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.
@Ann Sommerville – you truly have no idea of what Jane is capable of if you question why authors have posted anonymously. It’s because she has destroyed authors before and I’m sure will have no problem doing so in the future. Just because I didn’t sign my name to my post doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And I’d be willing to bet that no author will come forward under their real names, such is the power that people like Sarah and Jane wield. Google “stop the Goodreads bullies” and “Jane Litte” and you can see actual, factual screencaps of what Jane has done to any author that dare cross her.
And if somebody complained in those private author groups about something Jane or Dear Author had done or a bad review that had been given? Do you really think Jane did nothing with that information? I don’t believe that for one second.
I don’t know where to post this but here.
I like you, Sarah. I have always liked you. You helped me heal after the tornadoes in Alabama. You have been so generous to me with your encouragement over my anxiety and conference fears. I think you’re a warm person who cares about people and you mean well and try to do well.
I liked Jane. I didn’t always get along with her. Sometimes I was pretty unhappy with the divisive atmosphere fostered by the Author vs Reader battles spiraling out from Dear Author. But I believed that in her heart, she cared about the rights of readers to have a safe space. I believed in that, too. We didn’t see the same solutions, but we wanted the same goals, and I had many conversations with her about the industry. I enjoyed them.
I liked Jen. I enjoyed her books, I excitedly squeed with her. I happily promoted her. I was flattered she wanted to promote me. I talked to her about ideas I had for different books, new genres I wanted to explore. I thought we were friendly. I thought we might be close to friends. I was excited about working with her in the future.
Today, I don’t like myself very much. I’m hurt. Stupidly, uncompromisingly hurt. Hurt that my choices are to play out my awkward humiliation in public or to watch people brush this aside as if this issue was jealous haters mad over pennames. Hurt that I don’t know if I’m supposed to reach out to her in private to preserve a friendship that, in retrospect, doesn’t seem to have existed to anyone but me.
I’m hurt that dozens of other people are too scared to say how hurt they are, or too humiliated to admit that they thought they’d made friends with someone who was playing a game all along.
I’m hurt that I spent hours and days of my life searching my soul for the most ethical, most responsible ways to behave as an author in shared spaces. How to disclose every possible friendship or bias in 140 characters of squee. How to live up to the standards of a blog whose goal I respected, and how to let go of the idea that I could ever be “just a reader” again.
That one hurt the worst, you know. Giving up the part of my identity that had been central to my identity for all my life. But I understood. I’m an author. I’ll never be able to completely dig that POV out of my subconscious again. It’s my responsibility to be clear: I have a financial interest in this industry.
Authors can never be Just Readers again.
I’m hurt that I respected that line more than the person who drew it.
It will be days and weeks and months before we tease out all the implications of this. Trust is fragile. I’m hurt for many indie authors who were so gracious, so generous. Who welcome newbies with open arms and open their careers to share data, strategies, information… everything. I’m hurt that future newbies might not find those arms and doors so open.
I hurt. I don’t hate. I’m not here with a pitchfork.
But I hurt.
This is all pretty amazing. Hi, long time reader from the time of Long Before, when it was Sarah and Candy against the hordes. Mostly comment on DA as “Imani”.
I gotta say, as one who has been through most of the kerfluffles in this online Romancelandia I admit I missed all the damn DA author destruction. My goodness, she’s got the literary Thor hammer or something! Can anyone provide proof or is this the usual author hysteria? Sorry, I rarely have sympathy over author rages in this part of the world. As a group online it was sooooo resistant to anything besides 4 stars in RT mags and such one just gets exhausted…
It seems like this whole thing has alienated readers and pissed off writers. Which is sad, because the author/reader rift was already so jagged, and I doubt this is going to help anyone.
I really feel like Jane/Jen should have known better. She’s an attorney, and obviously intelligent and talented and driven as hell. I can’t believe that at no point did she realize she was skating some serious ethical boundaries (or moral boundaries, at least). I don’t believe she’s a bad person. But I do believe she owes a lot of heartfelt apologies, and so far they haven’t appeared. That’s what’s disappointing to me, but who am I. Shrug.
@Christine seriously? STGRB?
FYI I’m on their sidebar too. Please.
STGRB is ticked that so many readers aren’t coming at DA with pitchforks right now and that their whole readers only one star books because their jealous of all authors rhetoric is just crap per usual.
I apparently have viciously attacked and done all sorts of things that I have never done and since I refuse to go to that site for proof of anything I am asking for anyone besides STGRB to once again link to actual proof of DA or Jane one starring authors works because they dont like them, asking followers to one star authors works, or ruining an authors career.
I’m…torn.
On the one hand, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for an author to also be a reviewer or book blogger, as long as this is stated. It seems to be against the community norms in the romance world, but it’s pretty common in science fiction and fantasy and ubiquitous in literary fiction. Perhaps I’m naive or not much of a businesswoman, but I see other writers as colleagues and as fellow lovers of stories more than I see them as competitors.
Furthermore, I am an author who writes under a pseudonym which is not linked to my real name online, and I am a very strong defender of the right to pseudonymity and anonymity in public spaces. danah boyd’s “Real Names Policies are an Abuse of Power” (http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-names.html) and Andromeda Yelton’s “Why Pseudonymity Matters” (http://andromedayelton.com/blog/2011/08/05/why-pseudonymity-matters/) are two of my favorite things ever written about the Internet. (My explanation for my own pseudonymity is at http://altheaclaireduffy.tumblr.com/post/101028041535/why-i-write-pseudonymously.) I don’t review – I’m often rather private about my reading – but I occasionally contribute to wikis and blog comments under other pseudonyms. And one of my day jobs is working in a public library (the other has nothing to do with books). I keep all those things separate; I *could*, say, anonymously spam TV Tropes with mentions of my stories, but I don’t and won’t, and my library job doesn’t include selecting or buying books at all. I don’t want everything I do or have ever done online to be linked to my pen name, let alone my real name, and I don’t think anyone, author or otherwise, owes the world that. We all have a right to interact without every one of our interactions being a Google search away from being squirreled away in someone’s I-hate-Jane/Sarah/Althea/whoever dossier.
Which brings me to the matter of Jane/Jen’s “infiltration,” which I don’t think was right. Yes, the interactions between authors were on the Internet, but it’s still a violation of privacy and boundaries for a well-known and influential book blogger with a penchant for muckraking to join private author discussion groups under her authorial pen name. I don’t know whether she used anything she read there on DA, but it definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It’s a bit like a company directing an employee to monitor what other employees they’ve friended say on their private Facebook posts, or someone forwarding a private e-mail to unintended recipients.
Mentioning Jen Frederick’s books on her blog, even if they weren’t actually *reviewed*, without mentioning that she wrote them, was also definitely wrong, as an undisclosed conflict of interest. Jane’s a lawyer; she should know what a conflict of interest is.
If the rumors of Jane/Jen offering authors promotional spots in exchange for being nice about her are true, that would be the worst part by far: deliberately using her power in the romance community to silence her critics. It’s not a far step from a carrot to a stick.
I don’t blame you for this, Sarah, and I don’t blame you for keeping Jane/Jen’s identity a secret. She put you in a very difficult position, and there was really no good choice possible there; her identity was not your secret to reveal.
I’ll still visit DA for industry news and reviews, but my opinion of Jane has been considerably lowered. (I don’t blame the other DA contributors for this, and I especially don’t blame the other Smart Bitches.) I don’t think Jane should be shunned forever and all her friends and associates shunned too, but I am definitely upset.
And I’ll certainly still visit SBTB. The idea of facing the rest of my life without another hilarious F or F+ review is just too sad to consider. *wipes tear*
(As a side note, one of the reasons I love SBTB is that your negative reviews are frank and snarky but rarely vitriolic. With the exception of Cassie Edwards, I never get the sense that you Bitches have a real personal animus against the author; the mockery comes across as fundamentally good-spirited, and I fondly remember Darragha Foster coming to the comments section of your WTF-is-this Orca King review, being pleasant and friendly, and being treated with respect and friendliness by the commenters in return. I don’t think my writing contains the level of crazysauce necessary for it – indeed I’m not sure it could if I tried – but I have a secret fantasy of being the subject of a hilarious F+ review here. Oops, no longer secret.)
Also, I wanted to add, I think the EC situation is mostly irrelevant to this. My only qualm about the funding thing is that, like any funding, while she might not be pocketing those dollars, they would have otherwise come out of her (secretly-author-lined) pocket without the help of funding.
That said, the EC case isn’t just about DA, it’s about freedom of speech and the blogging and romance community as a whole, so I don’t feel like it has a strong point in this particular situation.
Disclosure! I like Bree. (of comment 82) We are friends.
And I have, for years, felt friendly toward Jane and Sarah too. I never “met” Jen Frederick online, so I was never directly misled on that score. But I don’t want Bree to be the only author who has put herself out there as having issues with his.
I have issues. As an author who has paid to advertise here, as someone who joined in book club and other discussions, as one of hundreds who donated money to the legal fund, and a person who just likes to believe in the general up-and-upness of things… Cosign.
Since this is apparently an issue here I’ll state my situation up front—I’m a reader only. I did some online reviewing at my own blog years ago but quit because the amount of enjoyment I got out of it was less than the work that went into it. Like a lot of readers I have a half-formed dream of writing a book some day, but I’ve never put pen to paper and doubt that I ever will. Like I said, I’m a reader.
As a reader, I think this whole thing smells bad on several levels. I stopped reading DA a couple years ago and as others have said, I’m now having an “Aha” moment about that. I have two main issues with this situation. The first is the issue of bias. I have no idea why people keep talking about there being no such thing as an unbiased reviewer, because I haven’t seen anyone indicate that they expect reviewers to be without bias. The problem is that the biases that Jen’s career created at DA, and here, were not disclosed. That’s an ethical problem.
That brings me to the other issue I have with this—the hypocrisy. I agree with those who say that if another author had done what “Jen” did, Jane would have ripped her for it. I don’t think Jane set out to be deceitful and unethical and I imagine each individual decision that she made seemed perfectly reasonable and even necessary at the time, but that doesn’t change the fact that at some point she crossed important ethical lines and kept right on going. Coming from someone who have set herself up as a champion of transparency and a watchdog over the ethics of others that’s a problem.
As I said, I stopped reading DA a while ago so Jane’s deceit doesn’t have any effect on my relationship to that site. This site is another issue. I almost never comment here, but I still read and I’m not going to lie, some aspects of this bother me. I can fully appreciate the position Sarah was in as Jane’s friend and the problems of having a secret that’s hard to keep, but not hers to tell. I think we’ve all been there. Some of the implications of Jane’s involvement with the podcast and dabwaha are still a problem for me though. I think some of those problems could have been avoided and the fact that they weren’t is troubling.
I suspect that when the dust settles I’ll still be reading Smart Bitches, but as someone else said, I’ll view it more as a business selling me something rather than readers talking about books.
Disclosure: Tessa & Bree are my friends, and I hurt because Bree is hurt.
I also have issues with the lack of disclosure when others were castigated for less. If you draw a line in the sand, police it assiduously and then secretly, silently cross it? It is problematic.
Thanks for answering the questions Sarah, your honesty is appreciated.
Sarah, thanks for your post, but I’m on your and Jane/Jen’s side.
I once again ignored my mantra to NEVER READ THE COMMENTS, and I’m simply shocked at all the haters. Maybe I’m naive, but more than anything, this appears more to be hating by EC peeps and stirring up drama.
I love the reviews at DA, though they don’t really make or break any book for me. The reviews actually encourage me to seek out books that I never would have but for the review. Seeing as none of those reviews were of Jane’s books, people need to chill, in my humble opinion.
Reader here, too. I want to address the early comments by some readers of their impression that only authors have an issue with this situation.
I was a frequent visitor and commenter on both this blog and DA for many, many years. I left a couple of years ago due to the decided shifts both with regard to commercialization and – at DA – focus on reviews about subgenres (YA, NA, steampunk) that I have zero interest in.
Like others, so much makes sense to me now and it’s good to know that that uneasy feeling has an explanation.
I, too, am disappointed. Romland has been fracturing badly for years now, in not inconsequential part due to the divisive nature of Jane’s style. I often agreed with her (and so, yes, I was part of helping the fracturing along) until I suddenly couldn’t, on anything.
I mourn the loss of the community we had even if it has been gone a while now. But aside from the hypocrisy of ‘do as I say, don’t do as I do’ with regard to the Jane/Jen issue, my biggest beef is that this revelation made romland an even unsafer space than the Kathleen Hales had already achieved. And it further damages author/reader/blogger relations, possibly to the point where we cannot recover.
*That’s* what is unforgivable to me.
Disclosure: Bree is my friend and I hurt for her. I have issues with a lot of this. All of this. But mostly I want to say to everyone who keeps saying this is about EC and their supporters: THIS IS NOT ABOUT EC. It’s not. As much as everyone wants to point fingers in that direction, it’s not about supporting EC at all.
“Why didn’t you refuse?
That’s not really something I can do.”
I’m sorry, but I call bullshit. If you went to the Penguin marketing department and said ‘hey, this book is by one of our regular contributors under a not-publicly-known pen name, so it presents a conflict of interest for us. Is there another book we could promote instead?” and since this conflict of interest really doesn’t look great for either of you, they would probably find a different book. I mean, there’s a chance that they would pull their funding and kill the podcast, but that’s the risk you take to behave ethically and keep this secret.
Your other option, of course, would have been to go to Jane/Jen herself, point out the conflict of interest, and ask her to reveal her pen name before the episode where you feature her book. If she refused, again see the thing about going to Penguin.
Neither of these is an easy option, of course. But that’s what ethics is. Being a grown-ass adult and doing the right thing even if it isn’t the easy thing.
I’m not touching the rest of this issue, it’s a can of worms I don’t have my head around yet. But the “woe is me, I couldn’t do anything about promoting Jen’s books on our podcast” attitude is bull.
Disclosure: I am an author, and historically I’ve been grateful for my books being reviewed by either DA or SBTB. I don’t have a personal ax to grind in this.
I’m also grateful to be successful. I don’t have an ounce of jealousy for the success of Jen Frederick’s books. But I AM also cosigning with Bree’s statement. This has dealt the community a blow, authors, bloggers, and whether or not they know it, readers too.
As far as the legal funds goes, I donated too – not a lot, but I did. And now I have no idea if I donated to a worthy cause. I have no idea if the truth is NOW being told to me, or if there are other layers of deception. I have no idea what the real story is. That’s what happens when you don’t have disclosure or transparency. And because of that, I do regret donating anything.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on your site.
“my biggest beef is that this revelation made romland an even unsafer space than the Kathleen Hales had already achieved. ”
Exactly what is Jane going to do that is equivalent to Kathleen Hale’s stalking, now the big secret is out, that she hasn’t done for the last ten years when it wasn’t?
Seriously, tell me. I get the unease about the reviewer/author divide. But to say that now people are unsafe? That’s rank scare-mongering, and pearl clutching nonsense.
The EC crowd (how many of them are there, like four, three of them being aliases of TE?) might be having a field day with all this.
But please don’t silence authors and readers who have been Jane Litte fans and readers for many years by dismissing us as ‘The EC Crowd’ I’m a reader who has boycotted EC books since Jane’s post and contributed (on my law student budget) to the legal fund. Not in the EC Crowd at all, this has nothing to do with EC. But I am still unhappy with the situation.
Where do we go from here? No idea. Trust has been eroded. I don’t think publicly shaming Jane is helpful, and I’m not sure whether it would be wise for her to write more about it. There’s not much more to be said is there? It is what it is, Jane did what she considered right, people are pissed and they’ll have to move on, but sadly I do agree with the above poster, the fun and innocent days of romancelandia were already pretty much over, this might be the final nail in the coffin.
Bree’s post breaks my heart.
I stand with my friends, the amazing authors, Tessa, Deanna and Bree.
I too found myself questioning the safe places I used to go to talk about things that other authors talk about to support each other because of Jane’s presence there. Suddenly those safe places became a threat and in a profession which involves loneliness as an occupational hazard, that further isolation is even more of an injury. Because Jen crossed over lines she herself drew for others. Because in some way she felt she was above those rules.
I’m commenter #20 and I’m speaking up again. I noticed that ‘no author dares post without it being anonymous’ and thought that odd since two or three of us already had. I do understand why some people would be afraid to be on the record and don’t think less of anyone for that. But, yeah, I’m an author, have been published for over 25 years, and I’d already spoken up at that time.
Although I’ve seen a couple of people mention it, I’d like to repeat with emphasis–being a best-selling author with a traditional contract and a movie option does not mean you are rolling in dough. Being a lawyer doesn’t mean you’re rolling in dough. People are jumping to some huge conclusions, and it’s highly possible–even probable–that there has been no huge payday for Jen at this time.
I agree with others that even if there had been, it would not have stopped me from donating to the cause. I donated because I believed in it, and still do.
I don’t know Bree, but I hurt for her. There is no secret ‘mean girls’ club’ that has secret yahoo groups where they diss Jane. But there are yahoo groups where authors exchange helpful information on how they have successfully launched books and what money was wasted. Who they trust and who they don’t. Where they invest in advertising [even if they hold their nose while they do so] and where it’s not worth the cash.
And yes, sometimes there will be conversations about who they don’t trust, and why. I don’t think I’ve said anything in one of these groups against DA but I would feel very uncomfortable to know that Jane was there reading under an pseudonym. What’s more, I don’t think it would have been necessary. I have a feeling that had she shown up in the pro groups I’m in, she would have been welcomed, she might have been challenged with a few questions about things that make people uncomfortable, and she would have been absorbed into the group. Some people might have found themselves more circumspect. Others wouldn’t give a damn and would say whatever they pleased. But I don’t think any reaction from the authors in the group justify the stealth.
I think we most fear that which we know would be our own reaction. Jane knows how SHE would react if the situation were reversed, and felt it to be in her best interested not to give other people the opportunity to react in that way to her. Maybe? It’s a hypothesis, nothing more. But I would like to present Sarah as an example of someone who dared write a novel and put her name on it, even though she might have worried that it would get a mean-girl attack from people who felt she deserved it. And the world didn’t end, so far as I can tell.
Finally, I repeat my first comment because it’s truly the part that I find most disturbing of this entire thing. Jane would eviscerate Jen. She would do it professionally. She would couch things carefully. But she would definitely take Jen’s actions before Romancelandia and by the time she finished, there would be little doubt that Jen’s offenses were many and were of questionable ethics. I do believe that.
And it’s the hypocrisy in this situation that truly offends me.
I do not hate Jane. I actually love reading DA. I hope Jane and DA come out of this having learned some lessons.
Wow. I obviously live in a cave with just books for company as I’m reading all this with a “what???” head spin happening.
I wish to state that I don’t discount any view that has been expressed here and I’m not commenting on any of them.
I can’t speak to Jane or Dear Author as I think I may have been to the site once (via a link from elsewhere) and I read the podcast transcripts and skim those a lot (but thank you Garlic Knitter for providing them!). So Jane is just a name that I’ve read in passing and Dear Author is a site I don’t visit.
What I would like to say is:
Sarah. I’m so sorry that you have been placed in this position. For a friend to impose such sanctions, whatever the reasons, for such time, that has impacted in such a way on you and this site is untenable. It must be heart breaking and frustrating and I’m guessing you have to be angry at Jane, regardless of her being your friend, for putting you and SBTB in this position and the subsequent fall out that I’ve been reading.
I come to SBTB for the sales. For the crazy-sauce reviews. For the more serious reviews. For the links to book related products at Christmas. For the knitting patterns!
I have discovered NA authors here as a result of those sales. I’ve also discovered other authors via sales, reviews and the comments on many of the various entries (usually more damaging to my book budget).
I’ve met SB Sarah once at a conference signing – she liked my jacket! I’ve commented here (not often) and even had (much to my surprise) a book rant published on the SB site.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I come here for the books. I buy what I like (almost always on sale) and I enjoy the reviews, the cover snark, the contests and I’m sorry the sense of community that I enjoy here has been upset (possibly irrevocably) by what has happened.
However, as I’m a romance reader, I’m hoping that SBTB can get to the HEA.
I’ve kept quiet about this partially because of fear of authors not liking me anymore and because I really just didn’t want to get involved, but you know, I’m going to break my silence.
Jane/Jen is a friend. I like to think that Bree is also a friend. (I hope that’s still true after this comment.) I knew Jane was Jen from the start. I didn’t think it was my place to disclose then, and I didn’t think it was my place to disclose that now. She took a pen name and I understood the need for privacy and secrecy. I’ve beta read for her. I just plain like Jane. She stood by me during an extremely difficult time in my professional career–when it felt like everyone else had abandoned me. My former agent and I had a pretty bad break up, and Jane helped me out. She was happy for me when I decided to self-publish, and you know . . . she was one of the few that believed in me when I didn’t believe in myself. I will never forget that. She’s a friend, and I stand by her. If this makes people not want to buy my books or trust me, I understand that.
I also understand how people can be mislead. I was on a group with Jen–one that I told her about when it first started but that she didn’t join until maybe last year. I will say this: not once in that time did anything that was posted in that group make it onto DA. People shared covers–Jen was always complimentary on covers and good news and made suggestions for promo ideas/what not. She is not malicious at all. She does not have any intent other than wanting her books/author career to do well, which I think many of us authors want.
I don’t know. I guess I just see it as Jen wanted to write and she took a pen name so she could have a chance of doing so. Lots of people take pen names. I get the upset about the disclosure and the hurt feelings, and I’m sorry for that.
As to the legal fund, I also get why people are upset. But even if I hadn’t known and just found out today, I would still be glad I donated. I would donate again. I don’t think Jane should have to shoulder that financial burden alone. It’s my small way to support EC authors who have had the shit end of the stick.
I think Jane/Jen/Jennifer needs to maybe remember that however many pseudonyms she has she is one person. You don’t get to do different things as Jen/Jane … you are one person. Pseudonyms in writing are one thing, anonymous activity on the internet is one thing, but having different identities within the one community is a bit off.
I can’t imagine how hurt and just plain icky authors are feeling that they were communicating with someone who not only was someone else all together, but someone they knew in a different context. It’s really quite Moriarty-esque (Sherlock fans) and no … I still don’t think she meant it maliciously but she must have had a certain satisfaction when she was brought into those private loops that Jane Litte would never have been accepted into.
I think another part of my mixed feelings is that no matter how you want to paint it, her choice to go “under cover” and hide her Jane Litte persona absolutely had an effect on her success as Jen Frederick. And her knowledge and connections absolutely affected her success level as Jen Frederick. And her success is a great thing – don’t get me wrong. Yay for any author succeeding and for people reading. But it’s disingenuous of her to put up a front that Jane and Jen were completely separate and that Jen’s success happened in a vacuum with no help from her role in DA, or DA/SBTB themselves. And that feels skeevy as hell. It’s totally legal, and god knows other more successful authors have made their way doing worse things. But as a voice in the romance community, it just smells kind of bad.
“Authors can never be Just Readers again.
I’m hurt that I respected that line more than the person who drew it.”
There. Right there.
A reviewer best known for a blog by readers for readers turns author. That isn’t the big deal. An author and reviewer uses a pen name. That’s not a big deal. A reviewer has her friends pimp her book. At least a handful of times she pimps that book on her own blog. Still, that’s not a big deal.
This reviewer/author is well known for her stance on disclosure. She has in the past outed authors and bloggers who don’t live up to that standard. Despite her methods, many agree DISCLOSURE is key. And to be frank some of the people really, really needed to be outed. (‘Cause really if you find yourself parked outside a reviewer’s house because of what they said in a review your ass needs to be outed.)
So someone with a stance about disclosure being the thing, the absolute thing, befriends authors, bloggers and reviewers while purporting to just be an author. She goes way, way out of her to make sure no one she befriends under this new pen name knows about the reviewer side of her. Not even a simple, hey, I’m a reviewer too. (Bottom basic disclosure.) She also befriends folks who have blocked her previously on all their social media and then interacts with them to get advice about publishing, promoting, etc…
And no one is supposed to find that unsettling? We’re just blowing things out of proportion? This author/reviewer doesn’t disclose even this basic fact for two years. Not six months. Not a year. Two years. And I’m just goin by publication date.
I honestly find that argument disingenuous. I find it disheartening that some folks can’t show the least bit of compassion towards someone who feels snowed or lied to. Jane chose not to disclose even the most basic of facts for two years. On a stance she is one of the biggest proponents of.
And no one is supposed to be feel anything but congratulatory emotions? Pfft. I have no real dog in this fight and even I can see the wtfery.
But, hey, I guess YMMV.
Full disclosure: I am an author. I am not friends with Tessa or Bree (meaning, I don’t know them…). Also, I’ve never been mentioned or reviewed by Dear Author or Jane Litte in any context. But I do follow SBTB and DA because I am also a reader.
As a human being (not as a reader, not as an author) I have a problem with Jane’s choices/behavior.
Posting “things” on the internet (in this case, private author groups) with an expectation of privacy/honesty is much like walking in a dangerous neighborhood with an expectation of safety. That stated, in a perfect world there would be no dangerous neighborhoods and private boards would actually be private.
My point is therefore that lack of caution (i.e. don’t post private thoughts on the internet/don’t trust people to be honest about who they are) does not negate the fact that what Jane/Jen did was wrong.
A mugger in a dangerous neighborhood is still a mugger (regardless of the neighborhood). We still hold the mugger accountable for his/her actions.
In much the same way, Jane (extremely influential blogger) represented herself as Jen (just an author) and gained access to private groups/engaged in friendships, and used a different name to disguise who she was (i.e. knowingly hiding very pertinent information).
That’s like your boss’ boss surreptitiously recording discussions at the workplace water cooler.
That’s not cool.
Also, I have to second and third what the anonymous authors have been posting: authors fear Jane Litte. #TrueFact
Like I stated earlier, I’ve never been mentioned by DA or Jane and I count that as a blessing. I was told early on in my author experiment (in a private author group, ironically) to avoid contact with Jane Litte and DA (and, to be honest, SBTB…) if at all possible because “they like to tear down new authors”. <— I just looked this up, that's what I was told in 2013.
I'm guessing several authors are posting anonymously because they also fear honest comments here will lead to reprisal by those that don't agree. Personally, I worry that people will seek out my books on GR and Amazon and leave 1-star reviews to be spiteful.
So, that's not cool either. Please don't do that to me because I'm honestly sharing my perspective. Don't be that person.
Thank you (Sarah) for addressing questions and concerns. That was good of you. Your responses made sense to me, even the one about Penguin.
<3 Penny
I’ve said very little in public, mostly because I’m good at intellectualizing and rationalizing things out, and I’m very bad at untangling my own messy emotions at the best of times–and I wasn’t at the best of times even before any of this broke. I am not even sure what I am feeling at this point. It doesn’t bullet point well and I have not been able to reduce it to a set of rationalizations.
But what Bree said.
There does not seem to be conflict to me. At the end of the day, an alcoholic would stay an addict, throw a dinner party with cocktail hour & still recognize and speak up if they knew a minor was trying to buy or bring sold alcohol. Same as other authors who use speaking engagements, articles or interviews to voice their opinions on any given subject. Just my 2 cents.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not a follower of the DA, and I have rarely ever followed anything on SBTB. Honestly, find your site condescending hiding behind the guise of wit.
I think saying anyone who is outraged over Jane’s actions is a supporter of EC is just blatant overreaching. I don’t think anyone feels a publisher not paying their “employees” and/or authors is wrong. I do applaud Jane for bringing support to that issue.
The problem is how Jane/Jen, and Sarah by association, both broke the rules they have presented themselves as enforcers of across our book world. If it was anyone else but Jane, and Sarah, being called into question, they’d be leading the charge to form the lynch mob.
As for Jane infiltrating these author groups, it was a breach of trust. And I wonder how many of the members, who were possibly authors contracted with EC, are now calling into question anything they may have said or posted. Did Jane use that as part of her “EC expose”? Did she save a picture they posted? Did she screenshot a post in which they mentioned not being paid? Were they unwittingly a part of this and will those things be brought to light during discovery? Do people honestly think there wouldn’t be fallout for these authors?
There’s a reason the sources of journalist are protected. But Jane is NOT a journalist and she may or may not be covered under that same protection.
Just because there is no “proof” that Jane abused her position as Jen in these groups doesn’t mean she didn’t. It’s very hard, if at all possible, to separate your personas.
Jane has destroyed her own credibility. Now, she gets to reap the bounty of the ill-will she has sown in the community.
Sarah, you, Jessica Clare and probably a few others were complacent in with Jane’s deceit. You and Jessica have gone on about what a great person and friend Jane is and that she shouldn’t be judged for this one act, yet it wasn’t one act. It was something she did as an ongoing practice, in which you, her friends, helped her perpetuate her lie for years.
This wasn’t a no win situation. If you practiced what you preached, you would have said, Jane, now that you have thrown your proverbial hat into the ring, you need to either step away or reveal your interest. It’s that simple.
The fact that this has been brought to light and presented as I am doing this because I believe it’s the right thing to do is bullshit. Her hand was forced, whether or not she anticipated her second pseudonym would be exposed while defending herself in this lawsuit seems to be up for debate. Jane’s a lawyer and seemingly intelligent. I can’t believe she didn’t consider that possibility. Yet she didn’t come forward when the lawsuit was filed, even though that would have still been too late to save her holier-than-thou persona she has cultivated.
My heart breaks for people like Bree, who I don’t know, who’ve felt this betrayal personally.
I keep seeing this claim that authors fear Jane because she tears down new authors or uses her influence to destroy careers.
Can anyone, ANYONE provide some sort of proof? Are the authors posting to criticize Jane under their real names now going to see their careers in jeopardy? Shouldn’t they also be terrified to speak up? They don’t seem to be afraid of Jane at all.
What about the authors supporting Jane? Authors like Elyssa Patrick who said that Jane/Jen was supportive and even helpful in getting her to self publish? Are they just liars who are too scared to go against Jane?
You have to see why so many of us see these claims of Jane’s great power as a bit hyperbolic. I’ve got to be honest. I’ve been around long enough to know that most of these claims are usually because the author received a negative review from DA. So, sorry, not sorry. I’m not buying it.
Yep. What Bree said.
I fully back Jane in her fight w/EC, because I think the lawsuit is bullshit and I hope there will be information in the discovery phase that might be helpful to EC authors, but Jane has laid out rules for transparency and disclosure and then fully exempted herself from them. This is problematic and troublesome to me.
@Rice: To use your example, this situation is not a matter of an alcoholic speaking up about alcohol being sold to minors. It’s a person who speaks out against others selling alcohol to minors being found to have given alcohol to minors herself. Jane insists on transparency from others and wasn’t transparent herself and involved others in keeping her secret.
This: Comment 82, @mostlybree.
Well said.
Bree is my friend. Tessa is my friend, as is Anne. I want to squeeze Bree tight and nod along with every word she said.
In full interest of disclosure, I *am* jealous of Jane/Jen’s success. There’s a lot of components behind my jealousy, and I’m moving past it, but it’s there.
Most of it isn’t worth talking about, but here’s one piece of my envy: Jane didn’t have to leave her old loves behind.
I can’t remember how far back I was on SBTB & DA. Long enough to have cred, if I could remember the year, and I do know that I met Carrie Lofty on SBTB. She’s my co-writer, and my best friend, and the woman who saved me from an awful marriage by being the best support I could ever find. And she’s only one of the relationships that I formed in the comment threads of these communities focused on feminism and romance novels and *smart* women.
Eventually, I got pushed out of those areas by a timber of conversation that Jane encouraged. That was fine. It was her space. But Jane/Jen got to straddle the divide, and that’s bullshit.
For all of the people thinking this is a problem about pen names, you are clinging to a purposeful self-delusion about the depth of the issues that are presented by the jen/ Jane revelation.
let’s remove this to a hypothetical in a career where pen-names are NOT commonly used.
Gordon runs a restaurant review business/ blog called Zagatt. Hipster foodies have followed Gordon for years, for his amazing reviews, his great taste, his high standards.
Then he’s forced to disclose that all along, he’s owned a Cuban restaurant. Yes, he’s only mentioned his restaurant once or twice. But he’d been a huge proponent of Cuban cuisine, and often praises mojitos and black beans and other Cuban specialities. Many of the Zagatt readers now LOVE Cuban food and say they often go out of their way to find new Cuban restaurants to try. … of which Gordon’s is one.
Then it starts to come out that another food critic (and known friend of Gordon (FOG) Tom, has been talking up Gordon’s restaurant. Other restaurant owners have also done promotions for the restaurant, but they have NOT known that it was owned by Gordon, the dude who’s been ruthless about the slime in their ice machines.
How does this informtation NOT affect any foodie/ blog reader’s trust of Tom or Gordon’s blogs in the future? Any foodie reading these blogs are going to automaticlally wonder – are Gordon or Tom recommending this place for the great ambience or creative food? Or because they’re friends with the owner? Or because there’s some kickback?
The hurt that people are feeling happens when we become a little more cynical when our leaders/ role models’ clay feet are revealed.
@Diane
“Shouldn’t they also be terrified to speak up? They don’t seem to be afraid of Jane at all.”
For the record Diane, I don’t give a shit because I don’t even have much of a career lately. So there’s not much that can be done to me.
Hi Diane,
1) Proof that Jane destroys careers — I personally have no proof because my career hasn’t been “destroyed”, but I can message the three authors who told me in 2013 to avoid DA/Jane/SBTB and ask them if they’d be willing to post their experiences here.
2) I don’t think anyone is calling Elyssa Patrick a liar or inferring/implying that she is too scared to go against Jane. Elyssa’s comment/perspective seemed very sincere to me. As well I found it heartening.
3) Again, I’ve never received a bad review on DA (or any review). I simply find Jane/Jen’s duplicity to be very concerning.
I hope this helps.
I appreciate very much this honest conversation. I have learned a lot by participating in it, and I have indeed changed my views. Thanks to the painful posts by Bree, and Tessa Dare, and others who have so eloquently articulated their feelings of personal hurt at what they see as the betrayal of friendships, I have come to see Jane / Jen’s participation in those author groups without disclosure as ill-judged, thoughtless, harmful, and possibly even cruel. I grieve for those who are hurt, and am angry over it.
But.
I still can’t see this behavior as “unethical”, and that is because nobody denies that these groups were, in intent and action, *professional*. I confess that apparently the expectations and norms of professional writing spaces are so far out of my experience that they might as well be nineteenth-century Dukes or billionaire tycoons.
Many authors here have repeated the truism that “writing is a lonely business”, and bemoaned the lack of “safe spaces” and “watercoolers.” Well, I don’t know where this mythical business “watercooler” is, where employees can gather and grouse about the boss (or anyone else, frankly) without any expectation of repercussion, but it’s not at any place I’ve ever worked; and what’s more, I’d think it darn unprofessional behavior.
As I see it, writers have FAR more freedom to complain about their fellow “employees” (reviewers? other authors?) and “bosses” (readers? publishers?) than I do. As a government employee, under FOIA law, every thing I put in print, on paper or online, using taxpayer resources (equipment, information, time on the clock) has to be archived for seven years and provided to any taxpayer who requests it. What’s more, even when not on the clock, I have been instructed (and courts have upheld), since I am identifiable as a servant of the City, every thing I do or say — online, at the gym, waiting at a red light — can potentially be monitored and ACTED UPON by the City. (And yes, I have been asked to renew books by my waiters in restaurants, and expected to provide reference information in the grocery store. And if I didn’t comply as best I could with a smile, I guarantee that my Director would hear about it the next day.)
Oh, and it’s not just government employees — right now the state legislature is in the process of passing laws that will REQUIRE all employers (even private ones) to monitor the private social media behavior of all employees who “engage with children” — a provision which arguably covers not only teachers and pediatricians, not only librarians and cops, but even fast food workers and checkout clerks at ToysRUs.
Is it any wonder that most of us operate under pseudonyms, sometimes several, and bring in our own devices for our breaks and lunch hours? And those of us who can AFFORD devices, and lunch breaks away from the public — well, we’re the lucky ones. And technically, for us to snatch those moments of privacy is in itself “unethical” (and possibly a firing offense, if caught.)
So I am truly saddened and angry that people felt that their expectations of privacy, personal relationships, and even friendships were abused. That wasn’t kind, and that wasn’t right. It’s not my intent to minimize the damage.
But I can’t help but feeling amazed and jealous that they even HAD such expectations of their professional spaces.
I’m sorry Sarah, but to say it was out of your hands is bull. You could have easily said no to any promo dealing with her. Also, you could have disclosed that you knew Jen/that she was a friend, without giving away her true identity. You did neither, and honestly I find you just as guilty as Jane.
To Jane’s supporters: no one cares that Jane is a writer. No one cares that she used a pen name. That’s not the point. The point is that she entered groups where she shouldn’t have been allowed by withholding information. Groups that are now kicking her out, from what I’ve heard. And this isn’t just about authors being whiny babies. This is about actual rules, written rules, that Jane ignored. She’s a lawyer, shouldn’t she know better?!
But even worse, imo, is the issue with Jane being judge and jury for some many years in the publishing world; her obvious delight in taking down those authors and editors she deemed behaving badly.
And I don’t know where this idea that there is a divide between authors and readers got started. Imo there is no divide. Authors love readers and readers love authors. There’s not one author out there who would ever say “I don’t need readers.” And in fact many authors even find help in those “negative” reviews that list issues with their book.
The divide, imo, has been exaggerated and started by these “mean girl” bloggers like Jane, and, yes, Sarah. At one point in time, before it became cool to be rude, there were actual bloggers who gave normal reviews, and readers and writers read them, and all was well in the world. Did writers like the negative reviews? Of course not. But they accepted them. Until the reviewers started taking delight in trying to be as mean as they could, even getting personal. It’s a disgusting culture of rudeness and bullying that has been perpetuated by blogs such as DA. Fortunately, there are some blogs out there that are professional; unfortunately these blogs aren’t as popular. Of course there is no such thing as an objective review, but there sure as heck is such a thing as a professional review, whether it be a 5 star or 1 star.
And to say Jane has no control over an author’s career, or even Sarah here, is to show just how incredible naïve people are. She has created a scare culture for authors, where they feel they can’t say anything without being murdered online. So much so that some authors no longer even want to interact with the online community.
The same people here who are saying that Jane did nothing wrong, are probably the same people who have strung up authors for one little mistake. So please explain why we should feel sorry for her? For those defending her and saying they see nothing wrong with what she did, I can only assume you’re part of her “mean girl” club. It’s time to get rid of this ridiculous mean culture that bloggers, like Jane, have instigated and go back to actual professional reviews.
As someone else said…Karma. I mean come on…you can’t actually expect a woman who has judged and belittled authors/editors for years to not be judged in return when she does something less than ethical.