comments are about the costume debate, I’d beg people to read the thread before pronouncing it ridiculous/ironic/trivial/shallow/catty/whatever to have such a long discussion on (insert misconception of choice)
Ai, ai, ai, Jackie L. Are you serious about that “intervention”? Sounds like torture by condescension.
As I was piffling about earlier, online behavior matters to me, too. I just checked out a couple blogs by members here the other day, with the intent of checking out their books next time I’m in the bookstore or library.
Also agree that “female modesty” was extremely tangential to the previous costume thread, if not entirely irrelevant. But I digress.
Yeah, the intervention was real. My 14-year-old daughter talked about my romance “addiction” to her favorite teacher. So the teacher read me the riot act for 30 minutes.
Unfortunately, I really, really, like this teacher. She has been wonderful to all three of my children. (And if you knew my children!)
So I did the same act I pulled with the irritated highway patrolman who pulled me over a few years back.
“Why are you driving 90 miles an hour in a 55 zone, doc?”
I was slowing down from 95. Keep silent, try sheepish smile.
“You coulda killed somebody.”
I saw him and a cow. No, really, I was in far from anywhere Colorado—the eastern plains. Think Dances with Wolves without the romantic camera filters.
“You sped through town!”
There was a town? Must have blinked.
Mind you, during his whole rant, I just did variations on the sheepish thing and kept my big mouth shut.
“Well, doc, I wouldn’t even write you a ticket, except I chased your sorry ass for five miles.”
The ticket was a whopper. I just wanted to see how fast my mini-van would go. Just an experiment. I didn’t even laugh at the image of the poor guy chasing my mini-van for 5 miles. And how did he know what I do for a living? I don’t use my title in my private life. What kind of info do they have on those computers about us supposedly law-abiding citizens anyway?
Since I really respect the teacher who explained earnestly that wasting my brain on romance is tantamount to alcohol addiction in the sheer number of brain cells killed—I’m only exaggerating a bit—I just did the sheepish thing. But I wish I could have grabbed hold of her shoulders, sat her down and made her read, oh, I dunno, Northern Lights by LaNora or Fredericka by Georgette Heyer, one of the greats of the genre.
But since she taught my children that magic lesson that I haven’t been able to instill—RESPONSIBILITY—I just smiled a lot. I wonder what she would do if I were a drunk, or something.
Honestly, when I saw those two authors at the book Literacy Signing I didn’t know they wrote books. I didn’t think to ask why they were dressed like that and if I passed them at their table I couldn’t see the outfits. And that’s what the whole point of the discussion should have been.
How they were dressed didn’t perpetuate what an “author” should be dressed like at a signing. The “gimmick” didn’t make them stand out to me so what was the true point.
Now if I was a fan of their’s and could recognize them buried under all those other authors then yes. I might have found there get up amusing.
The big a$$ Swan Hat speaks for itself.
My opinion has no malice intended.
Now where does the line cross?
Saying they were dressed inappropiately doesn’t cross the line.
Saying they were dressed like sluts. May be on the line. Depending on your view.
Saying they are sluts. Crosses it.
And really it’s just cowardly to dish out your opionion and don’t leave others to have their say. The worst thing about all of this is many people may be turned off from RWA or dressing up like their characters because of the whiplash when all of it is based on view point and/or personal opinion.
Now if an author shows up for a signing wearing a Little Kim nipple tassel . . .
Nora Roberts said:
I hope you don’t think I was denigrating you, in my post—I definitely was not. In fact, in my initial post, I specifically put a note that I was being sarcastic to emphasize how I certainly did NOT mean that you or Ms. Crusie were expressing sour grapes.
My subsequent post was mostly replying to azteclady, and me playing devil’s advocate. I was just saying that the only thing we can be sure of, with popular authors, is not the quality of their personalities (never an issue with either you or Ms. Crusie—to my knowledge, you’ve always dealt with others fairly and respectfully) but the quality of their output.
I’m sorry if you took any offense to my post.
As a veteran of usenet, bulletin boards and a cantankerous web site or two, I have to note that there are lines a writer does not cross unless he or she is trying to start something. The rule against ad hominen comments is probably the most often cited and the frequently broken rule on any discussion site.
The conversations here have remained for the most part civil. I do not agree with removing posts. That just rewards bad posters because it sanitizes their history. While new leaves can be turned, thousands of bank loan offices are not wrong when they note that the best predicator of future behavior is past behavior.
Last, I have to say that reading Jane-from-Dear-Author’s posts are a pleasure. She fillets with a very fine blade (and also does a nice legal analysis) paring away the emotion to the facts of the case.
I do believe this whole discussion was started with the best of intentions, but I also think discussing people’s clothes (and in connection with this, their perceived or real lack of professionalism—whatever *that* might be) will be taken personal. Clothes are, after all, our second skin.
In addition, I’m absolutely appalled how this issue has been blown out of proportion and has been stylized into the scandal of the year. Not only do I find the idea that A) people might be embarrassed/insulted/what-not by what somebody else is wearing at a conference, and that B) one big hat and two short skirts might damage the combined image of romance fiction and RWA, utterly ludicrous, but it also bears no resemblance to what happened in Dallas: we didn’t get any sort of bad coverage because of the hat and the skirts—on the contrary! The picture of Sherrilyn Kenyon and Julie Kenner and daughter was used to tell people there was this fun writers conference in town, and the next day this was followed up by an extremely positive article about the conference.
Yet what would have happened if the article had been full of stereotypes—housewives with literary aspirations meet in the depths of Texas to celebrate trashy books with half-naked people on the covers? Would anybody’s sales have dropped? Would we all have been ashamed to show our faces in our hometowns ever again? NO! Nothing would have happened—apart from the newspaper getting several hundreds of e-mails and letters from annoyed romance authors (after which they would have probably thought of us as *batty* housewives with literary aspirations).
As to the “professional” dress code, I have yet to attend an academic conference after which people discuss what other people have been wearing and whether their clothes were really appropriate for the setting in question. I’ve been to conferences where people wore jeans and wrinkled tee-shirts, yet nobody seemed to take this as a sign that the world of academia as we’d known it was coming to an end. And I’ve been to conferences where people (or to be more specific, a senior editor from TOR) wore the most eye-catching clothes you’re ever likely to see, and nobody thought this spellt the doom of fantasy fiction.
I don’t have a stake in this discussion, and apologize for speaking OT, but I would like to point out one thing that seems to be continually overlooked:
This whole deal had nothing to do with a bunch women cattily picking apart other women’s choices. It’s insulting to reduce it to that level. It’s business.
Liz Maverick and Marianne Mancusi themselves say that the outfits were a publicity stunt. They were meant to attract attention and buzz.
I personally don’t see anything wrong with the outfits, don’t even think they qualify as costumes because they look like everyday wear. BUT the authors themselves considered what they wore to be props in an act.
They put themselves out there to be talked about as part of a marketing plan. Just because not all of the talk is positive, that doesn’t mean that those comments are any less valid than “Ohmygod SO CUTE!” (which is what I’d say).
And frankly, with due respect to the authors, you lose style points for calling yourselves the “Rebels of Romance,” and then wringing your hands when the establishment disagrees with your choices. You want to have it both ways and you can’t.
The idea that we shouldn’t talk about their clothes—because that wouldn’t happen at other conferences or because it plays into stereotypes about catty women—is flatly wrong. And it misses the whole freaking point.
Arguing the merits of a marketing strategy is not being catty or petty or being a big meanie. It’s business.
What happened at that other site, however, does indeed play into all the worst stereotypes about women. I think that’s gross, ironic and delicious. But it’s far from the moral or ethical stance they were trying to take.
That’s how I draw the line.
Okay, I tried to read all the comments. Had to give up before I got to the end.
I just don’t get any of this. I loved those “little girl” outfits and my first thought was, “I’m so jealous. Twenty years ago, maybe. Then again, I probably never had the thighs for it.” And frankly, I laughed when I saw SK in that swan thing. That’s about how how important I thought the whole thing was.
Kinda fun. Kinda funny.
I’m with Nora in that the whole costume thing as a PR ploy is a personal choice. Period. Even when I was in my 20’s, even if I’d had the thighs…probably not. But that’s just me.
I suppose there’s the whole “here at RWA, we’re professionals. We don’t wear costumes like they do at RT” rap. Now someone wore costumes. Horrors.
But come on. Doesn’t anyone remember Sister Krissie’s nun outfit? Most of us thought that was charming and funny. Why not the little girl look and the swan hat?
It’s okay to do a takeoff on a nun, but not on a hot young girl or a big black bird?
I do think that Sister Krissie’s objective with the nun getup was different, that it wasn’t so much about selling books as it was about getting us all to lighten up and be the goddesses we are, fer cryin’ out loud.
And I don’t recall if she ever wore the habit to the literacy signing. Maybe it was just to the RITAs…
But I still like the idea that I’m a goddess.
I like it a lot.
Jane said: Libel is a written factual untruth. Someday I’m going to do a whole blog post on this because it is easily misunderstood.
I would love to read this. I’m particularly curious if in your opinion it would count as libel if, for instance, along with his or her opinion of a book, a reviewer claimed that a book had poor sales? That seems to be more of a factual statement that would need backing up.
Re: libel
Taking something out of context isn’t libel, but it could give rise to a false light tort – i.e. while factually true it paints the person in a false light and damages her reputation.
Saying someone has poor sales could be defamation (libel or slander) if it’s a) untrue and b) damages the person’s reputation, say by causing people who would normally buy her book to think she must be terrible and they thus decline to buy.
Jane is correct though, defamation is a tricky subject that can quickly get confusing.
Oh, and I should point out that what I said above is a *huge* oversimplification of the issue.
Defamation and public disclosure torts are fascinating (to me anyway, I’m a huge communications/first amendment law geek) but somewhat complicated and confusing.