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.
@Janine: Marie at romanceandsmut.com wrote an article about this from an outsider perspective. More a comment than a long write-up, but she did provide a short summary.
Commentator 137 (erinf1) says:
“so what’s the end goal here? to force Jane out of DA? To force JF to stop writing? To silence yet another blogger because feelings were hurt? To force Jane and everyone associated with her to bend over backwards to appease strangers? To emphasize that the great writer/reader/blogger divide is only perpetuated and created by overblown and unsubstantiated drama?
It seems that there is absolutely no wiggle room in this “community’ for people to make missteps and to make basic human interaction mistakes because certain ideas are so sacrosanct that no one is willing to move on. I know that I’m in the minority of this lynch mob but come on… if this is the worst thing to happen to any of you, than life has truly been kind.”
The sad irony here is that Jane set herself up as a community watchdog and demanded transparency from others. Jane and Sarah would be leading the mob against anyone who acted as Jane had. We, as a community, have witnessed Jane and Sarah’s takedowns. We’ve seen the Twitter and blog comment assaults against anyone they deemed Behaving Badly. Jane and Sarah have forced others to ‘bend over backwards to appease strangers’. They are the ones who upheld an atmosphere of terror, where they allowed no one ‘wiggle room’ and offered zero forgiveness for ‘missteps and ‘basic human interaction mistakes’. And that right there is why we, as a community, are appalled at Jane’s behavior and Sarah’s part in the subterfuge.
I’ve never been attacked by Jane so I’m not taking the whole thing personally, but “attack” is definitely the word for some of the backs and forths I’ve witnessed between her and authors and publishers. Generally speaking, I think I’ve agreed with her more often than not. Yet I’ve also seen a kind of self-righteousness and holier-than-most attitude that almost made me feel sorry for the people she’d target…almost but, like I said, she was usually right.
I’d hope that black and white view of issues will end for her now that she’s guilty of doing the sort of thing that would have sent her into one of her usual articulate, well-reasoned attacks.
If this were fiction…There’s a trope of a proud woman humbled that I usually think is despicable. (It practically ruined the movie Philadelphia Story for me) But maybe the notion of relaxing the stiff, unbending rules of punishment would something to strive toward. More accepting apologies without additional scolding. More good humor about mistakes even when you call them out–because calling them out is good.
But I’m kidding myself. She’s human under attack–a lawyer to boot– and they’re not known for opening their hearts and minds in these situations.
On the perceived power of Jane to destroy authors’ careers:
I don’t believe that either Sarah or Jane have ever, anywhere, told the readers of their blogs to go leave one star ratings and/or scathing reviews anywhere.
But they do have large platforms, and not everyone who reads what they write and trusts what they say there is going to take the time to read other sources.
And some of those people who may not check other sources–or whose only two sources feed of each other–may think that the perfect way to show her agreement with/support for whatever Jane Litte of Dear Author has said is to go post one start rating/scathing reviews of whomever authors Jane has criticized for whatever reason.
Considering the reach, in readership, of Dear Author as a self-declared “by readers for readers” space, I can see how careers can suffer.
If you read this thread and nothing more, you will see examples of readers who are so fiercely protective of Jane that they can’t accept anyone else’s feelings as legitimate, and are not willing to give any critic of Jane’s the benefit of the doubt.
Those blind, almost fanatical readers of Dear Author may, conceivable, go on a tear of any author bold enough to say, “hey, now, what the hell?”
I for one cannot discount anyone’s fears on that point–and it doesn’t matter really whether Jane wouldn’t actively do anything. At this point, she would have to shout from the rooftops *asking* her defenders not to attack her critics, in order to stop the tide.
And some of those defenders would still, perhaps even more vociferously, attack any of Jane’s critics.
To sum up my opinion: meh.
To elaborate far more than I probably need to: I read all the comments primarily because I was confused by Sarah’s original post. It sounded so serious, and I didn’t understand why. Thanks to all the posters who shared their insight, especially the authors whose work I’ve paid for and enjoyed. (Hi, Courtney and Victoria!) Bree, I don’t believe I’ve read your work at least not if that’s your publishing name, but I thought your post was eloquent. I searched for works by Bree but it appears there are a few authors with your first name. If you include your surname, I’d be interested in checking out your books, to see what they are like.
But as a reader of books and this blog, I’m ok with all this. I see why some would care but I think enough steps were taken to put a decent firewall in place.
For the posters complaining that Jane ruins authors and probably kicks puppies, too, know that every time I read that, I assume she reviewed your work or said something bad about it, and that you now blame her since your career never took off. If you want to be heard more, I’d suggest tempering your words more carefully or cite specific examples of how she has ruined yourself or others, because as soon as I see that rhetoric, it discredits your whole post for me.
I don’t want anything from Jane, and I don’t think she’ll ever apologize, or that if she does, I doubt it would be sincere. I want people to stop going to sites that foster bullying and witch-hunting, and instead support blogs that are professional. Are those 1 stars ever going to go away that people rushed out to give authors Jane labeled as unethical? No. They will influence the author’s sales forever. No apology from Jane will change that.
I stand by what I said…there is no wedge between readers and authors. The only “wedge” was forced there by these mean girl bloggers.
What I’m amazed by are people here who are shocked and hurt by her unethical behavior. Umm, really? She’s been a bully since she started! Why is it so shocking to think that she’d do what she’s done? And now you have the same people who have been kissing her ass for years because they wanted her affection, or to not be singled out in a negative way by her blog, on here lamenting about how hurt they are and surprised when they’ve known all along what she’s like.
I’ve never liked Jane, I’ve never supported her blog and always thought of her as a bully, someone who delights and takes power in witch-hunting. But at the same time for people now to be turning on her who used to kiss her ass is just as nauseating. Let’s get real, we all knew what she was like and many of us supported her and even laughed at those nasty, personal reviews she posted.
One of my favorite books is Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers. In addition to being a mystery novel and a love story, one of the themes it explores is that of intellectual integrity. The main characters believe that intellectual integrity is worth fighting for, even though other characters in the story believe it’s utterly unimportant in the face of other, more “human” concerns.
I loved this book for espousing something as unsexy as intellectual integrity, and I loved DA for the same reason. Wow, I thought when I discovered DA and SB… these awesome women are holding romance reviews/discussions to the same standards you find in the worlds of academia, scientific research, etc. This meant something to me. It’s the reason I visited these sites.
The reason I mentioned the quotes I did in my earlier comment was because they perfectly capture the intellectual rigor DA applies to even “unimportant” things like comments on a post. The fact that they held these standards won my respect and admiration.
Robin/Janet said in response to a commenter with an undisclosed business interest in self-publishing: “There’s nothing wrong with having a vested commercial interest in self-publishing, but people deserve to know how that’s contextualizing your comments.”
The phrase “contextualizing your comments” is the reason I loved DA. I loved them for caring about stuff like this, for the standard of intellectual honesty and rigor it speaks to.
Ditto for Jane’s comment: “The fact that he doesn’t disclose is the problem. He has a vested interest in self-publishing as a business. That’s how he makes money. Bias matters.”
Yes, it does… or at least, it should. And I thought it did.
I realize that to most people impacted by this situation, the personal, emotional concerns far outweigh the intellectual ones, and that’s okay. But that’s why I loved DA and SB so much… because they seemed to care about the intellectual stuff as much as I do.
erinf1, comments #129, #137, criticized the people upset by this by saying “They are demanding ‘transparency.’ THIS IS THE INTERNET. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRANSPARENCY and one would be a fool to offer it.”
Maybe transparency is an impossible ideal. The only problem is that DA DID offer it. They championed it. They made it important. They made transparency and disclosure the standard – and yet for two years, Jane failed to disclose her own business interests, her own potential bias, and in so doing failed to give readers of her blog the opportunity to understand how those facts were “contextualizing her comments.”
Maybe most people don’t think this is a big deal, but I do – and I would have thought Jane herself would think so, too.
Several commenters have asked what the end goal is here. What people are hoping for, what they feel should happen next, what the desired outcome might be.
I don’t have any suggestions as to the personal relationships destroyed by this… the solution to that will have to be equally personal. But as to reestablishing the intellectual bona fides of DA:
1. If DA wants to retain its tagline of “by readers, for readers” Jane could step down from her current role and hand the reins to someone else. She could do guests posts like any other author, with readers understanding where she’s coming from now.
2. If Jane remains in her current role at DA, the branding of the site could change. “By readers and authors, for readers.” “Cool insights into the world of romance from readers (all the other reviewers who are part of DA) as well as someone with a unique perspective: a blogger, a passionate reader, a self-published author AND a traditionally published author.”
3. There needs to be some sort of acknowledgement of – and apology for – the betrayal of the ideals of intellectual integrity that DA espoused. That way those of us who visited the site because of those ideals will feel reassured that DA still believes in them, understands that they were violated by Jane’s actions, and will take steps to ensure that they are followed going forward.
I wasn’t going to comment again because I already said what I had to say at DA. Then I read Bree’s comment and my heart breaks for her. I thought I should speak up as a (former) DA insider, sort of.
It was a long time ago in internet years, but some of you might remember that I used to review f/f and lesbian romance at DA. I left after a difference of opinion with Jane. I believe that she felt I was using DA to promote myself, but I think my real offense was criticizing the direction DA was going. She is hugely sensitive to criticism of the site.
I had a review for a Cathy Pegau book ready to go, so I emailed Sarah to ask if she’d be interested in posting it. She declined. It hurt because 1. no one was doing lesbian reviews here 2. I assumed that Jane had warned her away from me. I went on to write reviews at Smexy Books for about a year.
Jane wrote a 2-star review for my next book and said I was a bad writer or a clunky writer or something like that. I actually think she was just being honest. As far as I know, she’s never made a move against me behind the scenes except for the Pegau example (maybe). She’s allowed for positive reviews and promotions of my work at her site. I’ve never been targeted or bullied by anyone.
I’ve continued to comment at DA and SBTB on occasion. I supported Jane’s commenting policy a year or two ago. I submitted an article to Sarah last year and she didn’t post it but we had a good back and forth. I like her. It’s all bygones.
When I read Jane’s news, I burst into tears. I’ve been struggling in my career, like many authors, and it’s difficult to see someone you’ve beefed with breeze right by you and yay! movie deal. Yeah, I’m jealous. Sour grapes are sour. But wrong is also wrong, and I already made that clear on DA.
I have a lot of respect for both sites, run by such smart, business-savvy women. I don’t know what else to say, except that I appreciate the way Sarah has been so up front, and I still love Romanceland. I love this group of women, through all of our ups and downs. I try to speak up when I should and do the right thing.
Thank you.
My disclosure: I’m a longtime reader of both DA and SB. I donated to the legal fund, and still have no regrets, because whatever I think of this situation, I believe the lawsuit is bullshit and support Jane’s efforts there.
That having been said, I’m another who feels distinctly uncomfortable with with this situation, mostly for the reasons Bree articulated so well.
The “well, the internet is NEVER transparent/private” argument bothers me. Technically, that’s true – the only way a group can receive a semblance of privacy is create their own rules and police them. Jane has always been very firm about policing those boundaries at Dear Author, to make it a space where readers feel safe expressing their opinions. (To say nothing of her arguments about author/publisher transparency.) To turn around and use the “there’s no safe space” defense against people expressing their disappointment that their own expressed boundaries may have been breached is hypocritical at best.
[…] in her name for the EC thing without transparency also makes me a little mad. Though SB did address this there is still a part of me that feels like that is when it all should have came out. I still […]
To Renee: bringing up mean girls and calling them bullies for writing one star reviews, and saying (basically) “they started it!” is…well, bullshit.
There are plenty of books that deserve the one star (or whatever the equivalent) at least in that reviewer’s eyes. That reviewer has a right to her opinions and a right to put them out there.
And guess what? Before the mid-00s when DA and SBTB came up, there was Karen Scott and Mrs Giggles and ARR and the like, and they all have been held up, at one point or another, as “mean girls!” by a segment of the readership.
Hell, even the nice gals at the Book Binge have been called mean for not liking something enough
Y’know, I wasn’t feeling particularly upset about the Jane/Jen revelation until I came here and realized I bought several Elyssa Patrick novels because they were featured on DA – but Elyssa is Jen’s beta reader.
I write but I’m not published. Who knows if I ever will; I like my day job and I just can’t be arsed to give up the other things that fill the time I could use to write. But as someone who writes and who has beta readers and critique partners and knows what goes into those relationships – I think the non-disclosure of her writing partners/beta readers when she pushes their books hurts my ability to trust her the most. I thought the reviews were a reflection of a reader reviewer- and now I learn there is a much different association. I’m also wondering what other writers beta read for Jen and haven’t disclosed yet.
I doubt Jane can destroy a career but she can give an author a nice platform. And in an era when discovery is crucial yet harder than achieve than ever before…
Yeah. That irks me. Maybe it’s irrational, but it does.
For those demanding more answers from Jane, towards the end of the comments on her original post, she addresses her involvement in author loops. If I were Jane I would make a seperate post addressing everyone’s concerns, but she probably has her reasons for not doing that.
I do want to say though, that some of the people who are angry about this (NOT ALL BUT SOME) seem to be people who already didn’t like SBTB and DA, in which case…I mean you already weren’t reading these blogs and you already had a low opinion of them so I find it hard to take them seriously. and I’m a reader. I am not saying that people like Bree or Tessa who genuinely feel hurt shouldn’t feel that way because of course they can! And everybody can react to it in their own way. But it’s like…if Obama does something questionable, when the Tea Party starts yelling about impeachment I just ignore them because obviously they already have a beef with him. But when the democrats start questioning-I take more notice. In this case, I totally respect and get why specific people feel hurt and betrayed. I just think that the other side needs to realize that Jane’s friends like Sarah and Elyssa also deserve respect for their feelings, and that people who don’t have strong opinions about this are allowed to feel that way and should be able to without getting trashed by the other side.
Also on the note of “Sarah should have said something!” I’m sorry, but when one of your friends confused something in you, do you go blab it all over the place? I’ve had friends tell me secrets that maybe I thought they should share but it’s not my place to do so. If I can’t convince them to share, then I’m certainly not going to let everyone know unless: a) they are planning to harm themselves or someone else (and by harm I do not mean “hurt feelings of”) or b) possibly criminal activity. It would probably depend on what activity. Does this reflect poorly on me? Maybe. All I’m saying is, don’t blame someone’s friend for keeping a secret. If I find out that my boyfriend is cheating on me and his best friend knew and didn’t tell me, I’m not gonna be mad at his best friend. I’m gonna be mad at him.
That should be *confided something in you.
Autocorrect. Sigh.
Azteclady, no author I’ve ever met has ever been pissed off because of a professional 1 star review. As I’ve said in previous posts, many have even found them helpful. This whole “authors hate 1 star reviewers” is bullshit perpetuated by people like you, the same people who try to claim that there’s a wedge between authors and reviewers. What DA does and has done is ridicule and demonize authors, taking glee in mocking and humiliating authors. She has gone after authors and accused them of things with having no proof, things that could have ruined their career. People like Jane (and you) have done more harm to the author/reader relationship than anyone else I’ve ever known by perpetuating these ridiculous ideas that authors and readers can’t get along or learn from each other.
@Elyssa I’m glad that Jane/Jen has been good to you & you were given the choice in how to interact with her based on your knowledge. I really am happy that she has you in her corner, because you’re a good person, and I’m sure she’s been having a rough time with all of this backlash as well. We all need good people in our lives.
I’m an Ellora’s Cave author who felt strongly enough about the EC/DA suit that when news of it was announced, I formally requested the rights back to all of my remaining EC titles. (Full disclosure: Just before the suit, I had requested the rights back to a few titles I knew to have had flagging sales but was planning on keeping the rest of my titles with EC until I had a better understanding of what was happening there.) I also pulled out of several blogging opportunities and on all blog posts I was already committed to, I removed buy links and any references to EC, taking a stance against the suit. I stopped all future promotion as well.
I am ONLY published with EC, so doing all this affected my sales and only publishing revenue stream. But I believed so much in standing up for free speech and the ability to report on unethical behavior in the publishing industry that I was okay with that choice.
The revelation that Jane Litte is also an author doesn’t necessarily make the EC/DA suit any less egregious. But her behavior is also unethical, merely in a different way. And I feel sad now about championing a cause that has been muddied by questions of disclosure and integrity. And I feel sad that I allowed my career to take a hit because of it. I hope Jane understands the impact this has on her fellow authors who dared to take a stand with her. I spent years building my backlist at EC, and now I am starting all over again.
I’ve been thinking about this way, way more than I probably ought, especially since I have no dog in this fight except as someone who reads and recommends romance, and reads both these blogs for their insight on romance books, readers, and industry.
One thing that strikes me is the number of people who have said that Jane / DA have been fierce “champions of transparency.” Maybe it’s because I always approached the blog through the blinders of my own interests, but I never got that impression at all; I’ve always seen Jane as a fierce “champion of BOUNDARIES”. Some may see this as “driving a wedge between authors and readers”; I see it as acknowledging social standards, managing expectations, and protecting people from manipulation and hurt.
Thus the tagline “by readers, for readers” doesn’t mean “anti-author” or “no authors allowed” (a patently absurd contention, since many well-known and aspiring authors comment and post there). It means, “here, we approach books and reading AS READERS, despite what else is going on in our lives.”
This emphasis on “boundaries” meant it was important, even vital, to understand what “hat” anyone was wearing in any given situation: author, reader; blogger, commenter; businessperson, friend; academic, fan; and so forth.
Sometimes — USUALLY — enforcing boundaries required full disclosure and transparency: “The author of this book happens to be my catsitter.” Sometimes — clearly — it does not: “Your review of my book made me so depressed I quit my job and abandoned my children.”
The thing about the “Romance community” (and what a fascinating concept THAT is) that keeps me obsessively interested in discussions like this is the way these boundaries so often blur. Sometimes (rarely) it’s deliberate, deceptive, unethical, and even criminal: “Fly, my fan-minions, savage that mean girl!” But more often it’s the result of the tendency of artistic / entertainment endeavours to create what are known as “parasocial” relationships.
How often do we (I include ME) think of authors and musicians we like as our “friends”? How invested do we get in the lives of celebrities? How often do we assume that we know what a television character is “really like”, contrary to clearly established canon? Or contrariwise, how often do we think that “people are interpreting my work all wrong”? How often do we expect our co-workers to be our “buddies”, and those who share our professions to share our opinions? How often do we expect an online “community” that shares one particular interest or hobby to also provide emotional support, or be united in a particular goal (“romance readers should support marriage equality!”)
I’m not saying that any of these parasocial relationships are WRONG: I am truly friends with some authors, I would go out of my way to provide emotional support for (some of) my colleagues, I think EVERYBODY should support marriage equality [g].
But parasocial relationships are tricky and (as many have said), “messy”. People will draw the boundaries in different ways: some people think it’s okay for authors to mobilize fans as “street teams”, some don’t. Some people think that romance authors should never post negative reviews of other romance authors, some think it’s beneficial. Author support groups, fund drives, fanfiction websites (and P2P) — boundaries can be, maybe should be, porous and fluid.
But when that’s the case, people are going to always have different expectations of where the line is; and people are inevitably get hurt.
I certainly don’t know Jane / Jen’s inner mind, but fwiw, I am pretty sure that she was trying very hard to set a definite boundary in a very tricky situation. Perhaps she should never have allowed that situation to come up. Perhaps she drew boundaries in the wrong place. Perhaps she misjudged how other people perceived the boundaries she was drawing. It is even possible that she deliberately deceived people about where those lines were — I don’t think so, but then again, I’m not privy to the relationships that other people had with her.
It is, as many have said, a mess. I’m confident in my own mind that Jane / Jen was not unethical — that is, that she did not deliberately violate the boundaries she set out — but may have violated the ethics of those who think she was advocating (or should have adhered to) different principles. I’m equally confident in my own mind that she grievously misjudged, at the minimum, the expectations that others had of her in various parasocial relationships, and they are thus thoroughly justified in their hurt and anger.
I wish this would end up with a more sophisticated and tolerant understanding of parasocial relationships online and how they operate, but — people being people — I expect we will continue to go right on hurting and angering each other, with the best of intentions.
🙁
@erinf’l:
“It seems that there is absolutely no wiggle room in this “community’ for people to make missteps and to make basic human interaction mistakes because certain ideas are so sacrosanct that no one is willing to move on.”
Hmm…I wonder where that trend originated.
Renne @ 175, funny, it’s news to me that I am one of “those people” who have
I would love to see where I’ve done that.
However, in your comment (120), you say in part,
andThe 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.I don’t fall neatly into this little box, Renee.
I think Jane did plenty wrong, and I’m still finding out just how deep the deception went (see mostlybree’s comment @82), yet I don’t think that either Dear Author or Jane, or SBTB or Sarah, are “mean girls.”
But then I never understood how so many people think that only “professional” reviews have value, or can have value, or should have value, to readers or to consumers. And I even less understand it when the measure of “professional” some people are holding up–and it seems you, Renee, are doing this–translates into, “never speak ill of an author’s book, for creator and creation are the same thing” and “even if you know of someone doing something unethical/wrong/deceitful, do not talk about it.”
Some of the people commenting here and elsewhere are not hurt.
My answer: Cool for you.
Some of the people commenting here and elsewhere are wondering why it’s a big deal for others.
My answer: Well, I think it’s like being in love: you’ll either get it eventually, by empathizing with others whose circumstances are not your own, or you won’t.
Some of the people commenting here and elsewhere assume that anyone being critical of Jane/Jen or who feel their trust in Jane/Jen (and in many people connected to her) have an old axe to grind.
My answer: Well, gee, some of them do, and not all of them have the same reason for that, or to the same degree–neither “side” is The Borg. I, however, am not one of them, and you can use search engines to verify this. I’ve used the same online handle since 1999 at least.
Some of the people commenting here and elsewhere talk about Jane/Jen and Sarah being “gleeful while taking authors down!” (that one is a paraphrase, by the way).
My answer: I’m pretty certain I’m not the only one who would love to see proof of said glee.
“It is, as many have said, a mess. I’m confident in my own mind that Jane / Jen was not unethical — that is, that she did not deliberately violate the boundaries she set out”
I wasn’t aware that bad intent was required for behavior to be unethical. There’s a saying in other quarters that seems to apply here—“intent isn’t magic.”
crap I screwed my code tags all over that last comment.
Ah well.
I posted this opinion as well on another blog.
This question has been asked by a few people to DA but never answered.
If this were another author, would Jane not have been all over that author, pulling up links, and turning it into a virtual blood bath, dragging that author’s name through the mud?
Dear Author have continuously shamed and named authors who were caught using a sock puppet and/or catfishing. For example, that author who catfished a blogger and stalked her comes to mind. Not that I think that was right or ethical, that was wrong and creepy as well, however, Jane did the exact same thing.
She joined author only spaces with authors she had been negative to, on Twitter and in her scathing reviews. When they blocked her from their Facebook she friended them as Jen Frederick and then gets assistance and help for her own publishing venture?
Doesn’t anyone see how creepy and wrong this is? Do her cohorts who helped her with this ruse not see how wrong this is? All her supporters think it’s okay that she pulled the wool over so many author’s eyes. That she misrepresented herself to authors who would never invite her to be a part of boxed set or part of their author group had they known who Jen really was.
She claims it was to help her with her own publishing career. This from the woman who comes across as being an expert in all things publishing and writing related? She’s been around long enough, I’m sure she reads enough blogs on writing and marketing as well, so that excuse is lame and just makes no sense.
If it were true, then why not tell the authors, I’m writing now, and I know we have a rocky relationship and past due to my blogging, but I want to start over and connect with you as a colleague. Also would have been prudent of her to step down from DA and let people know where her real passion was heading, and that was as an author.
Not once in her posts since this came out, have I seen an apology, or owning what she did. I imagine, as a lawyer she probably equates apology to guilt and doesn’t want to go down that road, as perhaps she really doesn’t see what she did as wrong or unethical.
And that in itself is cause for concern. When a person has misrepresented themselves and then doesn’t own it, or feel she needs to make amends. Instead, she goes on her merry way and posts on her facebook page as Jen Frederick as if nothing happened.
I also think she was forced to come out of the murky closet, and think that this never would have seen the light of day had her hand not been forced.
The authors that partnered with her, and Sarah at SBTB who knew about her secret identity enabled Jane to keep this ruse up, and a good friend would have advised her that perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to trick other authors into making them think they are helping Jen Frederik a debut author, but in fact they were actually conversing with Jane Litte someone they did not want in their circle.
Yes, I do think bloggers/reviewers and authors can have a pen name and keep their private life private, however, when they do that, they can’t be hypocritical about it. Coming out as Jane the reviewer/blogger and slamming authors for bad behavior, unethical practices, claiming that her blog was transparent and how authors SHOULD behave, when all along she was doing the exact thing as the authors she deemed to be unethical.
But of course, Dear Author and other sites like hers won’t take her or her cohorts to task on any of this.
As for people upset over donating to the legal fund. Nobody forced them to donate, it was all voluntary, and I don’t think one has anything to do with the other. However, I do think she should have been upfront about her author career at that time, and let people decide if they still wanted to support her legal fund.
This too shall pass, until another author screws up and does something to again tarnish the romance genre and leave readers wondering if we indeed even need reviewers/bloggers. Put the books out there, let readers talk about them, spread them by word of mouth. I personally no longer trust any blogger’s point of view when it comes to recommending books, because I have a feeling this is the tip of the unethical iceberg and there are probably a lot of these situations lurking in the background, waiting to come out. Waiting for the next Twitter-Facebook drama.
But I still would love someone from Dear Author to answer this.
How would your blog respond to another author pulling this stunt?
@hapax,
You say that “I’m confident in my own mind that Jane / Jen was not unethical – that is, that she did not deliberately violate the boundaries that she set out.”
But I think this is precisely what people find so troubling: that Jane was very clear about the transparency she expected from others, and that she did not hold herself to the same standard. In her disclaimer about AJH’s review of Slave to Sensation, for example, she made it clear that in the situation of an author reviewing a book on DA requires disclosure of that author’s status as an author as well as careful consideration of potential conflicts of interest. Yet for two years, while readers of DA believed Jane to be a reader, she was in fact an author. If DA and Jane took the position that that doesn’t matter, then fine. But her position was precisely the opposite. How, then, are her actions not unethical?
Jane has also stated that “the fact that he doesn’t disclose is the problem. He had a vested interest in self-publishing as a business. That’s how he makes his money. Bias matters.”
I agree with you that boundaries are an important part of this debate and I found your discussion very thought-provoking. But Jane’s quote above seems to me very much about transparency and disclosure, and less about boundaries. In light of that, how are her actions not unethical?
@ comment 178 hapax
*this* I”ve been struggling with how to articulate this as well and “para-social relationships” is exactly right. Don’t get me wrong, I empathize that “Bree” and the others have their feelings and justifications and a right to them. But the soliloquies and all of the follow up supporting comments, just seem so overblown for the situation. And I admit that I’m very cut and dry and non-emotional even, so the strong emotion baffles me a bit. NOT saying that people aren’t entitled to their feelings, just that to make a valid argument, the emotions and flailing need to take a back seat. For right now, I’m just gonna point to @hapax comment and say *all of that*
@erinf1,
Have my comments seemed emotional to you?
@Kelli – your newspaper has whapped my nose… *eyeroll*
@erinf1,
Okay, but that doesn’t actually answer my question:). I was striving to be even-handed and not over-emotional, and I’m curious if you think I succeeded, since you think that to make a valid argument, the emotions and flailing need to take a back seat.
I manage a review site. I’m an author. It didn’t start out that way. I was always an author first and the site wasn’t originally doing reviews. It just featured books. That’s it.
It became a review site–one in which I rarely wrote reviews–and I had many reviewers writing those reviews. My personal reviews tended to the squee-worthy variety. Looking back now, despite that everyone who visited the site knew who I am, as in I was completely and utterly transparent, being an author and having a review site isn’t something, I think, goes together well.
Jane/Jen may even agree with me now on this. But then again, I have (soon will be HAD) a small site. It makes me no money and costs quite a bit to run. I’m sure that’s not the case with DA.
I read Jane’s post and was shocked. It took me 5 minutes though to not be surprised. Lots of review bloggers want to write. Lots. Some do and many don’t. I don’t know I felt any which way about it. I didn’t feel betrayed or anything like that. I don’t personally know Jane. I don’t ever expect her to review my books on her blog or promote me. I have bought an ad there–as well as here on SB.
But I do understand the sense of betrayal some of the authors indicate they feel. I think I’m an several of the forums Jane/Jen was. I don’t say anything on the internet I wouldn’t be comfortable anyone else seeing so, for myself, that didn’t bother me. For others though, I understand why it would. Especially those who have had “issues” with Jane. Those who wouldn’t have befriended, helped her, shared with her when she came to them under the guise of Jen.
If anything the EC lawsuit brought this to light. And while I did donate to the DA fund, I’m glad it did because I’m not sure Jane would ever have said anything. I think this is the kind of secret she would have gladly taken to her grave. Or at least until the optioned movie was actually made.
Jane knew this is what she’d be in for. Cries of hypocrisy and the like. But she’s a big girl and I’m sure she knows she’s going to have to take these lumps like all authors who’ve been outed and scolded for not being on the up and up.
I actually wasn’t addressing you personally cuz I think we were writing at the same time. No, you don’t sound “emotional” and I think you know what I was referring to as far as previous comments. In fact, your comment in response to Hapax is exactly what I was referencing to move the conversation on. And I know that I’m gonna get Hulk smashed for that comment, so for future reference, I’m *not* telling people how/what to comment. I’m just saying that for both sides to be actually heard, the emotion needs to be dialed down a bit. Right now, almost every comment is so reactionary that people aren’t absorbing what is being said, they’re just formulating their comeback. Myself included.
I’m keeping this anonymous because that is my right — same as it is to use a pen name.
I am an author and a reader — and a long time reader of SBTB and DA. I’ve never been reviewed by either site although I have submitted, fully knowing they could tear apart my work.
I met Jen as Jen Frederick online, and she went out of her way to give me advice and help as an author when I needed it. Which is more than others did for me.
@SimonRalls; you keep saying “bestselling author”. What’s the criteria for that now? Because I think it’s being thrown around like a red rage flag. Same thing with the book deal and movie deal. To me, it reads like jealousy, not betrayal. Jen Frederick accomplished those things, not DA.
Jane cannot talk about a lot of things until the EC case is over. I get that.
Disclosure: I am an author, and I have debated weighing in on this because I am not a regular DA or SBTB reader (I believe they are places for readers, and I’m happy to leave them to it) nor do I know Jane/Jen personally online (I don’t even write in the same genre.)
I do occasionally read DA when there is publishing world news. I think SBTB reviewed my first book a few years ago and it wasn’t to their taste, which is fine, but it wasn’t particularly negative either. So no ax to grind here with either site. I know Bree. I know Penny. I recognize and respect more than one name commenting here.
Why am I commenting? First, in support of those authors who have stuck their necks out to say, “This is not okay.” and have been criticized for it. Second, because I think there are very real issues here that affect both authors and readers.
I’m glad someone brought up boundaries, because I think that is part of why many authors feel strongly about this.
Those of us who take this job seriously know all about boundaries. We all draw our own in interacting with readers and with other authors. We try to remain professional in a publishing world that often doesn’t take romance writers very seriously. And whether you agreed with DA or not, I always thought they valued and celebrated professionalism.
Some readers and authors thought both sites were harsh, but I hope that vigorous criticism made us even more conscious of how we presented ourselves and made our genre stronger.
I have no problem with Jane/Jen publishing under a pen name. (I also use a pen name.) Good for her! I love writing. It’s my favorite thing. And if that’s your passion, then I hope you follow it and find success. I didn’t really see any big deal about the revelations until I heard “Jen” had joined author groups, presented herself as a new author with little knowledge of the publishing world, and even “friended” people online who had specifically blocked her as “Jane.” (That last thing, especially, bothered me a lot.)
That is not okay. Boundaries matter.
That person or persons put up a boundary and Jane/Jen stepped over it without their consent or knowledge of who they were interacting with. Does that kind of thing happen online? Yes. Does that make it okay? Absolutely not.
And then when those authors had a problem with their boundaries being violated, they were accused of “overreacting.” They were being dramatic. “Hand-wringing.” “Pearl-clutching.”
And once again, romance authors are not taken seriously in a space that we thought was all about professionalism and promoting professionalism within romance.
I don’t know all Jane/Jen’s motivations. I don’t want to speculate because I don’t know her personally. But blatant dismissal of those who had professional and personal boundaries violated is not okay. I hope their concerns are taken seriously, and I applaud Sarah for allowing open discussion here on her blog. Thank you.
[…] is a seriously long comment list on Smart Bitches right now that is winding down to the “Well, just what do you expect them to do?” phase of […]
#anon #181 : “I wasn’t aware that bad intent was required for behavior to be unethical. ”
I am glad you said that, because in *my* mind there is an important distinction.
Bad intent isn’t required for behavior to HARMFUL. I don’t think that anyone seriously questions that harm occurred — people have been hurt by this, and whether or not anyone thinks they “should” be, that hurt is very real and should be acknowledged.
Bad intent isn’t required for behavior to be WRONG (or even CRIMINAL). Wrong behavior can be motivated by all sorts of things: different ethics, misjudgments, ignorance, misinformation, callousness, none of which require bad intent. Doesn’t make it any less wrong.
But — as *I* understand “ethics” — for behavior to be “unethical”, the actor must first subscribe to a certain code of ethics and deliberately violate it.
And — again as *I* understand it, I’m certainly not in her confidence, nor privy to her private behavior — the ethics that Jane / Jen was subscribing to was not “absolute transparency in all circumstances” but “absolute boundaries between author and blogger personas.”
And — as I said above — while I in do believe that Jen / Jane and (more or less) abided by that ethic, I also sadly accept that this was not the ethic that many other people (other authors, readers of the blog, perhaps her personal friends) understood to be in effect, and that this mis-match of expectations has caused great harm.
Now, I don’t doubt that I might be fairly accused of being naive and Pollyanna-ish, but I am really trying to understand this mess in a way that allows as many people possible to be behaving ethically, with good intent, and even with integrity, while still resulting in such anger and hurt.
I am really not interested in assigning blame, or casting heroes and villains here. I am interested in understanding what happened, why and how, and if there is a path forward.
HOWEVER, since I also do not in any way consider myself “injured” (or “complicit”, for that matter) it is also not my place to criticize anyone who thinks that deciding guilt and asking for some sort of reparations is either necessary or unnecessary.
I do understand why people are hurt about this especially those belonging in author groups.
But here’s my take on it. If Jane/Jen joined these author groups, why are people so quick to say that she’s there to spy on authors or glean industry secrets to further her writing career. Umm, a cursory Google search would give hundreds of thousands of blogs or articles about self-publishing. I won’t need a private author loop for that. Secondly, most of the authors in these loops probably have less knowledge about the industry than Jane/Jen does. And what if by joining these private author loops, Jane/Jen was able to share her expertise as someone who has been in the industry for a while to these authors. Yes, even authors whose books she’d “dissed” on DA. Or how about if she suggested a good editor, offered to beta read their books for them, offered her help or insight? Didn’t anyone ever thought about that?
My point is, everyone is hung up on the idea that Jane/Jen infiltrated these private loops to gain secrets she can use to destroy her competitors. I’m not saying it won’t happen ever. I do not claim to know what goes on behind the scene. I am saying this purely as a reader/outsider. But if we open our minds to the possibility of Jane/Jen having a malicious intent by joining these loops, shouldn’t we also open to the possibility that she has contributed years of industry knowledge to the same groups.
That said, yes, feelings were hurt and I do feel sorry for that. I wish everything would just right itself. But talking about it has helped for sure.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I am still trying to unravel the thread for myself, so to speak.
@Renee:
You said: “no author I’ve ever met has ever been pissed off because of a professional 1 star review. As I’ve said in previous posts, many have even found them helpful. This whole “authors hate 1 star reviewers” is bullshit perpetuated by people like you, the same people who try to claim that there’s a wedge between authors and reviewers.”
I’m sorry but just because you haven’t “met” an author doesn’t mean there aren’t any out there that have problems with 1 star reviews. There are many stories of BBAs going after reviewers. A very well-known author who wrote very well-known vampire novels is one of those.
I’m a reader. I also review books on Goodreads and Amazon. I don’t have a blog and don’t have followers other than a handful who follow my reviews on GR. I may not be “professional” but my reviews are my honest opinion of the book. And I’ve never talked about an author personally in a review. Yet when I gave a 1 star review of a certain book, I was attacked by people leaving comments. I was called a troll, told I needed to get a life. Told I went in with malicious intent to purposely hurt the author when all I did was read a book that was read in my book club. A book that was liked by half its member, and unliked by the other half. I wasn’t attacked by the author. But I was attacked by her fans and her beta reader after she talked about my review in one of her FB groups.
A year later, when she complained of another reviewer, I got people coming to my review once again to leave nasty remarks.
I appreciate 1 star review just as much as the 5 stars. I don’t consider them “mean girls,” just people giving their honest opinions. I wish more blogs would write 1 stars instead of gushing about the books they like. I’d like to know which books I shouldn’t waste my money on because I don’t have a lot of it and would like to spend it wisely.
And if you don’t believe there’s a wedge between authors and reviews, I think this comment from you says it perfectly: “Until the reviewers started taking delight in trying to be as mean as they could, even getting personal.” I’m sorry but your bias is showing.
I have no dog in this fight, but to those asking what should Jane do? I think an apology is a start. A sincere apology to those authors that she befriended. Authors like Bree that truly feel hurt by this. And not just a private one, which she should also do, but I public one as she would expect another BBA to do. It might not clear everything up, but it’s a start.
I think it’s safe to say there is hyperbole coming from both sides. For every accusation of “pearl clutching” there is another accusation of “Jane has destroyed new authors careers!”
I can absolutely understand any other feeling hurt or betrayed by Jane. Where people lose me is when they start talking about Jane catfishing these authors or purposely setting out to destroy them. So far, the only example I’ve heard is that Jane has had disagreements with certain authors. Then, she either reviewed their work negatively after said disagreement, or had not liked their work in the past and joined an authors loop to “catfish” them.
How can I know the truth? I don’t know who these authors are, so I can’t read the reviews or even see what the disagreement was about? There is no context for these accusations.
The real examples I have been given have been overblown. For example, the JS Cooper situation. I didn’t see anything nefarious and it was Cooper who chose to make everything public, not Jane. So, I think it’s easy to understand why some may be skeptical of the more dramatic accusations.
I don’t think Jane is an angel by any means. There have been times where I’ve seen her go off and I felt she didn’t have all the facts. But, even in those instances, I never felt she was doing or saying anything to destroy the author’s career. It was a disagreement. Nothing more.
@hapax
You said that “as *I* understand “ethics” – for behavior to be “unethical”, the actor must first subscribe to a certain code of ethics and deliberately violate it. And – again as *I* understand it… The ethics that Jane / Jen was subscribing to was not “absolute transparency in all circumstances” but “absolute boundaries between author and a logger personas”.
This isn’t the case, though. Jane did subscribe to a certain code of ethics and then violate it. The code wasn’t “absolute transparency in all circumstances” but rather “transparency in certain circumstances”. Among the circumstances she has clearly stated require transparency is any case where an author reviews a book on DA, such as the case where she explained her reasons for adding a disclaimer to AJH’s review of Slave to Sensation. That is the ethical code Jane subscribed to regarding authors writing reviews on DA, and she violated it. (Unless she did in fact include such a disclaimer on all the reviews she wrote since becoming an author).
She also said, in speaking about a commenter who had failed to disclose relevant information: “the fact that he didn’t disclose is the problem. He had a vested interest in self-publishing as a business. That’s how he makes his money. Bias matters.”
Isn’t that the very definition of an ethical code – and one that Jane clearly violated? She certainly has a vested business interest in publishing, the new adult genre, certain publishers, etc. in her own words, that’s one of the ways she makes money. According to the ethical code she clearly subscribes to, that should have been disclosed. Her failure to do so was absolutely a violation of those ethics.
“But — as *I* understand “ethics” — for behavior to be “unethical”, the actor must first subscribe to a certain code of ethics and deliberately violate it.”
This sounds to me more like the definition of hypocrisy then the definition of unethical.
Even if we do use this definition I don’t see how it excludes Jane/Jen. As numerous people have pointed out, Jane advocated for a standard of disclosure that she didn’t follow and it’s not as if that happened by accident. She apparently felt that she could justify that, but I’m pretty sure that ethics and self-justification aren’t actually the same thing.