Categories: General Bitching
Tags: blind items
by SB Sarah • Monday, April 28, 2008 at 01:10 AM
Another blind item landed in my inbox, and each one is more interesting than the next. You like the blind items? Hate them with a burning, itchy passion? Let me know.
On to the item of limited vision:
This NYT Author’s deviltry won’t come as any surprise to many of her colleagues, as sources say she’s not made many friends in the way of authors, reviewers, or, according to some fans who attended a recent weekend, members of her own fanbase.
The scene: a restaurant, a relatively mellow mealtime during a recent conference. The Author is chatting and, given the gradual increase in volume, possibly arguing with her companions when the waitress approaches to take their order. The Author doesn’t stop her conversation, and waitress is standing, waiting, ignored, for some time. One of the companions at the table invites The Author kindly to relax a moment so the waitress can take their orders.
Commence ruckus at the table: loud crashing and smashing noises and even louder “Goddammit!” as she stands up. By this time, the restaurant is silent and staring, but the still quiet does not give The Author any pause. She hollers at her companions that she will not relax, and that this brash companion has no business telling The Author what to do. The Author then makes her way quickly out of the restaurant.
The waitress, who was understandably shocked and a little embarrassed, tells our source of this fury-tale that The Author’s companions made attempts to apologize on The Author’s behalf and begged that the waitress excuse The Author’s rudeness. But The Author overhears this smoothing-over and bellows from the doorway to a very attentive audience of both her own party and everyone else at every other table in the restaurant that no one should dare apologize on her behalf. Then, The Author departs.
The audience is silent, until a curtain of conversation descends upon every table, each person uttering a variation of, “Did you see that?”
But who is she? Why would we care unless she was:
1. a character in a book
2. a character we’ve heard of in real life.
3. in other words, someone we know or had heard of.
And this “blind item” thing. Is that a common way of putting it and I missed the whole new phrase? Did it used to be called gossip?
This internet thing and all its new new phrases. So perturbing to always be saying HUH? That’s the biggest part that drives me itchy burny crazy.
said on...I’m still fuming about the whole milkshake thing. I drink your milkshake! I missed it entirely. A whole massive phenom came and went, affected millions, became a catchphrase and was scorned as passe....all in a less than a month. And no one told me heads up. So embarrassing to be left behind wallowing in cultural ignorance.
Cripes, my whole cast was on that “I drink your milkshake” thing for three months solid. “Uh, guys? That… wasn’t in the script… ah, buggrit.” *throws script in air* And so forth.
As for that blind item, oh, tell me that was Laurell K. Hamilton… :-)
said on...Personally I’m not a fan of the blind items, especially after reading the various shades of the whole armpit-camera story. (It sounds like gossip to me also.) However it is your website so if you keep posting them I’ll just ignore them/ go somewhere else.
said on...Awww who doesn’t love a bit of gossip, and especially when it comes to bad behaviour in public - the person in question did it to themselves! I don’t mind them :)
Am sooooo wondering if this was a cerhtain ahuthohr. Can’t you tell us who???
Security word: respect18. Hahahahahaha!
said on...I love gossip.
I like blind items. I’m like that.
But mostly, while reading this one, I find myself wondering why the waitress just *stood* there. The Author was definitely in the wrong but a muttered “I’ll be back when you’re ready” and a quick departure by the waitress would have been timely.
For whatever it’s worth, I prefer attribution with stories like this. If an author misbehaved in public, in a manner that may reflect badly on other members of the romance writing community because of the conference setting, then I’d like to know that. However, if it’s simply hints and innuendos, it comes across as mean-spirited gossip.
said on...I’ll be honest: I enjoy gossip. It may be shallow, but it sure is human. People like drama, and I’m not going to condem it when I like to read about it too. However, I do allow that there are people who are much nicer than I am, and don’t find joy in this kind of thing. :)
As for the vajayjay-armpit of death, the truth came out very quickly. Perhaps there’s an equally reasonable explination for this one. Even so, glad I’m not the only who thought of LKH though…
Yeah, I’m betting money that was LKH.
Huh, security word: became37. Not yet, dammit! *clings to early thirties*
This was the most entertaining thing of my morning by far. I love blind items for every occasion. Keep ‘em coming!
The first name that popped in my head regarding the above is Deborah MacGillvray, but that’s just because I’d like to blame everything on her after her hijinx.
Eh, color me curious. I’m shallow. I admit it.
“Gossip” is, after all, a form of intelligence gathering - and therefore valuable.
said on...If an author misbehaved in public, in a manner that may reflect badly on other members of the romance writing community because of the conference setting, then I’d like to know that. However, if it’s simply hints and innuendos, it comes across as mean-spirited gossip.
You should see my face, Darlene. I have this expression of, “HUH!” because I’m not caffeinated by a long shot (ha!) and I never thought of it that way. Fascinating. My point in posting blind items was to point out that any author, even namelessly, makes the writing community look poorly as a whole with poor behavior, and it doesn’t matter who it is so much as the fact that it happened, it was beyond silly, and it does in fact denigrate everyone else who acts like a professional when the occasion calls for it.
Case in point: I went to a session at RT led by Linnea Sinclair, who could read the phone book and I’d listen with both ears because her voice is rockin like Mexican chocolate, about things writers do that prevent them from being published, but the title was more along the lines of “how to piss your editor off and never see the printed page.” I thought it was going to be a session about behavior, though it turned out to be a more nuts & bolts session, dealing with doing what agents/editors ask for (e.g. don’t send a full m/s if they say they want queries/partials, etc) - which is important. But I was curious: is there a behavior level that will cause publishing folks to no longer want to work with you? Does online mishigas or real-life mishigas create situations where the trouble is more trouble than its worth? And doesn’t that denigrate the writing community on the whole?
I look at some of the more dramatic kerfuffles online, and I wonder, is there fallout professionally when folks don’t act, well, professionally? So the blind items were really meant to say, “It matters if you act like a douchebag,” but how much is variable, since everyone’s line of demarcation varies. Mine is very very deep, in that it takes a WHOLE MESSY LOT of asshattery to make me as a reader say, “I am so not ever buying your books again, ever ever ever.” Very few authors have crossed that line with me.
Also, I love the puzzle part and enjoy trying to figure them out wherever I find them online.
said on...Okay, I may like gossip, but I’m a bit chary about believing it. I can think of any number of situations in which this author’s behavior may have been perfectly understandable. For example, suppose she just found out that someone she thought was a friend had been smearing her with blind items?
said on...blind item readr—Blind items have been around since the Regency (and even earlier) as a means of circumventing strict (particularly British) libel laws. By not giving a name, the publisher is able to claim that they were not speaking about a given person. Blind items usually include details which, while not entirely unique to one person, usually indicate very clearly who is meant. The New York Post (bastion of journalism that it is) runs such a column on Page Six at least once a week.
Although......blind items from books would be fantastically amusing. :)
I’m personally a fan of gossip—part of the reason I come here is for the behind-the-scenes talk about what authors are really like and what goes on in the publishing world. Besides, gossip like this keeps people accountable for their actions in public and the way they treat those in the service industry.
Well, blind item as far as I understand is one that hasn’t been vetted for attribution so it’s insinuating by nature. I have no problem with them.
And I have to admit I thought of LKH at once.
I have a lot of sympathy for the waitress. They put up with a lot of crap for little money and don’t deserve to be treated like a piece of furniture by anyone. Good on her companions for trying to maintain a little decency in the face of the author’s lack of discretion.
I, by the way, always drag the people I am mad at into a private area and give them a dressing down in a very low, vicious voice. Much more effective.
Kind of sad - I thought of three different authors when I read this, and wondered if it might be one of them.
Conversely, had you written a blind item about an author who was funny, warm, helpful and open, who reportedly handed a fifty dollar tip to the waitress, my mind would be crowded with possibilities.
So we’re doing okay. I don’t let a few bad-tempered, ill-mannered, full of themselves divas spoil my impression of romance authors.
I just avoid them like the plague and don’t buy their books.
So the phrase “blind item” has been around since the regency? Cripes.
Gossip or whatever it’s called has been around since the start of communication.
I expect “blind item info” is something men exchange and “gossip” is the word applied to the same sort of conversation among women. Seems like the standard sort of divide.
About the incident? I’m fascinated and have read it at least three times, looking for more hints. Definitely time for a life.
I, too, thought it might be LKH, but then reread it and an author who appears beyond her prime ((IMHO) with the initials AR was racing for the finish line in my brain. I have no clue if she even left the Delta area for Pitt for the event.
Gossip is gossip and as long as folks don’t take it as gospel, I’m good with it. And as we all saw in the Case of the Masquerading Vajayjay (Ooooh...I see a whole new line of Nancy Drew meets the Gossip Girls books here) - but I digress - In that instance, we all learned the truth of the matter quickly.
Perception is an interesting critter. Just read witness statements sometime. No two are ever the same and if they are, a good investigator will start looking very hard at those witnesses as possible suspects.
spaminator: degree45 - Just what I need, mega deodorant for when I write those McSteamy lurve scenes. (No intent to plagerize or infringe on copyright here...That nickname just makes me giggle.) (and I LURVE the edit feature to catch my typos!)
I expect “blind item info” is something men exchange and “gossip” is the word applied to the same sort of conversation among women.
What? I’m on a celebrity blind-item mailing list (secret shame!) and most of the posters there are female. Blind item just means you don’t use the person’s name, that’s all.
said on...I’m with the contingent who believe we have a right to know because of how it reflects on all of us.
Also… honestly? I vote with my credit card. If you are a pratt I refuse to pay your utilities with my own hard earned cash. Being a trophy wife is not picnic! (That was a joke… I am at the library in a hoodie, jeans, and a baseball cap. The only kind of trophy I might resemble is a bowling trophy.)
Anyway… LKH did come to mind. I stopped buying her crap already, though.
This qualifies as “none of the bullshit” ??
Bleh, crap I don’t care about and time I’ll never get back.
Whatever, I like the conference gossip. And really, for “not caring” about what you guys post, a lot of people are wasting their time commenting about how much they don’t care.
In any case, I immediately wondered if this had any relation to the woman who shouted, “DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?” at her waitress at the Pittsburgh hotel.
If this is an appropriate time for general bitching, I don’t like the new subheading font. It’s harder to read. When I haven’t visited for a few days or so, I tend to skim the headlines and that kooky font is too twisty for my reading pleasure.
said on...Well who knew about blind items!? Now I know and interestingly, Dangerous Liaisons (the book, not the film) is all written as a blind item. huh…
For the record, I like the blind items.
I thought LKH too, but somehow it didn’t seem in line. Wouldn’t Jon-boy have been the one to raise the stink, while she aloofly stood in the background? Anyway, verrrrrrrrrrry interested in who the author is....
moment17: I hope there are 17 more blind items!
Oooo, I love reading about misbehavior. I’m too old to misbehave, so these stories give me a vicarious thrill. Besides, even if I did misbehave, nobody would give a rat’s patooty—except maybe law enforcement, whose attention is far more unwelcome than bloggers’.
said on...I’m with Shiloh--wading pool shallow.
However, DS, I am personally acquainted with five (count ‘em--5) EMTs--like less expensive paramedics--who quit being EMTs to work in the food service industry. They all say they get more money for less flak.
Shows you what’s important in the good ol’ US of A today.
Can I second the motion with regard to the new curly font? I don’t like it. It’s hard to read.
I also don’t like having my email linked to my name. I used to just be able to post my blog’s website in order to leave a comment, and I preferred that. If a crazy takes exception to something I’ve said, it’s easier to deal with that garbage when they’ve only got my blog URL, not my personal email address. (Yes, I can blacklist their email account, but they can also put me on spam lists.)
Being a trophy wife is not picnic! (That was a joke… I am at the library in a hoodie, jeans, and a baseball cap. The only kind of trophy I might resemble is a bowling trophy.)
I just snorted coffee up my nose. OW.
said on...Going by what people are say here about a handful of authors, I would say that what really happens when gossip like this comes up is that your past behavious is going to always hobble you. Everyone assumes this must be the actions of certain authors who have already acted crazy/rude etc. Whether they deserve to be tarred with this brush or not, their past actions make their reading audience automatically assume they are capable of future craziness.
As far as the blind itmes go, in general they are not my most favoritest part of SBTB. However that said, I ditto Darlene Marshall. I do want to know when an author has crossed the line ie: Anne Rice’s tirade on Amazon. Of course, I won’t stop reading SBTB because the blind items are my favoritest thing in the whold wide world. I’ll just skim them and then move on for cover snark. =)
said on...I love gossip too!
A little ‘on dit’ adds an extra spice. Not using the names keeps them from being too vendetti.
But I was curious: is there a behavior level that will cause publishing folks to no longer want to work with you? Does online mishigas or real-life mishigas create situations where the trouble is more trouble than its worth? And doesn’t that denigrate the writing community on the whole?
I know I’ve spoken with more than a few editors and agents who admit to checking out blogs and online presences before they sign someone. Partially because they want to know how someone conducts themselves in a public forum. Obviously, not all editors/agents are like this, but I think we’d be surprised at how many are. My own agent confessed to checking out my website and blog after I queried her and because of reading the excerpt I had up of the work I was querying and because of how I wrote on my blog, wound up requesting a full rather than just a partial, which is what she would’ve normally asked for.
I also remember sharing a conference meal with an editor who was absolutely fuming about blogs—on principle, she didn’t mind them, but she had an author who was more than six months late with a manuscript, claiming writer’s block and was blogging, every day about her writer’s block. As the editor put it, “All those damned words on the screen—tens of thousands of them, when she could have been making progress, any progress, on the damned book she owes me.”
So it’s definitely a fine line to walk. I tend to follow the rule of not saying anything publicly on my blog I’m not likely to say to someone’s face. Because it will come back to haunt your ass. DAM, anyone?
If we are talking about this last RT convention, I don’t think LKH was there. She’s not listed in the agenda for the booksigning and she certainly would have been if present.
LKH
This is part of the concern I have. I’m not a fan of her recent novels, in fact, I stopped reading them about five books back. I’ve snickered over some of her public behavior, well documented at her website.
But now I’ve seen this woman’s name come up repeatedly in this conversation as someone who would have been likely to be involved with this kind of fracas. How easily this could slip over from the realm of idle conjecture to people saying “Yes, I read just the other day that she had an implosion in a restaurant and screamed at people!”
I used to be a broadcaster for a living, doing the news. Part of the lesson I took away from that was, once you broadcast it, it’s very, very hard to go back and say “Oops! I made a mistake!” and have people unhear what was said.
I’ll bet we continue hearing about these “blind items” from RT for some time. It sounds like this conference was chock-full of little tid-bits to remember. *smile*
Sarah didn’t say it was the RT conference, and I was assuming (a dangerous thing to do anyway, I suppose) it was not, otherwise LKH would never have come to mind in the first place.
Darlene, I can totally see where you are coming from. It is a short step from nameless author freaks out to LKH has culinary meltdown, all because of some speculation in the comments of a blog.
However, I think this also backs up what Barb was saying about online presence of authors. Because LKH has made a point of documenting her eccentricities for the world to see, she was one of the first people I though of when I read this blind item. I think you need to be careful about how you behave in public these days not only to avoid an embarrassing situation you participated in, but also to avoid this type of speculation.
said on...his is part of the concern I have. I’m not a fan of her recent novels, in fact, I stopped reading them about five books back. I’ve snickered over some of her public behavior, well documented at her website.
But now I’ve seen this woman’s name come up repeatedly in this conversation as someone who would have been likely to be involved with this kind of fracas. How easily this could slip over from the realm of idle conjecture to people saying “Yes, I read just the other day that she had an implosion in a restaurant and screamed at people!”
Exactly. I mean honestly, it’s the first name that popped into my head as well. But the bad part about these blind items is that if it’s about someone else entirely, not at all related to LKH, then it’s too bad. She’s already been painted with that brush. And reading her site (which I also no longer do) it does sound like her. But still. Here she is being accused of something she well might not have done.
I tried to read Lick of Frost. Got it from the library because I was not going to pay $$$ for it. Got about 10 pages in, thought “ugh, not again,” and took it back. I decided it’s not that it’s all sex, it’s that it’s all sex and it’s the exact same freaking sex scene over and over and over, with just a few male parts added, subtracted, or switched. I’ve read that scene now about, oh, 30 times. Done.
This from someone who read her first novels in a frenzy, one after the other. Not bitter me, no. Not at all.
said on...When someone it simply acting out in public in a manner that is unacceptable and rude, I don’t think there is any reason not to simply name names. That said…
I don’t mind blind items. I am a sucker for delicious gossip. And a well constructed blind item is an invitation to solve a puzzle. It should have a few well placed (but not too obvious) words scattered amongst the narrative that the discerning reader would pick out, put together and voila! come up with the person in question.
In this one, for instance, the words “deviltry”, “brash”, and “fury” stand out for me. This leads me to believe that the writer writes Paranormal romance. However since Paranormal isn’t my cup of tea, I can’t even begin to guess. I do read LKH, but since I’ve never thought of her as a romance novelist and the words that jumped out at me don’t seem to fit her stories, I never seriously considered her.
said on...When we will this site go back to book reviews and ferrit hotties?
I’m not all fangirl about my favourite authors and doubt I could pick them out of a line up, never mind recognize their behaviours.
So book reviews and snark, please!
I’m with Seeley on this one. It smacks of Entertainment Tonight when there haven’t been any new Britney sightings…
said on...I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I would rather know who is the author this time--she threw the very public tantrum, she can live with people knowing about it.
said on...But I was curious: is there a behavior level that will cause publishing folks to no longer want to work with you? Does online mishigas or real-life mishigas create situations where the trouble is more trouble than its worth? And doesn’t that denigrate the writing community on the whole?
said on...I was in the restaurant at the time. And the F-bomb was dropped - very loudly - as said author left the room. The place came to a stand still.
As someone who couldn’t get through her book, I found the whole thing (besides terribly embarrasing for her companions and the waitress) delicious!
And no, not LKH
I’m not good at puzzles--someone, anyone, please stop the merciless teasing and put a name to go with the unbelievable behaviour.
Robin, while I can understand anyone having explosions in public over something that pretty much explodes in your face while you are in public, I wonder if it is completely stupid/illogical/naïve of me to think that if your scenario was close to the mark, then the author in question would
A) have calmed down eventually;
B) remembered her public tantrum and regretted it;
C) decided to come clean about it.
Mind you, I’m not asking for names and gory details, but something along the lines of “I made an ass of myself publicly at *date and place* due to some extremely distressing events of a personal nature. My apologies to all those who were subjected to the spectacle I made of myself. I hope it’ll never happen again.”
How crazy am I? Let me have it, please.
[spamfoiler: could69---really? I could?????? :grin: ]
And doesn’t that denigrate the writing community on the whole?
I was thinking a little more on this last bit of your statement/question, Sarah—I don’t know about the writing community as a whole, but certainly I think a genre or sub-genre can be painted with a negative brush depending on the behavior of an author/authors. I recall back in chick lit’s heyday, when it was the genre du jour and at its very height, you had books like Nanny Diaries and Bergdorf Blondes as prime examples of the genre—certainly, among the most publicized of the genre—and Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus and Plum Sykes were getting huge press because of the nature of the books and their provenance and acting like absolute bints in the process. And to top it off, the books weren’t all that good. Of course, they’re laughing all the way to the bank, while anyone who wrote chick lit at the time had to be faced with “oh, you write those pink books.”
And of course, anything that’s negative or laughable about a genre, and the press and/or public is going to glom onto it immediately and it has the unfortunate tendency to become the standard for the genre as a whole, at least, for a period of time. It’s exceedingly unfair and I hate it like burning, but it’s the nature of the beast.
said on...I wouldn’t miss blind items if they stopped. I haven’t liked everthing at this site, but unsubstantiated rumours about teen crotch shots was the first time I had a truly negative reaction to the content.
I’ll also agree about the font and will also mention I also liked having comments pop in a separate window. My first thought on seeing the new site and that lead article on eateries was that SBTB had undergone or was starting some unholy transformation as part of promoting their book or as a response to the higher profile they might have because of their part in some recent romance firestorms.
Mind you, I’m not asking for names and gory details, but something along the lines of “I made an ass of myself publicly at *date and place* due to some extremely distressing events of a personal nature. My apologies to all those who were subjected to the spectacle I made of myself. I hope it’ll never happen again.”
It wasn’t clear to me that the incident in question here (as opposed to *there*) was connected to any professional event or context, which to me changes its terms (both as gossip and in regard to implications). If the author simply made a public ass of herself *as a private person* then I don’t think she owes a public apology at all, beyond those she directly affected like the waitress and those at her table. If there was some professional context here, though, I’d be more inclined to see a public statement, a mea culpa of sorts, something that might win some points back.
I don’t know about the writing community as a whole, but certainly I think a genre or sub-genre can be painted with a negative brush depending on the behavior of an author/authors.
As a reader, I need a pretty convincing pattern of behavior from a wide variety of players to detect this kind of tarnish. Like I think the public perception of epubs has been negatively affected by the repeated issues cropping up over a good amount of time. But I don’t see any subgenre as characterized by particular author behavior. I’d have to see repeated similar behaviors over a good while before I jumped to the macro level with these incidents. That doesn’t mean I don’t unfairly lump authors together at times, but it’s not usually an issue of community behavior (it tends to run along the lines of viewpoint most often).
Hmmmm. Tammy? You couldn’t finish her book? As in she’s only got one? Or maybe she’s only famous for one?
I’d say Margaret Mitchell, but she’s dead.
AHA! It’s that Harper Lee! She’s causing scenes again? (Happy Birthday to her, btw)
As a reader, I need a pretty convincing pattern of behavior from a wide variety of players to detect this kind of tarnish.
Robin, I think a lot of readers of a genre probably follow your line of reasoning. I was thinking more of the general public, who might not be as familiar with an overall genre or sub-genre and when something attains the kind of mass-popularity that something like Nanny Diaries or Bergdorf Blondes did, tend to take their cues from what they’re seeing/hearing/reading in the media. Which makes those battles we’re constantly fighting, to get the general public to take our genre seriously, that much more difficult.
said on...Blind Item Readr: More than one book.
Robin: this event was in a public context. I think SB Sarah said it was at a “recent conference.”
I wonder, Barb, how much the public notices or takes note of this kind of stuff. But honestly, most of the cranky stuff that happens insider the genre, industry, and community bugs me more because it smacks to me of an imbalance between taking things too seriously, and not taking other things seriously enough. Like readers who write negative Amazon reviews are tracked down and harangued by some authors, but other authors who have been shown to be plagiarists are defended and continue to be published (and I know there are contrary examples of bad reader behavior, as well). Sometimes it feels like we’re all down the rabbit hole, as either Alice or the Queen.
Robin: this event was in a public context. I think SB Sarah said it was at a “recent conference.”
Thanks, Tilly; it was unclear to me whether the incident occurred in the context of the conference or at a restaurant after hours, so to speak.
But honestly, most of the cranky stuff that happens insider the genre, industry, and community bugs me more because it smacks to me of an imbalance between taking things too seriously, and not taking other things seriously enough.
I meant to say more clearly that this stuff bugs me because of how it reflects *internally* more than *externally*—how I’m less worried about public perceptions than I am about how the genre and industry represents itself *to itself* in other words.
said on...I thought LKH at first simply because her history of nasty behavior. She hasn’t been kind and generous to her readership to say the least. So seeing her lash out in public would not surprise me.
And really and truly an authors actions, in the real world AND in blogs, WILL AND CAN AND DO reflect on their sales and whether or not people will buy them. Maybe not for every reader but for some it will either fuel the readership or cut it off. For example I never ever ever ever read Nora Roberts. I admired her as a writer and I also admired her attitude and poise. I felt she really made being an author a classy job. And her writing and her knowledge of her craft was reflected in her outward appearances and actions. So that made me pick up a book or two.
The opposite is true for LKH. I eagerly bought her books and when I had questions found an unresponsive abusive personality at the other end. That made me unresponsive in buying her books.
It’s a symbiotic relationship. What the author puts out, BEYOND the words, the author will get back. And likewise for the reader. Be nasty and you’ll get nastiness in return.
Argh! Forgot to uncheck the “notify me of follow-up comments” box and came home to 48 emails. Ouch. Would be nice if the default on that was off instead of on.
Now that I’ve thought about this some more, I still want to know who it was, but my puppy has the runs and that’s taking up valuable googling time. Just thought you all should know.
Oh crap! My last three blog posts on Myspace were:
Are sex toys your friends?
Sex and Sandwiches - Or what did you put in your mouth?
Booty Pops and Bottoms Up ...truth in advertising
Have I become more trouble than I’m worth before I even got a decent start? At least only my Myspace friends can view them. And here I mistakenly thought I was “on” to something with my big jump in traffic. Now I’ll probably be on the Author’s Behaving Badly list. Oh well, I did aspire to make the “lists”.
Brit - who has a headache now...thank you very much
said on...Personally, I find these blind items rather boring. I’m not “in the know” enough to have a clue about who these things refer to, so I don’t really care. It reminds me of being in school when someone would say, “I’ve got a secret,” and then not tell you because it made them feel cool. I know that’s not the intent here - but it still takes away my enjoyment from your site.
Plus, getting angry in a restaurant or doing junior high-ish stuff with a camera isn’t that interesting.
It reminds me of being in school when someone would say, “I’ve got a secret,” and then not tell you because it made them feel cool.
For me this feels kind of like high school too, except that it’s the part where all the popular girls run in a clique and the rest of us are deliberately excluded because we aren’t cool enough. In this case the clique is the industry and I’m the one who just loves reading books and reading stuff that talks about books.
C’est la vie, I hated high school because I wasn’t one of the “in” girls there either.
I’m a little ashamed to say I love Authors Behaving Badly stories, mostly because I am evil and like to point and laugh. That said, if I ever make an ass of myself, you’re all welcome to point and laugh heartily. And you can even include my name in your point-and-laugh post.
For me this feels kind of like high school too, except that it’s the part where all the popular girls run in a clique and the rest of us are deliberately excluded because we aren’t cool enough.
To me, there’s a crucial difference from high school, which is that there seems to be strong disagreement about who does and doesn’t constitute a clique. For example, I think sometimes that some readers see some authors as a powerful “clique,” but those authors see the readers as the powerful clique. In other words, those we see as “inside” themselves feel outside (and not as powerful as they are ascribed to be) and vice versa. It’s a very interesting dynamic, and sometimes really frustrating.
To be clear, I wasn’t talking about the blogosphere itself, but about blind items to do with the industry specifically. I do think it’s an interesting dynamic. And I think it’s very, very cool that overall almost all authors are fun, interesting, and gracious, willing to give of their time on these and other boards.
I have had more fun and laughed more since discovering SBTB than I have in years.
said on...I also love gossip. Many of the items fly right past me regarding who and why, but it’s almost always entertaining, and it’s always good fodder for my own fiction. Also, it’s useful as filler for between-review and between-really-interesting-commentary items. It’s nice to see the site being updated daily, even if not every entry blows my skirts up.
And it’s nice to be reassured that I’m not the only one surrounded by ass-headed children masquerading as adults.
So, keep it coming.
A day without Britney on the tabloid covers makes the angels cry.
I don’t know why, but I keep thinking J. R. Ward. I know her sailorish vocabulary rivals mine. Of course, it’s been a while since she bought me a beer, so I’m not familiar with her recent behavioral quirks.
Heh.
I wonder, Barb, how much the public notices or takes note of this kind of stuff.
Well, I guess the obvious answer to that is they see what’s readily available and they follow what appears to be populist convention without question. It’s variations on a theme of the Oprah effect, is how I tend to think of it. How many people, within context, would have known of James Frey if she hadn’t chosen him as her book club selection? Or would have even liked the book, if she hadn’t raved about it? And if the book hadn’t achieved such cult of personality status, prompting even more reviews and interviews and public exposure, etc. would the Smoking Gun have been prompted to dig a little deeper into this guy’s background and story?
Then… and this is where things get interesting, to me. After it was exposed that he was a class-A bullshitter, the fact that Oprah defended him, kept a lot of people on his side, until she then turned on him like a rabid pit bull because her own public profile was suffering somewhat.
During all of this, I saw very little in the way of individuals forming their own opinions of Frey and his work, but rather, a following of the masses.
Obviously, any Oprah example is an extreme, because she has a beyond remarkable influence over product popularity, but it was the best way I could think of to illustrate what I was trying to say.
But honestly, most of the cranky stuff that happens insider the genre, industry, and community bugs me more because it smacks to me of an imbalance between taking things too seriously, and not taking other things seriously enough.
Can’t argue with you there. Makes me crazy, both as a writer and a reader.
A day without Britney on the tabloid covers makes the angels cry.
This reminds me of that joke from Kathy Griffith where she says that every pound Oprah gains is a gift from Jesus.
duh, I mean Kathy Griffin.
Then… and this is where things get interesting, to me. After it was exposed that he was a class-A bullshitter, the fact that Oprah defended him, kept a lot of people on his side, until she then turned on him like a rabid pit bull because her own public profile was suffering somewhat.
Kind of like Miley Cyrus?
I understand what you’re saying, though. I think that some of this is just inevitable, and that for every item like a tantrum-ing actor or author in the restaurant there’s an item like the Cassie Edwards copying—that is, if you do away with what some consider scurrilous gossip (not SAYING anything is scurrilous gossip, just saying that some people think some stuff is) you do away with the incidents that are of importance to discuss. Of which the Frey thing is one, IMO, especially with the more current examples of publishers pushing fiction books as memoirs, sometimes consciously. I mean, how do you decide what should and shouldn’t be discussed when some of these issues really need to be aired and debated? God knows I wince at a lot of what I read online these days, but I don’t always know where to draw the line (although I personally dislike ad hominem attacks for sport). And btw, I REALLY hated the way Oprah turned on Frey.
said on...Yes, I love y’all but the Blind items about the conference seem a little stale now. (No issue with the teen crotch turned armpit incident as it was “of the moment”.) And I would dearly love more reviews. I don’t think Candy has mentioned any of Lisa Kleypas’ contemporaries and I thought the second one was really good (in comparison to her first) and you’ve never done Shanon Mckenna. Shame on you. She’s written some crazy ass books people and I’d love to know what you’d have to say about it. (The latest one is almost surreal—clit scratching of half-naked servers and child slave traders...just...wha?)
But but! I’m glad this post is here if only so I could get the link to the Wilder & Jacobs incident. How sad & hilarious. Wasn’t Jacobs the same author who came over here insisting that a lawsuit against a publisher is private business? LOL. Oh, dear. Romance publishing what are we to do with you?
I enjoy gossip in the short term, and it can certainly drive web traffic, but I think the gain is likely to be transient. From a business-blogging perspective, I think the cons probably outweigh the pros:
Pro: Gossip generates web traffic.
Con: Gossip is available at a lot of different places.
Con: Gossip generates an emotional response, and emotional responses can turn sour and bite you on the ass, to mix metaphors. Gleeful Reader on a day Author X is gossiped about becomes Irate Boycotter when Author Y gets her turn.
Con: Juicy gossip isn’t always available. If readers who want reviews and industry news fall away, traffic can really suffer when there’s no good gossip.
Con: I’m guessing that reviews and news generate more reciprocity in terms of blog promotion. If my book or site is mentioned, I’m more likely to link to SB, as are my friends and fans (assuming I get some of the latter). Whereas people who come for the gossip probably mostly come here and comment. I think that means i’s good for traffic but not so good for search-engine ranking.
Con: There are only so many bestselling authors. They’re the most visible and therefore the most likely to generate gossip tidbits. Pissed off fans could flame the pants off you and make everyone too uncomfortable to come by. Also, people might not be as motivated to advertise their books on a site if it generates bad feelings/is controversial. Traffic is validating, but ads are what generate da monies.
Anti-spam word: include54. I hope I didn’t list that many cons.
Kind of like Miley Cyrus?
*SNORT*
Anything I’m liable to say about Miley is going to begin with “Suck it up, Buttercup.” I mean, she was already on record as saying she loved the photograph and it she was thrilled it wasn’t skanky, now all of a sudden she’s embarrassed? *pauses to throw flag*
However, going back to things that are important to discuss—absolutely the Frey thing is important, especially in light of the recent events like Peggy Seltzer and Misha DeFonseca. For me, as both reader and writer, it’s actually a really interesting topic to tackle, with respect to publishing as a business rather than the promotion of an art form, since in the case of both Frey and Seltzer, they had attempted to sell their books as fiction and it didn’t fly because it’s not what the publisher felt the public would want. (Or in publisher speak, “I don’t know what to do with this” as a novel, but if it’s a memoir, they then have a platform. *rollingeyesforever*)
Yes, this is me being a geek—sorry. *g*
And btw, I REALLY hated the way Oprah turned on Frey.
How it happened? Absolutely. The minute it became clear that the majority of the book was a fabrication, she should have slapped his wrist and issued an apology to her fans/readers of the Book Club choices. But that whole phoning into Larry King and supporting the “essential truth” of the book? WTF? Come on, Oprah. What was that about?
Of course, Nan Talese isn’t blameless here either, given that she says the incident hasn’t changed how she handles memoirs, which to me implies, she’d publish it again, given her druthers.
Honestly, it’s enough to make a g
04.28.08 at 03:18 AM |