Since Jane Litte announced that she’s a published author under the pseudonym Jen Frederick, I know there’s been a lot of talk and questions and processing and discussion, and to be honest, I haven’t known exactly what to say. Then Dabney emailed me some questions which helped me articulate a lot of things I’ve been thinking about, and helped me organize my brain. So forgive the obvious and kinda pretentious format, but being asked helped me explain logically all the things I want to say.
Did you know that Jane Litte was Jen Frederick?
Yes. I’ve known since March 2013.
Did you know she was keeping her pen name a secret?
Yes. I don’t know when I found out that it was a secret – my email archive searches are not helping me here. I learned that she’d written a book in March 2013, and found out about the pen name and the separation of it from DearAuthor sometime afterward.
Learning that she was writing under a pen name wasn’t a problem. The longer it went on, the more difficult it became for me. It’s been really hard to keep it a secret, and I didn’t know what to say or what to do about it.
Didn’t you mention the Jen Frederick pen name during a podcast?
During an interview, Jessica Clare/Jill Myles mentioned that she was self publishing with Jen Frederick:
Sarah: Why not self publish?
Jess: And that’s one reason why Jen Frederick and I decided to self publish Last Hit was because – we never really entertained the thought of going to a publisher because, you know, it was a hitman hero, and it was also very New Adult, written in, you know, dueling first person point of view, and we were like, you know – this is fairly timely at the moment.
When I was editing, I removed a lot of that conversation. It was originally longer and mentioned more of their joint projects. To have removed all mentions would have been confusing in the larger context of the discussion. I left as little as I could without making the dialogue unclear and disconnected.
Also, a separate mention: Jane Litte/Jen Frederick sponsored the 2nd place prize in the 2013 DABWAHA Second Chance Tournament.
Didn’t you feature their book in a podcast?
Yes – Penguin is the sponsor of the podcast and they sent Last Hit as one of the books to be mentioned during the podcast.
(The way that works, if you’re curious, is that once a month, Penguin’s marketing and publicity folks send me a list of three or four books for that month, and those are the books featured during the different episodes.)
Why didn’t you refuse?
That’s not really something I can do. I can’t tell an advertiser what books they can and cannot advertise, but I made sure that the book was mentioned on an episode that Jane wasn’t in.
Basically, I was trying to keep a confidence for a friend. I was doing what I thought was the right choice.
Why’d you keep it a secret?
Because my friend asked me to, and it wasn’t mine to share, really. When I was part of Simple Progress in 2011 and didn’t talk about it openly, that was bonehead stupid of me. I made a really dumb mistake, one I learned from because, geez, was that dumb. I haven’t been associated with Simple Progress since 2012, when the partnership was dissolved simply (hur) because we didn’t have time to take on new clients. Not talking about that openly was my own dumb mistake.
In this case, I was trying to be a good friend, and trying to keep separation from her business and mine as best I could.
I’m really proud of Jane’s success, and am amazed at what she’s accomplished. It is not easy to write books, and self publish them, and then to hit a bestseller list and keep going from there – that is extraordinary. I also work with Jane on a lot of projects – the podcast, the DABWAHA, the book blogger conference before RT, to name a few. We work closely and because of that, keeping her pseudonym a secret was sometimes difficult and sometimes uncomfortable for me, and, as I said, the longer it went on, the more unsure I was about what what to do. Or say. Hence my not saying anything until now.
The revelation has also created a lot of anger and confusion and hurt and mistrust in the online romance community, and that makes me the most sad. I also know that there are questions about the Legal Fund I ran on Jane’s behalf, and I want to address those as best I can.
The legal fund is not for Jane’s personal benefit. She’s told me she plans to donate any unused portions (if there are any – discovery, as I understand from all those romance-writing lawyers out there, is very expensive, let alone a trial) to the Society of Professional Journalists Legal Defense Fund. If the funds were not needed, she planned to refund them to the donors. When we started working on it, Jane stated that she initially began with $20,000.00 of her own money. This fund was not and is not for Jane’s personal gain.
I understand if feelings or perceptions of Jane have changed, but the legal fund has nothing to do with her writing career. The lawsuit suit is still going on, and it’s still pretty awful.
Moreover, I understand that people are upset, and I understand not knowing what to do or say about it. I do know Jane, though, and that is a privilege on my part. I don’t believe that it was her intention to mock or betray anyone’s trust, or to make anyone feel gullible or stupid. And I think that judging the whole of her website or of her writing or of her activity in the romance community on this one revelation is a mistake. In addition to her fiction writing, she did stand up for authors who stated they weren’t being paid by Ellora’s Cave. She did get sued for that, and is still defending herself. Jane is my friend, and I know that over the years she’s done a lot to change the conversation about romance online, that she’s championed books and authors and difficult issues, and she’s taken stands on controversies that have divided us.
It’s really easy online, I think, to reduce a person to just one thing. That person is evil. This person is mean. All of those people are horrible.
But no one is just one thing. We are all complex humans who are making decisions based on what we know and think is best at the time.
If you’re angry at me, or at Jane, or at bloggers in general, I understand and empathize with your feelings. I’m not going to say that you’re wrong to be angry. I would never say that.
If my actions have caused you to rethink the way you see me, or this site, I understand that, too. If you have any questions, I’m happy to answer them.
“She’s also edited books for a big NY publisher, and in many cases, in these communities, you’re not allowed if you’re a publisher or editor.”
Okay, THIS is a valid point. Did “Jen Fredericks” in fact join any of those communities that did not allow editors? That would indeed have been unethical.
Otherwise, sorry, I’m not getting it. Does anybody really think that ANY online persona — “Jane Litte” or “Jen Fredericks” “[Jane’s professional name as a lawyer]”or “hapax” or “[my other online pseudonym] or “[my professional name]” or “[my legal name”]” contain the complete unedited naked totality of a complex person? Like Walt Whitman (and talk about your carefully crafted public personas!) we all “contain multitudes”.
No one has — apart from dark mutterings of “infiltration” and insinuations of “well, she COULD have” — has shown any way in which “Jen Fredericks” in these groups interacted in any way other than as who she presented herself. It is my understanding that these groups are for authors to seek encouragement, support, and advice. Has anyone who interacted with “Jen” in one of these groups seen her acting inappropriately? Did she give bad advice, mock others’ failures, refuse to celebrate their successes? Well, then, “Jen” behaved very unethically in those groups, whether or not she shared a physical body with “Jane.” But if she kept the two personas separate, and acted honestly within each, what is the crime? If someone in that author group was writing a legal romance, was “Jen” ethically obliged to reveal that she was, under another name, a lawyer? YMMV, but I don’t see why — she was there as an author, not a lawyer … and not as a blogger either.
The only suggestion I’ve seen where she may have crossed a line is that she MIGHT (no one has offered anything definite) have used information overheard as “Jen” in one of those groups to write her post about Ellora’s Cave as “Jane”. Well, think about the dilemma she was in. She had information that EC was DEFRAUDING authors; should she have stayed silent about it, when “Jane” had a better platform spread the information to authors who needed to know?
I do understand those who feel hurt and betrayed, believe me, and I don’t want to minimize your pain; as someone who just recently discovered that someone she thought she knew and loved was an entirely different person, I sympathize (and empathize), more than you know. But we all construct a multitude of personas, both online and face-to-face, to get through the day. Heckopete, I edit (and lie) to MYSELF, all the time, and thank heavens I do; who wants to listen to my unrestrained chaotic flow of id?
I wish it were true that there were spaces online — or anywhere, really — where everyone was completely authentic and naked. Or maybe not; maybe that would make for the most “UNsafe spaces” of all.
tl, dr: if you want to “know fully [and] be fully known”, my advice is to get a god or dog, not go on the internet.
Having read all the replies, I now understand much better where everyone is coming from. Thank you. To me it seems that it is quite, but not totally, a split between readers and writers, no? Which also makes a lot of sense in terms of the different perspective. For the readers it does not seem to matter so much, whereas the writers feel more of a betrayal which makes sense regarding the accusations against her participating in semi private author conversations as well as calling her out on double standards. Anyhow, I just hope that this is not furthering the rift between writers and readers. One of the things I really appreciate about the romance book community is that there is such an open exchange between the two groups and much interaction…
My two cents, for what they’re worth, is total agreement with hapax.
I personally liked the comments changes made at DA. I’m not a very political person and I don’t comment often, but mostly because there were a lot of people who made it seem like a bad thing if you didn’t agree with them. It is difficult to believe anyone could disagree things were often hostile and went to a personal level before the change was made. I also realize some people thrive on conflict and miss the disagreements that occurred. Definitely, to each their own.
I don’t read NA and I rarely agree with Jane’s reviews, so maybe that’s why this is a not a big deal for me. I did contribute to the defense fund and I don’t have a problem with that either. If I couldn’t afford to do it or I didn’t believe in the cause, I wouldn’t have contributed. In my mind, it was never a case of Jane not being able to afford it, but a case of sticking up for what’s right.
I have seen quite a few comments both for and against which make me think everyone needs to sit down, breathe deep, realize this is not the end of the world, and remember everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Marie, I’m a reader, not an author, and I’m not the only reader who is upset, or who thinks there was a conflict of interest and lack of transparency from a blogger who holds everyone else to really high standards.
Of course, for all anyone knows, I could be hapax and be lying my ass off.
Azteclady, sorry I did not mean for my comment to be accusatory and to insinuate that you are not a reader. As I said, it was just my impression that the pure readers seem to be less concerned by this. But of course, I could be wrong.
Thanks for the clarification. I said on DA and will also say here I dont begrudge one cent I gave to the GoFundMe. And as smarter and more articulate people have said this seems to be a case of writers having a huge problem with the revelation and readers not grasping the issue.
I do feel badly that this has caused another ripple in the romance community and has turned into bloggers versus writers versus readers again.
Can ypu please edit out my email? Dont know why it kept defaulting to that and I changed it prior to hitting submit. Thanks!
ED: Done and done.
So I haven’t commented on Smart Bitches in forever- but I’ve been reading since I was about 14 in 2006, so long time, I began to transition over to Dear Author a few years ago as my tastes began to change. Over the last eight or nine years I have bought hundreds of books based on recommendations from Sarah, Jane and your reviewers. I have shipped both your books in paperback form to Australia Sarah (a fair whack in shipping!), I have listened to pretty much every episode of the podcast but particularly the ones with Jane because I love your dynamic, and I have felt a kinship with you both as fellow readers, as if you were there to give me unbiased recommendations of books and authors and were on the same page as me when it came to looking for good new books to read. I’ve emailed you at the podcast several times before even!
Now I feel foolish.
When the DA post was published I was confused and relieved that the site wasn’t closing. I recognised the name Jen Frederick, checked my Kindle and yes, I own two of her books and have read one. I downloaded the free one, and I bought The Charlotte Chronicles and read it … based on Kati D’s list of 2014 recommendations. Kati was always a reviewer whose tastes tended to line up with mine so I bought a number of her recommendations. I read The Charlotte Chronicles and did NOT like it. Wasn’t for me, full of cheesy NA tropes!!! So I am a Dear Author reader who bought a Jen Frederick book on the recommendation of Dear Author. Must make me pretty special, right? I wouldn’t have known who Jen Frederick was if not for Dear Author.
After the announcement I didn’t feel 100% cool with the whole thing. I wondered why? Am I just a jealous asshole? No, I processed it and realised that my issue is that I feel as if my reader space has been dirtied in some way.
Jane has every right to publish under any name she likes, and Dear Author is her site, she can promote her books on her site and that’s fine. But Dear Author (and Smart Bitches) have for many years stood by being ‘By Readers, For Readers’ and I just don’t think Dear Author is anymore. I can only see the podcast as coloured by the fact that you both have agendas to sell your books. In the case of you Sarah, that’s fine, you were transparent about it and put your book out there to stand on its own feet, but Jane did not and that’s a problem.
Not in any serious way I guess, just a general feeling of ickyness about the whole thing. Jane probably would have ripped to shreds another blogger/author who had done what she did, which is rather ironic.
I mean, it’s cool, I can go elsewhere I guess, but I’m sad after many years of reading both of your sites, I don’t think I can continue to. I feel as if I have taken off my rose coloured glasses, because Dear Author is no longer a readers space.
I fully appreciate the difficult position you were put in Sarah, and thank you for your disclosure here.
obsidian blue, please do not tell me that as a reader I ‘do not understand the issue’ … I am ‘just’ a reader but I probably do know my own feelings and opinions. This is the exact problem. Realising the commercial imperatives behind these ‘reader’ blogs mean readers are reduced to being consumers. We are seen as being less than authors, authors need readers or you won’t sell any books. Readers need reader only spaces so we can make unbiased decisions on which books to read.
The worst mistake ANYONE can make, author, powerful blogger, publisher, whoever, is to take your readers for granted. We are not stupid, most of us are highly educated women who can make our own choices. Don’t tell us that just because we are uncomfortable with the Jane Litte lack of disclosure that we ‘don’t understand the issue’.
Sorry, T.S. – I didn’t mean to assume you were implying anything! I only referenced your comment because you said the presence of bias doesn’t bother you, which of course is fine…but it does bother me, specifically because DA claims it bothers them.
I, too, am a reader. I’m not concerned with the author loop issue or the gofundme issue. My concern is with the integrity of the DA blog itself-not only its reviews, but its industry commentary and think pieces about the romance genre, which I (like anon) used to think were by readers, for readers. Now I feel naive and foolish for having believed that.
I’ve watched DA and SB gleefully gut authors for the slightest infraction or perceived infraction. I’ve watched both bloggers encourage their followers to pile on. Recently DA helped eviscerate an author who used kickstarter to raise money. I donated to DAs defense fund as a matter of principle alone. Now I find out that she has ten bestselling books and a movie deal, and that SB assisted in deceiving the community about her status. You get no sympathy from me. Karma is a bitch.
Dear Sarah, your explanation is appreciated. It takes guts to come clean. However, it does not alter the fact that boundaries were crossed.
I truly feel both you and Jane and everyone else who knew the truth should be ashamed.
Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum publicus surgent.
Full disclosure: I’m just a reader. Not a blogger and definitely not an author.
I’ve never thought of any reviewer or blogger as completely unbiased. Be it DA, SBTB or a blogger I follow. We’re all human and as much as we’d like to think we’re completely fair, we’re not.
I see some bloggers I follow interacting with authors on twitter, having a good time, joking around with them. I don’t think for one second that their interactions aren’t affecting how they view that author and in turn, their books. I’m sure they’re more likely to read and give a better review because they like that author. And if they truly didn’t like the book, they’d just not review it.
I’ve yet to see a blogger I follow (not saying there aren’t any, just saying the ones I follow), give a book a 1 star review. I don’t think that’s because they like every book they read. They just won’t post a review of something they didn’t like. Until I don’t see more honest reviews, I won’t take them too seriously.
As I’m sure if an author did or said something the blogger didn’t like, that would also affect the way they read the book.
So no, I don’t think reviews can be unbiased. I read what they have to say and decide for myself if it’s worth buying.
I don’t really see eye to eye with Jane on books so I’ve never let her opinion sway me one way or the other. I also don’t read NA so I won’t be reading her books.
The only 2 things I see wrong with this whole thing is the hypocrisy of expecting full disclosure for others and blasting them if it’s not so, but not fully disclosing herself. DA accepts guest post, right? Maybe someone should write one up calling her to task.
The other thing is the way she interacted with authors in the loops. In that case, I think those authors she interacted with have a right to feel betrayed, especially those that refused to interact with her as Jane. She should apologize to them cause that was a pretty sucky thing to do.
As others have said, I didn’t think much about her revelation until I heard she’d been participating in forums with other authors who had no idea they were speaking to a blogger. The minute she began to achieve success as an author and continued to pursue that career, she should have turned DA over to someone else to manage and revealed what was going on. That would not have precluded her from continuing to comment on the site as a special columnist or whatever, but readers and authors alike would have known where they all stood.
I work in PR in a segment of the entertainment industry, so I’ve encountered similar situations and conflicts inevitably arise. It’s unfortunate, because often people start blogging because they are so passionate about their subject, but once they become creators rather than industry observers and evaluators, a choice needs to be made.
Oh and about the whole EC v DA thing: when it all happened I saw a lot of people, authors included, saying they didn’t see eye to eye with Jane and in some cases didn’t even get along with or even like her. But they were donating anyways because it wasn’t about Jane. It was about a publisher not paying their authors, editors, etc and chilling free speech.
As far as I know, that’s still the case. Regardless of whether Jane disclosed her author status or not or what other things she might have done as an author, EC was still not paying their hard working employees and tried to shut down anyone speaking up about that.
The Romance community banded together to help. It shouldn’t stop helping just because they don’t like what Jane did or didn’t do. Because it’s much more than just about DA.
Anon at 6:25pm:
I hope most of us don’t lose sight of this in the storm of bs, accusations and flounces around Jane/Jen
It’s easy to pile on, just as it’s easy to claim it’s all no big deal. My take on why this feels icky is because Jane has a reputation as being pretty aggressive in taking others to task for perceived ulterior motives and shiftyness, when all the time she was engaging in behavior that, were it someone besides herself, she would have eviscerated. It’s dishonest, and it feels dishonest for that reason.
I’ve read all the comments, which amount to, “it’s not dishonest to use a pen name to penetrate groups she wouldn’t have been allowed into had the members known who she was,” and “her being a bestseller with a book and movie deal wouldn’t have influenced my decision to donate,” and “her promoting her books on her blog, or having her friends do so, without disclosing that she wasn’t doing it because they were necessarily great, but because she stood to gain financially by it.”
Here’s my conclusion: The old adage to not cast the first stone and sit in judgment of others? It’s a good rule to live by, because if you’re going to set yourself up as the arbiter of honesty, you can expect to be held to at least the same standard you insist on from those you’re judging. What I get from all of this is that the hypocrisy in her behavior is easy to see, and nobody should be surprised when those who were subjected to it (authors) call a spade a spade.
When I first read the post on TPV, I couldn’t understand what I was reading. I read it several times before it sunk in that Jane of DA had admitted doing something that she would have lacerated in another author or blogger. I have been a long time reader of both SMTB and DA and I felt vaguely soiled for having enjoyed both sites so much. I am a reader and otherwise uninvolved in the publishing industry.
I feel the lack of disclosure is massive. I had wondered where the New Adult emphasis was coming from, and now it is fairly apparent why Jane was flogging it at Dear Author. I also feel queasy for those authors who are now rereading yahoogroups messages to see what they said when “Jen” was reading. I have suffered some massive boundary violations in my life, and this ranks right at the top.
Sarah’s explanation makes me feel sorry for her, and even worse about Jane. What a hell of a position to put a friend in! “Transparency for thee but not for me” seems to be Jane / Jen’s watchword.
I appreciate that SMTB is not apparently preventing negative comments on this post.
It’s a non-issue for me and I do not care. The self promotion was very slight (donating a prize like every other author) and some chatter which is the natural result of writing good books.
No one set out to defraud me, trick me or influence me to buy books in an underhanded way. And that’s all I care about.
P.S. Sorry, not sorry for any authors who feel uncomfortable they might have been caught talking about people behind their backs in super secret internet author loops. Though I am truly sorry for any friends or acquaintances who feel hurt or lied to (if there are any) but that’s not a matter for the general public, IMO.
I would like to correct the assumption on the part of some commenters that this is an issue that only authors or publishers are concerned about. That is not the case. I’m a reader and I’m upset and disillusioned about it. I also strongly feel this should have come out before the EC fund was started.
To all those citing that execrable PV post as the reason they believe Jane/Jen was much worse than they thought, ponder this:
The post uses an anonymous commenter as a source. All the people making allegations that friendships were manipulated/loops infiltrated, are anonymous. Not a single named author has come forward to substantiate any of these allegations, and the only people reiterating or elaborating the assertions are anonymous.
Now the secret is out, why has no author come forth and said “yes, I was friended deceitfully” or “I am afraid something I said will be used against me”.
More importantly, not a single person has cited a single instance of Jane/Jen *actually* using confidences or information gained this way. Not just used maliciously, but at *all*.
So I am going to call bullshit on all this, especially, as I’ve said over at DA, the agendas of many of the people slamming Jane are so obviously harmful and anti-reader freedom.
Sarah, you’ve been a better friend than many, and for that, I salute you. I’ve seen people saying things in the last 24 hours about this, that have turned my stomach with the hypocrisy of it all. Jane got it wrong, but I will not believe it was because there was a great master plan of deceit. Certainly not on the say so of the noisiest and nastiest of her enemies.
@azteclady #44 — shhhh, you’ll blow our cover.
Ann, what I don’t understand in all your posts everywhere is why you think you can just shout down other people and suddenly their opinions aren’t valid?
The comments here show that readers are feeling betrayed. Not authors with agendas. Readers. I’m one of them. No dog in this fight, just a plain old reader of both sites for many years who is feeling betrayed by Jane’s lack of transparency and the fact that the ‘For Readers, By Readers’ tag at the top of Dear Author is clearly BS. Jane would have destroyed another author for pulling something like this, and the reality is you live by the sword you die by the sword. She is getting what she deserves.
And yes, I’m going to post anonymously. You’re plain scary, why would I want you to know my name? All I say is I am a 95% lurker, who has never written a book or had a conversation with anyone involved, but I have supported DA and SBTB over the years, listened to their podcast and bought books at their recommendation. And yes I expect you will post an essay length comment telling me what a coward I am and why everything i think is wrong. But it’s not. You can’t change my opinions, you can’t invalidate my feelings or any other person writing about this who feels like they have been betrayed.
Oh, and for what it’s worth — everyone saying, “aha! I get it now, the ascendancy of NA is part of Jane / Jen’s master plan for world domination!” …
… well, I don’t like NA particularly either, but if Jane / Jen manipulated so many major publications (including the NYTimes and Publishers Weekly) into analyzing the explosive popularity of NA, plus all the hordes of non-computer-literate patrons coming into my library demanding NA authors (although I’ve never had a request for Jen Frederick, fwiw) …
… then she clearly has powers too mighty to resist, and I for one welcome our new DA overlords.
(All joking aside, I am truly grateful to DA and other romance bloggers for alerting me to this subgenre, and helping me sort out the most popular authors. I would have been caught flatfooted by the demand in my library otherwise.)
I understand why people are upset about this, and they are perfectly entitled to be. However, I think that people (like me) who are not upset about it, are also perfectly entitled to be upset about it. What is not okay is the vicious attacks from both sides.
Jane did comment on her original post essentially saying “hindsight is 20/20”. Also, considering the number of Daily Deals posted on both sites, I really don’t think 1 daily mention is a big deal. Kati recommending it in her “Best Of” list is more of an issue for me, but at the end of the day I have to say it’s not a big deal to me. I think I would be more upset if Jane turned out to be, say, Courtney Milan, or someone like that…
But if people feel like they can no longer trust DA or SBTB, then that’s that and they can do whatever they want.
(I’m a reader, not a blogger or writer. If that matters at all, which again, it shouldn’t)
Ann, the only reason I know about this is because of a friend who told me. I’m not in romance. But the concern among authors is that because of the power DA wields they’re afraid to come out with their real names because they fear dishonest, hurtful practices used against them by legions of DA faithful, as they’ve seen with authors DA’s vilified in the past for lesser sins than those of Jane/Jen. Nobody wants to see their books downvoted or slammed with ugly reviews. But I know of at least a dozen significant romance authors who are absolutely livid but fearful of being made an example of. Also my friend told me that Jane/Jen was offering promo slots in at least one of the loops as an incentive to play nice. So carrot and stick by a highly influential person. No surprise it’s caused most to evaluate whether it’s worth going public and deciding not to.
Being a hypocrite and not disclosing your conflict of interests, especially while raising money for your legal fight, has nothing to do with reader freedom and everything to do with protecting her interests (readers seem to be doing fine without reader freedom witch hunts). I don’t have an anti-reader agenda and I’m all for free speech. Frankly, you position isn’t well served by branding those who don’t view this like you do as anti-reader freedom. It’s pro-truth if you want to brand it anything.
OH and also I’ve never read NA and probably never will. But I will still read the blogs.
Because both blogs review a shit ton of stuff that isn’t NA. Like, I don’t read NA reviews and I still read reviews from DA everyday, and almost every review SBTB publishes. So this NA conspiracy thing is very weird to me.
Also (Sorry for all the comments!!!) I can not think of many occasions upon which a negative review at either site prompted readers to go and leave horrible comments on an author’s Amazon or GR page. I can think of several where a poorly reviewed book actually sparked people in the comments to go buy it!
It seems to me that a lot of people are hung up on the alleged fact that DA pushes NA. In my opinion, all bloggers review, for the most part, the genres they enjoy the most. I see nothing wrong with that, whether the blogger has a vested interest in the genre or not. If you don’t like NA, reading a gushing review is not likely to change your mind and have you rushing out to purchase the book.
@Anon I didn’t say that you didn’t see the issue I said most readers in general don’t get it. I don’t get it. And I also wasn’t replying to you or anyone just saying I don’t get it. I thought it was cool she’s an author. I looked on GR and BL and most readers there think it’s great, or at least those in my circles. The only comments I saw that were nasty and accusatory were on TPV and people piping up DA wrote that article so EC would go out of business so her publishing co would be successful….so that’s the type of stuff I read and leaves me scratching my head.
Many also on TPV seem to be saying that since DA ruined careers then because of that Jane was somehow supposed to acknowledge being an author so other authors can get payback? I am seriously just confused. And this is me asking besides STGRB when has DA encouraged readers to one star a book? I saw that yesterday. Or had its followers go and one star books? Or ruined authors? I guess because of my age and maybe because though I was a lurker for a long time before commenting here and elsewhere I dont see how any blog has the power to do that. I have belonged to many and still belong to book clubs and no offense to SB or DA but many people dont have a clue about either site. Same goes for reviewing issues, Anne Rice, etc.
Maybe it’s because I’m not an author and don’t get how an author standing up for readers rights is a bad thing?
And the final issue seems to be many feeling betrayed since DA is only a readers site. So her being an author for almost 3 years equals she was out to harm other authors? And I never saw DA as only for readers since authors comment there all the time. And the internet is not invisible, authors who don’t comment can still see what people are saying about their books. Like I said elsewhere I dont get how A + B is getting people to C here.
That all said her being involved with author loops which I still don’t get is another issue. If authors there who don’t like DA feel like they said something that was used to harm them elsewhere that’s a whole separate and necessary conversation. I have seen other authors comment critically on other authors actions and/or books. I only have a problem with it when you take your reader hat and purposely try to trounce someone in order to help out yourself or a friend. Apparently a lot of authors are seeking to kick her out of groups/loops, etc. And maybe Jane should write another essay/think piece on that whole issue.
So I will just say me personally as just a reader I don’t understand it but certaintly understand other people have issues and strong feelings about it.
Sarah previous comment I made still has my email in it. Can you please edit? Thanks!
What about the heavy and gushing promotion of Katy Evans on DA? NY Times best selling author Katy Evans whose name and recommendation appears on the books of Jen Frederick?
” the only reason I know about this is because of a friend who told me. ”
oh well then. proof positive.
“And yes I expect you will post an essay length comment telling me what a coward I am”
Don’t need to. You’ve said it yourself.
I’m heartened to see that some readers understand the sense of betrayal many authors are feeling right now.
For me, the worst part of this is that Jane Litte used her considerable social power to squelch several authors’ careers before they could even get off the ground, and then, in the guise of Jen Fredericks, joined business discussion loops where she learned how to get her start in self-publishing from some of the same authors who she continued to persecute as Jane Litte.
It’s truly disturbing behavior that a good person wouldn’t even think to do. It’s just…extraordinarily disappointing, I guess, and a little chilling that any person’s mind would work that way–that anybody would be able to justify that kind of use of other people.
@AnnSomerville, none of us will come forward with our real names because Jane Litte has already shown that she won’t hesitate to destroy authors’ careers if she thinks it’s justified. Maybe you should consider THAT. There was nothing execrable about the post on TPV. It spoke very plainly what many of us are feeling right now.
I think it says much that nearly all the authors who have spoken up about this have found it safest to do so anonymously.
I wish the people involved, including Sarah, would admit to wrongdoing. That they would say this was dirty and tainted, especially coming from the self-proclaimed author police, Jane Litte. For all the demands about transparency, she repeatedly and hypocritically violated her own rules. Both Sarah and Jane would have eviscerated Jen Frederick if she had turned out to be any other author. For it to somehow be okay for Jane/Jen to promote her own work while tearing down her competition without disclosing her true motivations, to praise work of authors who would give her quotes and promote her in return again without disclosing, that she reviewed books from the publisher who paid her money without disclosing, is what the real issue is here. She’s totally right in her battle with EC and I hope she prevails. But this is dirty and slimy and is going to forever taint everyone associated with hiding the secret. I hope the FCC gets involved.
I wish people would stop shrugging it off like it’s no big deal. It is a big deal. Both Sarah and Jane should have known better. They do know better.
Is that what a loop is? Discussion of how to self publish? Why are some saying that more went on there and secrets could be used to harm others?
And I don’t care what a blog says it doesn’t make me read or not read a genre. I can’t stand NA books period. I read a bunch last year. Never again.
Jane is a career killer now too? That’s truly impressive considering all of her other accomplishments!
And this is why I do not care. None of the shock and horror going on here is legitimate. It’s just pig piling.
Sorry earlier post meant to read besides STGRB and apparent anonymous authors here when has anyone actually seen DA calling “followers” to go out and one star a book? Or ruined someone’s career? I have that same issue when an author claims a review I posted wrecked their careers too. Reviews are opinions and I discard others reviews all the time while browsing books.
Jane doesn’t get a pass on being deceitful because she’s ‘Jane’. In fact, because she set herself up as the romance community watchdog and annihilated authors for just this sort of lack of transparency, she shouldn’t be given a lick of sympathy. When you tear down others and spew vitriol at anyone you feel is behaving badly, you’d best be above reproach. Apparently, Jane/Jen was tossing stones around in her glass house. Bad on you, Jane/Jen. Like others stated, if Jane/Jen found out an author was posing as a blogger and befriending bloggers she attacked as an author Jane/Jen would be the first to grab her pitchfork and raze that person until they were reduced to rubble. So no, Jane/Jen does not get a pass. Nor does Sarah get a pass for her part in this, since, she too, would have brandished her pitchfork and been right there in the thick of things if this was anyone else.
Sorry, Jane, you brought this on yourself.
This is framed as a question, because I really don’t know, and hope that some trad published authors could enlighten me.
I hear a lot of comments that if Jane / DA reviewed books published by the same company that p guublished Jen Frederick, that would be a conflict of interest because she would be “helping her employer.”
My gut instinct is that it would be just the opposite — since most trad publishers have pulled back so much on author support and promotion, an author’s biggest rivals would be other authors competing for that tiny pot, not the outside authors competing for (theoretically nigh infinite) reader dollars.
I suppose that would still be a conflict of interest, for those inclined to see it. But them as know, is my vision of publishing perhaps a bit TOO cutthroat?