Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

I need to digest some before being able to coherent commentary--for whatever it could be worth--but I wanted to let you know that link to Selah March’s quote Jane gives is broken.

Just a quick comment here.  There is active prejudice in the world of romance novels.  Otherwise, men wouldn’t write under female pseudonyms. There are numerous other examples. The audience can be quite cruel to anyone who appears different from what the audience is expecting.

I can’t take time to digest cuz I dont post coherently anyway LOL

“ What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized? “

Face it, Authors/Bloggers/Reviewers you’re all public figures and like the Tom Cruise’s and Paris Hilton’s that came before you, you’re left wide open for any and all aspects of your lives to be commented on. Only difference is Tom and Paris are billionaires and well, most authors/bloggers/reviewers are not. LOL
At the convention you’re all at a public event and hell yeah you’re open to scrutiny and comments. Why go if not to gape at the authors and people you’ve met online and form opinions and have opinions formed about yourself? (yeah yeah you go for the free books)

Nora Roberts commenting on Kenyons hat..well, geeze. Why does someone wear a big hat?
1. to hide bad hair day.
2.to get attention from a bold fashion statement.
3. to piss people off who might be standing behind them.
4. to get nora roberts attention!
(on sale soon, the big ass swan hat for the nora roberts bobblehead doll!)

now.. off to read the blogs to see what I really should be commenting on and see if I find some coherence lol

I’m soooooooo glad I quit reading that thread when it was only a tropical storm. *sigh* Last I saw it was still a mostly civil debate about the appropriateness of costumes at RWA (especially when worn outside of the literacy signing).

I really don’t know what to say here other than, WTF? I’m confused. totally confused.  When the comments on the costume thread hit 400 I thought, “Damn, you would think the blog was about politics or religion. Or both.”

I’m just confused. So, all I will say is that I find it ironic that the biggest complaint was about the lack of “professional” dress (ie cleavage) posted in a supposed “professional” blog. I don’t know...isn’t she a writer? I’m assuming that’s her “writing” blog...anyway, it seems to me that this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. If wearing low cut shirts is unprofessional (uh oh...I’m in a lot of trouble) then it seems to me that it’s just as unprofessional to bandy about personal attacks on a blog you use to promote your writing.

If there had been just a general “I think low cut tops at the RWA conference are unprofessional” then I wouldn’t have batted an eye. I would disagree, because I think professionalism has everything to do with attitude and nothing to do with clothing...but that’s a whole ‘nother post.

I’m just shaking my head over this. So what if you didn’t like the costumes or the cleavage! In the grand scheme of things, this stuff is small potatoes.

No matter what you think of the hat (not for me) or the stockings (so wish I could pull that off I thought they looked fab) the discussion for me should center around the writing profession and the role of marketing. Where do these intersect? Is there marketing that writers shouldn’t do? What responsibility (if any) do we as writers have to others in our professional group?

If we can’t discuss it without being reduced to name calling and vowing never to darken our book shelves with someone’s book, then we do way more damage than any hat to our goal of being professionals. I’m interested in other’s opinions if for no other reason then it helps me clarify and form my own. I didn’t like the hat. Then I had to question why. Was it a personal thing- a hidden anti-water fowl issue or was it something else? I wanted to hear others opinions. If you only want to hear people who agree with you- or if you can’t disagree without being reduced to troll status then I fear we miss the opportunity to grow.

And I still think Nora makes a hell of a bobblehead.

I unsubscribed from comments at around 250, the first time I’ve ever done so.

But thanks for the chocolate suggestion, bitches. Don’t mind if I do…

A random thought, because I totally missed this storm: If this was about a author’s convention in a mostly-male field, such as suspense, would anyone care about “inappropriate” attire? If a male author showed up in V-neck shirt or shorts, who would care?

Culturally and socially, women are made to walk the “power professional bitch with huge shoulderpads"/"whorish young thang using tatas to get ahead” line. We literally get it from both ends. Tempests in teakettles about “provocative” female clothing comes directly from the misogynistic slant in our culture.

Does that make the storm more or less complex?

AN. An author’s convention.

Sheez.

How boring would summer be without the annual RWA kerfuffle. *grin*

I haven’t been there but only seen pics of the ‘offending items’. I must admit I loved the swan hat and thought the other two authors looked cute, but I come from a reenactment background. Since I don’t write romance (I write epic historical fiction) and are here as reader, I won’t comment on the effect swan hats may have on Romance as genre. Personally, I’ve never defended myself for reading or writing anything - I just do it.

There’s a Rockin’ Girl Blogger award making the rounds, and I think you deserve one. You may proudly add the pink icon to your sidebar, because you girls rock. :-)

wow.

Romance authors face such disdain from the outside world, why do they focus that inward, also? Kenyon was adorable, as always, odd, yes, but still - it’s part of her charm. What really is painful to me is the way M&M were hurt because of the comments over their outfits. They looked adorable!

So what if they didn’t wear a button-down suit? It’s a writer’s convention people, not dinner with the president! For my two cents, they should tell everybody to suck donkey balls,STOP READING THE DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM and love their goofy selves!

For Ferfelabat and friends:  “The keenest sorrow is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.” - Sophocles

For reviewers:  “People ask for criticism, but they only want praise.” - W. Somerset Maugham

For authors:  “To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.” - Elbert Hubbard

I found the discussion (what I read...I think I stopped around post 100) to be mainly focused on what it means to be in a professional setting--which I don’t think should be personal. And I think those lines get blurred at RWA because while it’s professional, it’s also a socializing time to get together with old friends and make new ones. So I think some rules (how low your shirt is) can be relaxed, especially if you’re hanging out around the hotel. Because that is you in your own personal space and time.

But if you are in the midst of representing yourself or your employer, just keep it in mind. I would hope that authors/reviewers/whoever understand that. A signing, a reading, a workshop: they’re all public, professional events; imo, that means everything is up for grabs, behavior and content.

First off, whew, am I glad this isn’t my genre. I don’t suppose it would do any good to point out that SF/F writers, agents, and editors get scads of work done at WorldCon, despite the presence of elaborate hall costumes. (Besides, it would be disingenuous of me, since much of that work is sliding toward World Fantasy Con, where the halls are not full of adventuring elves and space rangers. Also, smaller genre. About 5000 people attend World Con.)

I think when it comes to talking about women, sartorial snark is indeed personal. It can be so for the men, too, but there is a centuries-long history of women being catty about each others’ clothing, and it certainly has always been intended personally. It takes several forms:

1. how poor she is
2. what a slut she is
3. how weird she is
4. how not-part-of-our-group she is

In all cases, the trait (lack of money, sexual expression, oddness, not part of the inner circle) is considered by the speaker to be shameful. Whether the recipient of the comment agrees, the intent of the speaker is to wag a finger and say, “You are doing something that makes you inferior to me.”

That said, it is entirely possible for one woman to say to another, “Excuse me, dear, but perhaps you are unaware that dressing in that fashion creates the impression of [bad impression] amongst [people you might not wish to give bad impression to].” However, this statement is best delivered by a friend, and barring that, MUST BE DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO THE WOMAN IN QUESTION, DISCREETLY.

Sorry for the caps, but I feel very strongly about that. If someone really, truly, is trying to be kind and help someone, then they do not wave that shit in public and call attention to it. I don’t care how you phrase it, it’s still going to sound like cattiness, like the lyrics to Blondie’s “Rip Her to Shreds.”

As for reviewers, I think it’s fine for reviewers to sound off on a particular book, as long as they can back it up with excerpts from the text. Think a writer loads up on cliches? Cite a paragraph and show it. Think a writer has lackluster, circumlocutious prose? Example, please.  (I tend to smack down on bad prosody, which authors tend to take personally. I cover my ass in the way we all learned to in college: “It’s in the bleedin’ text, so STFU.")

I’ve never seen a review on this site that I thought took a shot at an author, other than some on-going, “I can’t stand any books by [insert author here]” themes. That starts to rise to personal mockery, continuously singling out one author (usually Cassie Edwards) as the sort of Evil Overlord of Bad Writing.

Though personally? I don’t have any problem with folks mocking people in public, particularly if the target of the mocking is reasonably public and the mocking is about the things that are public (frex, mocking CE for her writing, fine. Mocking her for, say, her car, would be kinda stupid. Mocking me for my obsessive use of commas is fine).

I have a problem with folks who mock and then deny that they’re mocking. If you’ve got the brass ones to make fun, then have the steel ones to own it. Claims of “I’m just saying what we’re all thinking” or “It’s my opinion!” do not fool anyone.

Yeah, well.

If we were talking about the book signing at the Romantic Times convention then we wouldn’t be talking because the RT signing generally has people in costumes and it is not considered anything but good marketing.

I decided I had to see what Kenyon’s hat looked like (yes, I had heard she was wearing one, but I was sitting in my little spot at the signing all the time and didn’t get over for a first hand peek).

So I did a websearch and sure enough found a picture...from another convention which is definitely fan based.

Apparently SK decided to wear the same hat for her fans at RWA. Liz and Marianne dressed up in what I’ve heard were outfits based on their characters in the Shomi books. They looked pretty cute. I just wish I could get away with that kind of outfit. It would have looked darling 20 years ago.

I’m pretty sure I saw someone at one point in Regency garb but they may not have been signing.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of anyone dressing up at the signing at RWA. Given the flack, I’m guessing it might be the last time.

My feeling about it? To my knowlege no one has ever declared a dress code for the literacy signing. A couple years ago there was this insanity over the possibility of lewd covers at the signing and in addition to the “kids shouldn’t be exposed to that stuff” (and I did see kids at the signing), the underpinning message was that RWA was desperately intent on looking like a professional organization. There was even mention of how they didn’t want their convention to look like RT with all of its craziness.

I love going to RT. That must say something about me.

So, I am not surprised by all this. I’m guessing that next year there will be specific instructions on dressing professionally for the signing. Maybe that should have been said before.

Overall, I’m not really surprised at how nasty things have gotten. I’m disappointed too...partly because of how unsurprised I am.

I do very much wish this wasn’t happening in such a public venue.

Janet Miller/Cricket Starr

I had a major Mom moment, reading this blog post.

“The least said is the easiest mended.”

I’ve written many blog comments that were never posted.  If the subject is something inherently flammable, I step back, give it a moment or two of thought - as in, “Is this going to hurt someone needlessly or bite me in the ass later?” - then decide whether to post or not.  Nine times out of ten, I delete and don’t post the comment.  It’s sometimes difficult, because I know someone has something wrong, that their assumption (usually RWA related) is incorrect.  But I’ve come to realize that in BlogLand, the truth isn’t always favorable.  It’s so much more fun to piss and moan, or poke fun, or climb up on a soapbox and beat one’s chest about inequity.  Or hats and hosiery.  Or cleavage.

I started to click on the links provided, then decided not to.  I read maybe 1/16 of the posts in the orginal SB blog about the hat/hosiery.  After a while, my eyes glazed over and I closed the comments.  So, in all fairness, I confess I haven’t read what prompted Candy, Jane and Sarah to write this blog post.  I suppose I mostly wanted to say I’m sorry things got out of hand and people were hurt.

And I wanted to wear my Mom hat.

I had several very bad moments in Dallas, even a few with women I consider friends.  I was hurt and it’s been difficult to get over it.  But I will, because I realize their anger wasn’t about me - it was about what I represent.  It would have been lovely if they’d approached me as a friend and we had a dialogue about their issues - but that’s not how it shook out.  I could carry a grudge and remain angry and hurt, but what’s the good in that?  Everyone screws up, says something they regret later, and perhaps wish they could take it back.  Sometimes, rather than simply apologize sincerely, they take a more strident attitude, perhaps to cover embarrassment?  I don’t know about this particular blow-up.  I’m strictly speaking in generalizations.

I suppose I just don’t understand what’s so hard about The Golden Rule.  I’ve no doubt hurt others as I stumble through life - but never intentionally, and for certain, if I realize I’ve hurt someone, I immediately grovel for forgiveness.

If I have a serious issue with someone’s blog posts, I email privately and say, “I take exception to what you said, and here’s why: etc.” They then have the opportunity to respond, out of the public eye.  I’m not saying all controversial subjects should be handled that way, but let’s be honest - some things are better said in private.

And some things are better left unsaid altogether.

“Least said, easiest mended.”

Stopped reading at around 300 or so but for the most part, I thought the smart bitches here were smart cookies. I come here for interesting debate and to hear viewpoints I hadn’t considered. I certainly got that.

I think to accuse someone of being a prostitute or pedophile lure or whatever, just lowers the conversation to the point where nothing of any substance can be said. It’s silly because we’re all people who love words. It’s like when I saw the RWA being compared to Nazism, my eye roll meter goes off the charts.

Can we be passionate advocates of our POV? Sure. Can we disagree with someone we adore? (*waves at Nora and tries not to look like she has a crush*) Yes. Can I personally take it seriously when anyone says Maverick’s thighs ruin the respectability of romance? No. I can’t and that’s obviously a personal bias but there it is. Put differently, can I take seriously a comment that says non-business attire at a signing is unprofessional? Totally (even if I disagree).

I think the thing is, we forget we’re not in our rumpus room (remember those?). People are watching what we do and say and so our “private” squabbles aren’t really private and viewing this stuff from the outside, without benefit of context makes us all look silly.

I’m guessing that next year there will be specific instructions on dressing professionally for the signing.

I don’t see why that follows.  In fact I would hope that would NOT come out of a blog kerfuffle.  This thread is two blogs talking about blogging, and it’s unfortunate to attach that to the swan-pissing contest of last week.  Even the original 600-comment thread wasn’t anything to do with RWA official-like.

I do very much wish this wasn’t happening in such a public venue.

I agree. Enough is enough, or too much sometimes.  This isn’t going to help settle anything.  It’s just further entangling the professionalism/respect/publicity/costumery issues with the respect/courtesy/reviewing/blogging issues.

First, let me focus on an important tidbit in this post:  Dark chocolates filled with port rock.  I hope y’all get the opportunity to try them.

Second, I have a handful of blogs I read every day.  Smart Bitches, Dear Author, It’s My Blog, and I usually take a look at BAM’s site, but I generally don’t visit the others alluded to in this article.  It’s all about what’s going to be the best, most thoughtful writing on issues of importance to me as a romance writer and reader.  That’s all.  My time is valuable, your time is valuable.  Why waste it in useless conversations that make you feel like you’re being bludgeoned?

And Lilith, if I saw a male author dressed in shorts and a v-neck shirt at RWA, I’d think he was being unprofessional.  It’s not just about gender, it’s about time and place.

How boring would summer be without the annual RWA kerfuffle. *grin*

Sing it, sister.

What I find fascinating about this debate is that it started out pretty calm and intelligent, then one shot was fired, then a bunch of shots, and the next thing you know, it was a damn bar brawl with a mob throwing punches and some not even seeming to know what they were fighting about. Meanwhile, most people kept an intelligent and respectful debate going, ducking the occasional flying beer mug.

So, here’s my stance on it: If someone says, “Gee, Lani Diane Rich might have been showing a little too much boobage at the signing, that’s in poor taste,” I’d be embarrassed (I’ve got a prodigious rack that works against me sometimes) but I’d accept it. I’m a public figure at a public event, what I wear is open for discussion and if I ever embarrass my colleagues, I’d sure as hell like to know. I have friends I trust who I hope won’t let me get that far, but if it happened, I’d like to be aware, whether I agreed or not.

If someone said, “Did you see Lani’s BOOBS? She must be a SLUT! And I bet all her books SUCK, because hotdamnmama, look at what she was WEARING! I’ll bet she’s a PEDOPHILE, too! Whore! She sucks!” then I venture to say THAT would be out of line. And to be honest, it’s an opinion I wouldn’t sweat much. I think once slut, whore, and pedophile enter the debate, the arguer sheds some credibility.

So now, I’m no one-woman-supreme-court of Blogland, but I think there’s your difference. I chose a career in the public eye, when I’m in public, my behavior is up for debate. Now, lucky me, I’m low-level midlist and I have neither L&Ms courage, thighs, nor rockin’ sense of fashion, so most of what I do slides by unnoticed. Which is okay by me. I’m of the “write the best books you can and pray to as many gods as will have you” school of promotion. But promotion and marketing is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, and we’re discussing The Line.

Now, for journalists (I consider reviewers and bloggers journalists, if you disagree, humor me) I’m torn. My gut reaction is that you are not IN the public eye, you ARE the public eye, and therefore anyone who picks on you should just back the hell off. But, in reality, in these circles, you guys are extremely well known, so… are you public figures as well? I don’t know. I didn’t see the site where they picked on what you were wearing, and I won’t go because I tend to get mama bear-ish and I don’t want to be pissed off while writing this, but I’m still inclined to call foul. One, this isn’t your profession. Two, it wasn’t a blogger’s convention, it was a writing convention, and there were no public events where you were on call to represent your industry to the media. Three, it just feels wrong. I know that’s a weak argument, but that’s what my gut says - lay off the Bitches (which includes Jane and all the journalists.) I think it’s a one way street - you guys talk about us. We chose to be public figures; you didn’t. It’s just not the same. I know you two are probably more famous than me - most people are - but still… I drop back to my third argument. It’s just wrong. Someone else come up behind me and argue it better, will you? All I’ve got is my gut, and my gut says it’s a sucker punch.

As authors, we put ourselves out there. Where the SK and L&M discussion was about professionalism at a public event, I thought it was fine. Where the personal slut/whore/pedophile/bitch stuff came in, that was out of line. It’s at that point that I’ll call a foul. And while I think that authors should take the hits and shut up when it comes to reviews, I think that it’s fair play to speak up when someone calls you, say, a pedophile. (Can you tell I’m still pissed off about that?) But what I noticed about Liz and Marianne and Nora, who were the most violently and unfairly attacked, is that they defended themselves, but they never lobbed back. They never said, “I’m not a pedophile, you slut.” And I think that’s where the women separate from the girls.

So… did I answer the question? Or did I just ramble on for days? LOL. I have a tendency toward rambling. Have y’all noticed?

I’m only addressing the “what is a personal attack” part of this, because going through the comments over at Crucugar’s site, I was smacked in the face at the moment it crossed the line (for me). And that’s when she asked “So what did we decide about Candy’s breasts?”

I mean holy fucking christ. I can’t even make it past that comment because I’m stunned by the cruel mean-girl high school gym locker-room memories of suffocating awfulness it stirs up in me.  It’s just breathtakingly wrong. I haven’t hated my fellow females like that in a long long time. I’m afraid to read further and see what depths it might reach.

So I guess my verdict is: It’s a personal attack when the person being criticized somehow becomes nothing more than a piece of meat.

What is a personal attack, and where should that line be drawn, if at all? Is it personal to attack authorial behavior or reviewer behavior? Can only content be criticized?

Yes, there should be a line drawn.  Is it really that hard to know what is appropriate and what isn’t?  Do we have to talk about a bad hair day (for instance) when we discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of a book?  No.  Is overall appearance and presentation okay to discuss?  I think, Yes.  At my place of employment, and dare I say many others as well, there is a very general dress code and a sort of code of behavior of what’s appropriate and what is not.  The lines of same are discussed all the time.

As for author/blogger/reviewer behavior and whether or not it’s appropriate to comment on it or discuss it.  I think discussion or observations should be made only as it relates to their individual profession or public presence.  The work, not their personal life.

Most of us work.  We have work relationships.  Just because we are communicating via the internet does not throw civility out the window.  My rule of thumb is if I wouldn’t be comfortable saying it face to face in an office setting I probably shouldn’t post it.

One final word, no one wants their opinion, observations, or work legislated, monitored or censored.  I know I don’t.  For the most part I think there are great discussions going on out here in the blogosphere everyday.  Why some people have to resort to the point and laugh method of communicating I’ll never know.

I had never been to that blog before this latest blow-up and I was appalled at the venom eminating from some of the posters there.  They reminded me of high school girls - the ones who would be nice to your face and then trash you behind your back.  I went back and forth on whether to comment there but then decided it would lower me to their level to do so.  Robin tried to reason with them and they attempted to slice her to ribbons.
They took on people I’ve come to know and care about in the on-line community and for the life of me I can’t fathom why - what was the point of it all?
I’ve seen flame wars come and go - but that series of posts and many of the comments went way beyond nasty and entered vicious.

WHO UPSET STEPHANIE FEAGAN??? LEMME AT ‘EM, LEMME AT ‘EM....

Sorry. It’s that damn Mama Bear in me. Stephanie, we’ve only met in passing and you probably don’t even remember me, but you were DELIGHTFUL and phooey on anyone who was rude to you. Double phooey.

And I think you’ve got good advice. But honestly, what I love about this website is that there is so much intelligent debate, and let’s not be quick to throw that baby out with the name-calling bathwater. I think it was an interesting discussion, and those who managed to discuss it respectfully created an engaging debate, which I think is always a good thing. There was a lot of bad stuff going on, you’ll get no argument from me on that, but I think most of it was good, solid stuff and I’m glad I got the chance to hear the differing opinions.

So I think as long as you check yourself for respect (and I personally cannot imagine Stephanie Feagan being anything less than DELIGHTFUL) then you should absolutely jump in with an opinion.

So, m’dear, I will respectfully disagree, while saying that you are DELIGHTFUL. Because you just are.

I think that it is important to look at context and intent.  I personally did not see the big deal about the authors’ outfits, but I can understand, say, Nora Roberts’ argument about not liking the outfits within the context of the event.  She was not judging the outfits themselves, just the appropriateness of wearing them in that particular venue. In my opinion, that is very different than saying an outfit is “pedophile luring.” That is an attack, no getting around it.

When the issue of meany reviewers comes up, I always heave a big sigh.  It seems that no one gives people credit for having the brainpower to distinguish the context and intent of the review.  Is it really the author (of the review)’s intent to cast aspersions upon the author (of the book)’s looks, intelligence and morals, or are they just saying what didn’t work for them?  Tone and language, regardless.

I find there is a tendency to grab onto a piece of a post or comment and use it out of context, to say, “See, she/he/it said this.” This totally derails intelligent conversation as everyone scrambles to defend themselves and clarify.  This happens a lot in conversations about race and racism among others.

I’m blathering but I think it comes down to looking at what the comment is judging.  Criticizing a social construct, genre rules and conventions or a piece of writing is different than attacking a person’s, well person.

As for poking fun at a swan hat, I doubt Kenyon wore it to win any Best-dressed awards.  There had to be some humor involved there.  I doubt she’s in tears over comments made here.  She had the cojones to wear a swan hat, for goodness sake!

The wonderful, horrible thing about the Internet is that, not only is everyone entitled to their opinion, but anyone can post it for the whole world to see.

The net would be boring (and fake) if everything was nicey nice all the time. Snark is fun. Look at Television without Pity or Go Fug Yourself. The difference is making the distinction between “Starlet X dresses like a crack whore” and “Starlet X IS a crack whore.”

(I picked a non-bookish site as an example to avoid recent baggage then realized it was still talking about clothes. Oops. Complete coincidence.)

It takes a lot more time and effort to be funny and snarky than it does just to be mean and go for the cheap shot. Blogs are like sex that way. Anyone can do it, but it takes a little work to make it worth shaving your legs.

When a very famous author opined that “Wearing a costume at a “business” function (as vs a private signing) is inappropriate,” that was part of a discussion.  For examples, she brought up three authors in “costume” and gave the reason why.  That gave people an idea what she was talking about.  The fact that it was a world famous author who said this doesn’t constitute remark as an attack on the exemplified persons.

As far as I could tell, no malice intended.

When **koffDebSmithkoff** extrapolated that to conclude these authors who dressed like that were pedophile baits and thus, disgusting, that was NOT discussing but being moralizing.

From where I sit, malice intended.

When a group of other bloggers pointed to this discussion in their own blogs and commented on the topic, then it wass part of the discussion too.  When they write dissenting posts about the topic at hand in their own blogs, that’s a debate.

No malice intended there either.

When a group of other bloggers pointed to the POSTERS in their blogs and snark about the posters’ behavior and appearance, and in general, started a sub-thread of their opinions of these posters with whom they disagree, that’s malicious gossip.  Since it is in a PUBLIC blog, it is intentional malice.

Umm...Big Time Malice pie with a whopping heap of “we’re so much better than that” on top.

Believe me, an observer can tell the difference.

cases84

In my mind that discussion was pretty civilized for as long as it went on. And enough has probably been said on that topic so I won’t say any more here.

What I will say is this: I wish I had the kind of cleavage where 1) I could wear a shirt like Candy did (in any venue) and 2) pictures of my cleavage were then posted on other blogs in an attempt to stir up trouble and get attention. (They are just jealous - I am)

My mother always said “if you’ve got it, flaunt it” ;)

I’m still digesting but--if you’ll forgive some rambling--lemme start with this:

When a reviewer--paid or amateur--dissects a book by saying things like “this particular plot device didn’t work for me because (insert reason),” or “the dialogue felt unnatural/stilted/stiff/whatever, or “there was too much tell and little show, such as when (insert example)” there’s nothing personal there, right? I mean, even if the phrasing goes something along the lines of “and this sucked big hairy monkey balls because...” it’s still about the BOOK, and therefore not personal.

Now, if a reviewer said, “it’s obvious that the author needs to take remedial English” then no amount of “because...” will make it NOT a personal attack on the author.

However, there are times when behaviour can and (dare I say this?) should be scrutinized. And such scrutiny can and must be separated from the person indulging in it. After all, haven’t we all at some point done something so incredibly stupid that, had we not been there, we wouldn’t believe we did it? I know I have, and I’m positive more people have than not.

So I can say that “so-and-so people’s behavior and this particular event didn’t strike me as particularly professional within the context of that specific event/situation/setting,” and such an observation/statement/comment would not mean that I think that so-and-so themselves ARE unprofessional whatevers. The line has not been crossed.

As far as the 630+ comments thread? I was impressed that the great majority of participants managed to both keep on track and behave civilly--and sad over the few who chose to go off on tangents over personal baggage/vendettas (or what I perceived as such--having my own baggage to bring to the discussion)

I really thought the discussion here was great, except for the L and M feeling horrendous part (I feel they weren’t truly attacked except in that one instance, . . . I’m much clearer on whether or not it was fair to discuss the issue at all. Yes. Image/ad campaigns and books are put out there and so are fair game for criticism. [And I console myself that they must have gained a gazillion readers, including me]) Sure it went on too long, but there you go. The best discussions often do.

I haven’t been attacked by ferfe--well, my politics have been, but heck, I don’t mind that--so she hasn’t gotten under my skin.

I have learned how rotten it feels to be unfairly cast in the role of bad guy. It hurts even when you can see how absurd it is to be attacked by someone for being an attacker.

Pot, kettle to the nth degree. You’re so rude, someone yells rudely, since there’s nothing ruder than someone pointing out bad manners. (Omigod, it’s one of those dressing rooms with the endless mirrors. That’s what that and that discussion started to feel like)

what I like about Ferfe--she puts her name on her stuff. She is not a coward and she is often funny.

...I do think her skin isn’t as thick as all that and she tends to hit back, instead of running and whinging (my strategy, which I might add, works well. Particularly the running part).

I don’t care what anyone claims. No one’s immune to criticism, except the people who don’t read it.

Gabriele - Is it bad that I read “I haven’t been there but only seen pics of the ‘offending items’” and automatically thought the offending items in question were Candy’s boobs?

I think blogs and blog comments tend to feel very much like a community and even as I watched that RWA thread explode comment-wise, I was impressed that aside from a few trolls and a few whackjob comments from non-trolls, it was professional and smacked of spirited debate.  However, the Cruciger blog excerpts are appalling.  That’s just holier-than-thou cattiness, plain and simple… not to mention really asshatty about blogging.

So what DID we decide about Candy’s rack?  That it’s pretty damn fabulous and I respect you Smart Bitches for always bringing thoughtful commentary… and, oh yeah, mantitty!

So I guess my verdict is: It’s a personal attack when the person being criticized somehow becomes nothing more than a piece of meat.

I *heart* Beth.

PS I’ve had two rules for comment posting rules for the last half year or so.

rule one: don’t say anything on any blog about anyone that you wouldn’t say to that person’s face.

rule two: especially don’t insult people who wield wicked wit with ease.

my newest rule: don’t comment on anyone’s physique or bosom, even when the racks in question are excellent--unless said physique or bosom is oiled and on display for commentary. (eg man-titty or fairy costume at RT)

Holy shitdamn.  I have several thoughts swirling around in my head and all I can come up with is holy shitdamn. lol

1. I will never understand why people seem to be threatened by blogs and message boards that don’t moderate and censure every word that is typed on them.  I personally enjoy sites where I can say what I think and someone else is free to disagree or agree or tell me to shut my trap.  It is the free exchange of ideas that allows people to exercise that muscle in between their ears.  But, I do think it behooves people to think before they type and not hide behind the anonymity of the Internets to say whatever mean and spiteful thing they can, just because they can.

2. While I did not read the entire swan hat/pink stockings thread, the personal attacks on L&M were not made by Candy and Sarah (I can’t imagine that they would anyway) and blaming them for something someone else said is just juvenile.

3. The posting pics of people just for the purpose of criticizing their appearance because you don’t like their blog smacks of high school and a bunch of girls ganging up on another because someone made eyes at someone else’s boyfriend.

4. The slight obsession with Candy’s breasts makes them seem like a bunch of creepy old men leering at her, or like a clutch of Victorian spinster aunts hissing about some young girl they are determined to ostracize from “acceptable” society.  Good hell, this isn’t 1880.  A little cleavage (or thigh for that matter)never hurt anybody.

Monimala, roflol, Candy’s boobies have really taken over. But they’re very nice.

Though can you imagine some men discussing the size of their little or not so little friends online instead of wheather wearing a cowboy outfit at a crime convention is bad style?

What they talk about at the bar is another matter. ;-)

Ok, if there’s a blog collecting pics of other bloggers, here’s mine. :-)

Wow...that comment about Jane and WASP is really racist.

Now that I’ve begun my blog, I see how hard it is to remain subjective, yet share how I felt about a particular book--while not coming across as attacking an author. I really commend the Ja(y)ne’s and Karen and Sybil and Candy and Sarah and all of the review bloggers out there: it ain’t easy.

I am an avid member of many celebrity blogs and some are snarky, some are nice and some are downright bitchy towards celebrities. You can say they deserve it because they are in the limelight, but the line is drawn between a personal attack and snark when someone has an irrational hatred of that particular person.

It’s one thing if you comment on,say, a Paris Hilton post and say “she’s so useless, I wish she’d go away”, but it’s another thing when you say “She’s a tasteless douche bag who should be stuffed in a bag and dumped in the sea”.  Yes Paris Hilton is all that is wrong with society, but the latter comment clearly shows how emotionally involved one is with a person one doesn’t even know!

The fact that Ferfe & Co ripped apart the appearances of review bloggers is way over the line and borders on psychotic. What I don’t understand is why Ferfe & Co has made it their personal vendetta to spew and rant about review bloggers they don’t even have to pay attention to. It’s not as though Candy lives next door to any of them, or Jane is their co-worker, or Karen is their sister-in-law--YOU have a CHOICE of not visiting a blog or website. The fact that they take the time to visit websites authored by people they dislike really shows something.

What I do theorize is that the review blog--or just any place where books are reviewed and discussed online--is threatening to the establishment. And since the audience for e-books is primarily online, the online presence of reviewers threatens their livelihood. After all, you don’t see authors like Anne Stuart or Christina Dodd publicly gnashing their teeth over online reviews and reviewers.

I think to accuse someone of being a prostitute or pedophile lure or whatever, just lowers the conversation to the point where nothing of any substance can be said. - Lauren Dane

EXACTLY! Thank you for stating that.

I think the proof is in the pudding.

I saw that two of the people who were being held up as an example were kinda hurt in general by those comments and from what I read expressed that clearly in their posts. I do not think they thanked anyone for the free fashion advice.

I would myself would have been having severe issues, especially around the time Deb Smith posted, and started yelling for people indiscriminately to go to fuck themselves with a chainsaw no matter how nice they were.

I have to admit it, I have this anger management issue and start rampaging like a bull in a china shop and can become very angry, bitter and caustic, while accused of being “pedophile bait” and contributing to “minors being turned into sex slaves” or something along those lines.

In the end, I think it’s one thing to review a book and say it did not work for you. There is some distance that a writer is expected to have between themselves and their work.

The other stuff, not so much.

But that’s just me, I always say to myself on such occasions What Would Barbara Cartland Do.

So I’m off to buy more house coats, lot’s more vodka and kick my dog.

Please do not hate me,
Mr. Slave

another PS, this is sort of a question for Candy:

Why do you think sometimes the borderline-mean humor works and other times doesn’t? For instance, what’s the difference between the snake example at ferfe’s and the monica jackson “author calming visualization”?

Is it a matter of context? Exaggeration? Or the fact that Monica sent it directly to you so it wasn’t behind your back? Can you think of times when it does work?

(And I know I’m supposed link to examples but I’m not even supposed to be here--I promised myself I wouldn’t do this any more and I clearly lied to myself--so forget making links)

Barbara Cartland kicked her dog???

Oh, Teddy why do you have to break my heart.

I have to add a big hurrah for M&M’s editor, Chris. Classy. None of these people were rude when they waded in the fray in defense of their decision. No matter which direction the debate took (I really like the dodging beer mugs analogy) they kept their cool and showed their professionalism by not drowning in the muck.

I’m second guessing, no doubt about it. I haven’t asked.

But Candy, maybe the reason ferfe dumped that particular example (the thread you saved a screen shot of) was because she finally came to the conclusion that it *was* inappropriate. I can’t see why else she would.

Perhaps proof that your argument has had some success.

Up there Bella said

Romance authors face such disdain from the outside world, why do they focus that inward, also?

For me (and if memory serves there were a couple of people there in agreement) the debate was about how authors’ behavior at professional settings affects the “outside world’s” perception of romance novels, romance writers, and romance readers. From that perspective, it makes eminent sense (to me--YMMV) to clean house first, then head outside to pick trash at the roadside.

Kenyon was adorable, as always, odd, yes, but still - it’s part of her charm. What really is painful to me is the way M&M were hurt because of the comments over their outfits. They looked adorable!

Again, to me, it wasn’t about how adorable or otherwise any of them looked--anymore than it was about how Candy or Sarah or Sybil or Jane were dressed!--but about what image the RWA’s literacy signing presented to outsiders of what the romance genre is about. The authors, as members of the RWA, represent the organization at this event, whereas the bloggers? No more than any other reader of romances would.

So if Candy’s “feathergasm” picture had made it to the papers, the caption would have had to be “romance reader/fan/reviewer” instead of “best seller romance writer”--and that does make a difference, IMO.

So what if they didn’t wear a button-down suit? It’s a writer’s convention people, not dinner with the president!

But--as was repeated ad nauseam on the long ass thread--why are the extremes continuously trotted out here? There’s a huge area between the extremes, for goodness’s sake! Choose a comfortable spot for who you are somewhere along the continuum, and stop fretting about the extremes!

Great post.

First, I’m sorry I contributed to comments on the original thread getting shut down. No excuse except I had just finally had it. 

Second, I think Sherrilyn Kenyon responded *beautifully* to this whole issue: 
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=135494181

Third, Tara Gelsomino wrote a brief piece about the RWA discussion as it relates to second and third wave feminism, and even though I disagree with her conceptualization of the issue (but am a *weeee* bit busy for the next couple of days and can’t yet write a coherent response) I think it’s part 2 (and maybe the REAL issue) of the RWA costume discussion.  I also recommend reading the Steinem piece RfP linked to:
http://accessromance.com/gab/2007/07/23/frankly-my-dear/#comments

4.  I actually think there’s far too little public discussion of controversial issues these days, which is one of the reasons I don’t think we (as a society) do it very well or comfortably.  I don’t think people should be forced to speak when they don’t want to, but I do think the greatest danger to our most fundamental liberties is that we don’t feel the persistent need to protect them—or we forget that the things most important to our basic political and social integrity are also those things we need to actively nurture and protect. 

6.  Strong disagreement is not censorship. I think this needs to be reiterated like a million times.

Monica and I aren’t BFF or anything, but we’re friendly. I dig her. She threatened me with the author calming visualization when I reviewed her book, and she took my review like a trooper (my reviews stop being kind right around B- territory, and In My Dreams got a C-). It was a joke, and we clearly understood it as such.

I think the crucial element is that the author calming visualization was a joke on BOTH of you.  THAT’s kind of where I draw the line (as an extension of your relationship and context points).

I didn’t have any chocolate; I had carrot cake instead - yummmmm!

I don’t know whether to be impressed or appalled at the way this little discussion took on a life of it’s own then multipled all over the place! It was so intelligent and so mature for so long then the longer it went on the more useless the conversation was. And nobody would give an inch of anything. That was just on this blog, then I started hearing about happenings on other blogs. WTF!! And for a while I couldn’t figure out how to disable the comments from coming to my email (I’ve got it now thank you very much). It reminded me of a pack of pitbulls attacking babies - pitiless.

And for what? Nothing was decided or resolved. No RWA board members stepped up and said “Alright already, let’s do this and this from now on.” Actually I don’t think anybody was listening after the first 300 posts.

I’m going on to long. To these people doing the mean girl act - you need a life.

I’ve been quiet throughout this cross blog “discussion.” Sarah and Candy have done an amazing job of leaving the forum open for communication and I, for one, appreciate it.  I really enjoy Dear Author and love the fact that you are having cross blog debates…

Here is my opinion.  Name calling, snide remarks, and insult slinging, fun though it may be to watch (much like a train wreck), has only one outcome.  Lots of pissed off people and a train that derailed off topic. 

Calling someone unprofessional in one side of the mouth then slamming them for the way the look, act, etc in another doesn’t deserve a response. 

Taking comments out of context is libel.  Plain and simple. 

Ladies, I thought you all looked gorgeous in your pictures.  :-) Sarah, I wish I glowed like you do when you’re pregnant.  And the teething suggestions you gave me for my son has worked wonders. My husband, my son and I all thank you! Candy, hon, what can I say that hasn’t been said already.  :-) You looked gorgeous (looove the cowboy hat)!  And Jane, it was fantastic to put that lovely face to your blog. 

My two cents, for what it’s worth.  Have a great week ladies and thank you for keeping this weird world grounded.

Second, I think Sherrilyn Kenyon responded *beautifully* to this whole issue: 
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=135494181

She wears that hat in church? I’m now officially a fan of her. :-)
I ordered some of her books from Amazon.de. I admit, I hadn’t come across her before, but I live in a place with few English books on the shelves.

This is very conflicting for me in a lot of senses. I think I tried to hash it out on my blog, but even there it doesn’t seem to sum it up well.

I will say that I don’t think it is personal to question behavior, because everyone has done something that they wish they hadn’t, and that the something shouldn’t, in most cases, define their lives. But that doesn’t omit it from comment. I have scolded a few and have been scolded by more, and I can appreciate them as people and they me after the fact. I think that behavior should be put in context, however. If it was a one time thing, or a continual hash, for example.

Jeez. I wish someone could get what I’m saying, because I sure as hell can’t.

And for what? Nothing was decided or resolved.

But does a discussion have to be resolved in any specific way to be valuable?  I don’t think anyone really wanted universal action; it may be my perverse attachment to ambivalence, but I thought the fact that we could have such a comprehensive and sustained discussion of genre image was really remarkable.  And I think I would have felt disappointed if all the various issues raised (and IMO there were A LOT) all got neatly tied up and delivered in the form of ANY resolution, formal or informal.  But like I said, my love of ambivalence is fierce.

Earlier, --E said,

That said, it is entirely possible for one woman to say to another, “Excuse me, dear, but perhaps you are unaware that dressing in that fashion creates the impression of [bad impression] amongst [people you might not wish to give bad impression to].” However, this statement is best delivered by a friend, and barring that, MUST BE DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO THE WOMAN IN QUESTION, DISCREETLY.

And I’ve been thinking, why doesn’t this ring true with/for me? After a bit of soul searching, I realized…

I would think it presumptuous of anyone to approach me at a professional event and tell me that--and more so if it’s someone I don’t know. I mean, s/he would be perfectly right, but unless it’s my boss and/or there’s a written dress code somewhere that I managed to mangle… well, let’s just say that it would be easy for me to interpret the motivation as anything but helpfulness.

Does that mean that my behaviour is exempt of scrutiny/criticism? Heavens, not at all! I’ve done plenty of stupid things, thank you, and will probably screw up a bit more in the years to come. That’s living, no? But dammit, if I do manage to sink my feet in all the way to my armpit, I want to know how, and when, and (if applicable) to whom, so I can learn from it.

It’s all in how it’s said, honestly it is!

DO: “This particular behavior is not acceptable/professional/desirable/allowed in this particular setting/environment/setting/situation, because....”
DON’T: “So and so is a tramp/an idiot/trash/stupid because s/he did this here!!!!”

This makes sense to me, I hope it does to you guys out there!

(the spamfoiler is scary!!! “across91” As in, “getting my point across")

Taking comments out of context is libel.  Plain and simple.

Jessica, thanks for the compliments. I thought RWA was peopled with beautiful women. I hate to correct you on this issue but I am really, really anal about it.  Taking comments out of context may be rude or inappropriate or whatever adjective you want to put on it but it is not libel.  Libel is a written factual untruth.  Someday I’m going to do a whole blog post on this because it is easily misunderstood. 

I am really interested in people’s opinions on what is considered a personal attack or criticism.  Is there ever a time that personal criticism is allowable or is that always out.  I recognize that if I put something out there for public consumption that I am exposing myself for criticism and frankly, I want it but not when its about my religion, my race, my sexual orientation, etc.

For example, I feel like LKH opened the door for us to speculate about her personal life affecting books because she has talked openly about characters being based on people in her life (her two husbands for example).  I think other characters serve as a metaphor for her unhappy fans in her books.

But, even if an author does make a personal reference, are we free to speculate as to whether that personal conflict had any impact on her books?  Does it matter if we set ourselves up as “reviewers”?  Does it matter if we get compensation?  If the only form of compensation is a free book, does that change? 

If we were simply “readers” and not “reviewers”, would the standard be different? 

If, as Lani suggested, we are somehow public personas, where is the line of criticism drawn?

I generally don’t post here just because I can’t follow all the conversations and keep up with them if I want to write (I must limit my addictions)

But I did feel the need to throw my two cents in on this~I tend to ramble so don’t be surprised if I don’t make a lot of sense.

A personal attack is just that… something personal.

Discussing a hat and a costume-this is critical discussion. 

Going on about somebody’s rack veers into personal territory. 

If people were using the hat/costume deal to make digs at the authors… personal. 

Discussing whether or not they felt these things were appropriate for a writer’s convention, that’s critical discussion.

There’s a line between critical discussion and personal attack, but I suspect that line differs from person to person.  Some stuff that sets one person off isn’t