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

I wish I’d played that darn CLUE game when I was a kid so I could make a witty comment using the characters names.. but oh well!

It constantly amazes me the things that rile people up on the internet. I got a headache following all that and linking up to the other blogs.

Jennifer Cruise, Anne Stuart.. quit fighting online and write me another book!!!..

Ms Snark, quit distracting my authors!!!

Jenny Crusie don’t need no stinkin’ cluecakes.

Sweet! I’m not a Cherry and I’ve never posted on Crusie’s forums, but if I didn’t already like her books, I’d buy them on the principle of that blog post.

On Snark:

I think it’s a good guess that she’s Janet Reid. She may be a very good agent, but I don’t think she gives as much advice as people think she does. A lot of it is smoke and mirrors, seasoned with a dash of self-aggrandizement. The people who live on that blog are a little scary in their rabidness when it comes to defending the Mistress. (The snarklings, the gin pail and Killer Yap can get a bit old as well).

As far as anonymous “agents” blogging are concerned, I find this guy funny as hell.

I am growing rather weary of this particular dispute, to tell the truth. In the continuing cacophony, no one’s coming off very well.

I’d prefer that they all unite & use all their eloquence on a larger target, rather than each other.

I still don’t understand what all the fuss is about with this. Why are there so many people who seem to think that what Miss Snark said is this huge deal? It isn’t the first time she’s said, “Don’t publicly badmouth your publisher” on her blog. And I’m sorry, I can’t think of any agent in the world who wouldn’t be displeased if one of their authors did so. (BTW, I love being referred to as a ravening sycophant, or whatever other derogatory terms everyone comes up with, simply because I enjoy someone’s blog persona and think it’s fun. We’re not allowed to defend Miss Snark, because that makes us evil, vicious beasts, but Jennifer Crusie can attack people who say bad things about her friend and she’s being noble.)

But I also don’t see where what Stuart said was that bad, and as I’ve said before, it looked to me like a set up anyway.

And wasn’t it forever ago anyway?

I agree that there’s nothing wrong in saying don’t badmouth your publisher.  But since Anne was expressing a concern that her publisher wasn’t working as hard for her as she’d like them too and the response from Miss Snark was pretty much it doesn’t matter if you’re not being treated well - shut up and don’t talk about it, I think that’s where the kerfuffle started.

I’d prefer that they all unite & use all their eloquence on a larger target, rather than each other.

Yeah, it’s hard to stay entertained when there aren’t even any gerbils or hamsters involved.

Actually, this whole thing has got me wondering about the agent/author relationship.  Do you think it’s gotten to the point where the power relations have become messed up?  I can see where it might be confusing to remember that it’s actually the author who hires the agent to work for her when authors are scrambling for representation.  Is this only an issue in popular fiction?  Is it even an issue with most agents?

December, if you’re extrapolating this “BTW, I love being referred to as a ravening sycophant” from what I said, then I think you’ve missed my point. Paraphrasing, you said you’re not allowed to defend her and you’re perceived as evil, vicious beasts just because you like her persona, but I’d ask this—why do you need to defend her?

She’s an anonymous poster. How is anyone’s opinion of her, good or bad, going to impact her daily life? If someone likes her blog, cool. If they don’t, cool.

A lot of people think Sammy K is a total jackass. I think he’s funny. Do I feel like I need to live on his blog and fight off his naysayers with a stick? No way. I have better things to do with my time. There are folks on Snark’s blog who apparently don’t and check it something like a hundred times a day, just in case someone needs to be snarked. See, I’ve commented there a few times myself, but I don’t live on her blog. That’s the difference between “rabid” (my word) and someone who just likes the blog.

Recipe For:
CLUE CAKE

talent
wit
candor
intelligence

It’s my opinion that both Ann Stewart and Jenny Cruise have plenty of the above ingredients… Miss Snark’s pantry seems empty.

I also give credit to folks who speak up under a name people recognize. That lends their stance weight because it means they have no choice but to own it.

Like I posted about LKH on my blog and if she finds my thoughts in a Google spree and all her fangirls descend on my site to tell me what an idiot I am, I’m not backing off what I said. I don’t care how many people tell me I’m dumb and I don’t get it and I just have sour grapes because she’s rich and successful. None of that is going to change my mind.

whereby we snark on a bunch of other people snarking on somebody else’s snark.

As I react to just about everything with a shrug, I’m against extreme reactions all the way around. Obviously some news is just so good you squee over it, but in terms of leaping to someone’s defense on the Interweb or jumping down someone’s virtual piehole because of something they said… er, why?

In real life, if someone was shit-talking my friends or my family, I’d react much differently. But everyone news it’s troll time on the Intarweb, 24/7. People act differently when accountability is removed, when there are no overt consequences for what they say and do.

Do not piss off the pussy.
Alls I got to say bout dat.

Not only that, but I also get the impression that the relationship between author and agent is closer to that of business partners than employer-employee.

You are absolutely right that neither the relationship between author and publisher or author and agent is that of employee/employer, and the fact that Snark used that analogy in her first post both irritated me and made me question her identity.  The relationship between author and agent is an agency relationship, though, which means that it’s contractual, governed by both contract and corporate law, and one in which the agent’s job is to represent the principal.  So yeah, you want someone you can trust to represent you, since an author’s agent is assumed to have the permission of the principal in business dealings.  That very fact, I guess, is why the anonymity of Snark doesn’t sit all that well with me.  I mean, if I were an author, would I want an agent who was so quick to blast an author the way Snark did? If anyone’s comments seem to be against their interest (or the interest of their clients), I think you could just as easily argue that it’s Snark’s.

The only reason this one doesn’t have me pissed is that Stuart isn’t powerless as, IMO, Wallace was.  IMO she broke a taboo that, in the breaking, threatened to reveal some interesting things about the culture of publishing.  What isn’t happening, and what I wish would, is more actual discussion of how things do operate and why there is so much silence around these issues.  Because while this isn’t exactly an issue of national importance, in its own way, it does sort of suggest that authors have the least power on average here, since it’s generally the powerless who are forced to keep quiet about what they—in the scope of their own world—find unjust.  It’s not as shocking as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g7zlJx9u2E), but I agree, Candy, that it’s interesting to see the breadth of the responses.

I mean, if I were an author, would I want an agent who was so quick to blast an author the way Snark did? If anyone’s comments seem to be against their interest (or the interest of their clients), I think you could just as easily argue that it’s Snark’s.

That would be true if the dear little Snarklet had the balls to sign her name, wouldn’t it? Bless her heart.

What I find amusing, in an ironic sort of way, is her professed love for George Clooney—a man who’s repeatedly put his career in jeopardy to speak out against what he perceives as evil, corruption or bullying behavior in his peers, the media, and the government.

As I commented in Crusie’s blog, I doubt Clooney would give Snark the time of day or the teeniest, moldiest crumb of clue cake based on her recent performance.

December, if you’re extrapolating this “BTW, I love being referred to as a ravening sycophant” from what I said, then I think you’ve missed my point.

Actually, Ana, it isn’t just you. It seems everyone is jumping on the “Snarklings are teh ebil” bandwagon lately and making comments.

As far as “Why do I feel the need to defend an anonymous blogger"-well, why do I feel the need to defend an non-anonymous blogger? Why does anyone feel the need to defend anyone else? Because I’ve exchanged some friendly emails? Because I’ve made some good friends among the other posters there?

Maybe because I think, no matter how many people crab on about her being anonymous like it’s some shameful, horrible thing, and how dare she not tell us her real name, she’s done an awful lot to help writers? Because she posts about scams, and writing good queries, and what to look for in a contract? Because she gives sound advice on handling yourself within the author/agent relationship? Because I’ve learned a lot there, and I think there are quite a few other people who’ve learned a lot too?

If that’s not a good enough reason to defend someone, or if I’m only allowed to defend people who use their real names online (which rules me out, btw, as DQ is a pseudonym), I do wish someone would let me know.

As a rule of thumb I don’t put much stock in comments by anyone who doesn’t sign their name to them.

Jennie and Krissie are very close friends. If someone slapped at my very close friend, I’d slap back.

I’ve said I thought A.S.’s comments were indiscreet. I think they were. But an enormous deal? No.

As far as how publishing works, well, it works in different ways with different people and different circumstances. Some are bright and shiny, some are straight-forward, some are no doubt frustrating and disappointing, and some--I imagine--slither across that underbelly.

An agent’s job is to represent the client, and that representation can cover many levels depending on the client’s wants and needs. Yes, my agent works for me. I also consider her my partner, but then I’ve been extremely lucky to be represented by the same agent since the beginning of my career. It’s probably rare to have this relationship for 26 years.

I don’t work for the publisher. I work for myself--that’s why I write self-employed on those annoying forms. I contract with the publisher--whom I also consider my partner. If I’ve got problems with my partner--any of my partners--we’re going to talk it out amongst ourselves. That’s my choice.

I’ve had other partners over the years. The reasons I don’t have them now are my business. Frankly, explaining why these partnerships dissolved isn’t going to help Jane Author deal with her partners. Her circumstances wouldn’t be what mine had been. And the explanation would only be my pov--I imagine my former partners would have another.

I’d also like to say those cat pictures have given me cat fear. I only hope it’s temporary.

That was one windy post--too windy for my aging and increasingly impatient ass.  Wish I had a Reader’s Digest condensed version to read.

Should clarify.  I meant JC’s post, not NR’s post.

Maybe because I think, no matter how many people crab on about her being anonymous like it’s some shameful, horrible thing, and how dare she not tell us her real name, she’s done an awful lot to help writers? ~ December

He-she-or-it can stay anonymous.  I dislike that blog because it is not snark, it is abusive.  It preys on real people for material.  If the contributors understand what they are getting into when they submit their work to the “crap-o-meter” then that is their business and I am fine with that. My impression is that some people are submitting work to this person not knowing He.She.It is blogging anonymously about them.  My impression is that He.She.It sets himheritself up as an authority on the business of writing and no one taking himherit’s advice can verify a single credential justifying himherit’s claim to expertise in that arena. 

It is entertainment (in a warped way) and that is fine as long as the audience is sophisticated enough to understand that it is a sick satire on the industry.

For my own part, I’m going to continue to warn aspiring authors away from sites like that until they know a little more about this business from legitimate experts.

Disagree with me SB Candy.  I dare you.

Ferfe, I am pretty sure anyone who submits to the crap-o-meter knows the work will be publicized, but if they aren’t regulars they might not realize just how vitriolic the pile on can be in comments.

Why does anyone feel the need to defend anyone else? Because I’ve exchanged some friendly emails? Because I’ve made some good friends among the other posters there?

Put succinctly, you feel the need to defend because you perceive that your friends are being accused of some wrongdoing?

I used to like the site quite a bit, but this is what changed my mind. Let’s not discuss Snark, whether she’s a good agent or an effective one, cannot be verified. She is perceived by her readers as providing helpful information for writers. I’m going to let that stand unchallenged; it’s not relevant. And to her credit, she does say “I am my own nitwit ten times before ten a.m.” and such as that. So the problem doesn’t lie with her, but rather in what she’s built.

But.

In holding forth her “nitwit of the day” and printing the stupid questions she receives, she establishes a way for struggling writers to feel superior to someone else. “At least I’m smarter than that. I’d never make that mistake.” Then they pile on in comments, talking about the stupidity of that questioner. There are a few commenters who will say, “Look, everyone was at that point once,” but they’re not the majority.

And so maybe it was an ignorant inquiry. Maybe that person knows jack about the business. But you know what? I wrote a book when I was sixteen and I knew jack about the business. I sent it to an editor of a young adult publisher whose books I liked. I made every mistake in the book. Does that make me a nitwit? Then, yep, you bet. I was a young, uneducated nitwit who wanted to write.

I’m a little wiser now, but not from reading an anonymous blog. The fact that I found my way and learnt about the business doesn’t mean I was never a nitwit, and I am highly suspicious of a platform that permits people to indulge in their own superiority at the expense of others. If you and your friends aren’t guilty of that, then you have nothing to defend against.

For purely helpful information, I think Pub Rants, the BookEnds blog, and Rachel Vater can’t be beat. For purely humor, I think Sammy K is right up there. Just my opinion, mileage may vary.

For my own part, I’m going to continue to warn aspiring authors away from sites like that until they know a little more about this business from legitimate experts.

Just out of curiosity, Ferfelebat, who do you consider to be legitimate experts?

Just out of curiosity, Ferfelebat, who do you consider to be legitimate experts?

Good question. There is an excellent library of articles by editors and agents on both the Romantic Times website and the RWA website.  Many agents, editors and authors who blog under their own names on the industry are pretty good places to go for advice and a closer look at the romance publishing world.

But for all the information online, none of it can substitute for attending one writer’s workshop or convention and putting yourself out on the floor, meeting and greeting other writers and people at all levels of the business. 

Knowing everything isn’t as helpful as knowing one real someone who can give you some help getting where you want to go.  I’m tempted to recommend specific blogs and groups that I happen to jive with, but what helped me won’t necessarily help another writer.

I rag on SB Candy periodically to get her goat because if ever there was a woman who needs giving a hard time it is Candy, but for all it’s irreverent snarking on the industry, the SB’s site has quite a few posters who know what they are talking about and put their real name on what they say.  That kind of access to inside opinions and advice can be taken to the bank by an aspiring writer.

The shit Miss Snark slings (did you see the threats over on JC’s blog against writers who criticized her?  As Candy says, “Whooo Dayum” she can dish it but she sure as shit can’t take it.) nothing good can possibly come for a writers career from hanging out with that life sucking bitch.

It just seems like people worry way too much about one person’s opinion.

‘No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.’

Go, Eleanor.

Gotta say, the Witlz person sounded disturbed.

Witliz is indeed a loon. I’m amazed she’s defending Miss S, since she got a public smackdown from the lady in question a few months back for being a loon.

Anyway. I don’t want to argue. I know, adore, and respect Annie, and while I don’t know you, Ferfelebat, I’m willing to bet you’re worthy of my respect as well. I’m certainly not trying to imply in any way that you aren’t. (Having said that, though, I will say Miss S doesn’t put any material on the blog submitted by anyone who doesn’t know it’s going on the blog--if you’re warning people against her blog, you should know that--and if anyone subs to the Crapometer and doesn’t realize what kind of response they’re opening themselves up to--well, maybe they shouldn’t be sending their work to a blog, anon or otherwise, without doing a little research first. Caveat emptor, you know? And since Kristin Nelson, Rachel Vator, Anna Genoese, Preditors & Editors, and the AW crowd are among those who all speak highly of Miss S, that might tell you something.)

My point is, and has been, all Miss S said was, “This is a nitwit thing to do, and not a good idea. You’re going to make people angry, people who you would do better to make happy, and I don’t approve.” She’s entitled to her opinion, and I find it interesting that instead of simply disagreeing and defending her friend--an honorable thing to do--Miss Crusie felt the need to not only insult Miss S but her readership as well.

That’s all, really. I honestly am not even so much trying to defend Miss S as I am the Snarklings, most of whom do not deserve to be called names or spoken of so viciously.

Ferfe: In this matter, we’re largely in agreement. Quel choc. However, I don’t think I feel as strongly about Miss Snark as you do.

And just because I’m in an exceptionally silly mood, and not averse to scarring poor Nora Roberts even further:

RE: cat pics

God, I want a cat.

I want a ragdoll, but there are no breeders here in Mexico.

December,

Anna Genoese is one who’s advice on industry machinations you can trust.  I saw one post play back and forth between Anna and Miss Snark that was funny but I’m not sure I would say Anna recommends Miss Snark or that she actually knows who Miss Snark realy is.  If Miss Snark didn’t give at least some worth while and interesting information then no one would hang out there ... but bitchiness gets old even for diehards.  At no point (I hope) have I slammed her readers.  I would dearly love to turn her readers away from that badness.

In the early days she would post snippets from real submissions she suposedly received in the course of her work.  “Real” editors guest blogged ... ranting at the ignorant apsiring writers and idiot agents (their take not mine) that they had to deal with and I was pretty sure reading it at the time that those people had no idea they were being “snarked” in public.

I could care less what she said about Anne Stuart.  Well.  I care.  But I care more about the aspiring writers she’s leading down the drain.  It’s everything she says, does and provokes that I believe is counter productive to new writers trying to find safe places to get a foot inside the business. 

SB Candy.  I am ready for that psycho

Wow, the kitty/gun picture is way disturbing for me.  I keep thinking “what if that guns go off and the poor cute kitty’s head is blown off?” To which I guess you say, people don’t kill kittens only guns kill kittens. Do you all remember the picture of the bonsai kitten?  That was disturbing too.

It bears a strange resemblance to SB Candy

I now know this truth:

There are some really scary pussies out there.

In holding forth her “nitwit of the day” and printing the stupid questions she receives, she establishes a way for struggling writers to feel superior to someone else. “At least I’m smarter than that. I’d never make that mistake.” Then they pile on in comments, talking about the stupidity of that questioner.

Although to be fair, doesn’t this go on on reader blogs, too?  Or author blogs (i.e. JR Ward, LKH, MJD)?  It’s happening right now with Witliz’s comments, just in rebuttal.  The pile-on mentality is the one thing that makes me most uncomfortable about the blog or messageboard situation, and I think it’s tough to create an environment in which it doesn’t happen but in which one still cultivates strong opinions and free exchange.  But it’s disturbing, nonetheless, IMO.  What’s most interesting to me in this vein is that there doesn’t seem to be the same uniformity in negative author responses to Snark that there have been to reader blogs that court controversy.  And I’m not sure there’s such a substantive difference in *intention* as to argue that Snark has a *higher* purpose, especially since she’s supposedly in a position of some authority. 

IMO, Snark has won a victory, though, in that she’s kept the conversation at this dull roar over the discretion of Stuart v. a defense of Stuart, much like I think Fred Head scored a certain victory in keeping the conversation around Susan Combs circling around a defense of Romance.

I don’t know if the taboo here is cultural or what, because Americans seem especially leery of discussing money matters (talking about how much you make is an acceptable topic of conversation back in Malaysia, for example), but I can’t help but think that increased transparency can only help improve matters.

I’ve been putting some things together in my head to see how well they fit.  For example, on the one hand, you have editors saying they won’t handle someone who speaks “indiscreetly,” while OTOH, you have people saying that a troll with a saleable MS will get a deal.  Then there’s all this stuff about “professional” behavior, combined with what I would consider a decidedly “unprofessional” demeanor in the blog of Miss Snark, literary agent.  And what about the whole “totem pole” analogy of publisher on top, author on bottom, OR even the employer/employee analogy bandied about? 

If I had to hazzard a guess at the “dirty little secret” here, I’d say it’s more that the craft of writing, and its product, is either undervalued or undercultivated.  Undervalued in the sense that publishers just don’t seem to be buying complex and well-crafted manuscripts, and beyond that, don’t seem to be pouring a whole lot into their production (I’m thinking of the comment on one blog from an editor who talked about the many-hour days and low pay inherent in her job).  Undercultivated in the sense that if it’s true that a fabulous ms will be handled no matter what the author is like, it seems to me that publishers are consciously publishing not-fabulous manuscripts and issuing broad warnings about author behavior. 

And, of course, we’ve heard on multiple occasions that the reader demand for books is so high that publishers have to scramble to keep up, which means that quantity might outweigh quality in the main.  But at a more fundamental level, it seems to me that what no one really wants to talk about is how the craft of writing is being valued or de-valued.  I’m not suggesting that authors should wield all the power here, but if they are, as (I think) Sammy K put it, the “labor force,” then it’s no wonder that they’re being pressured to keep quiet.  I guess the only thing I really question is whether the system itself it set up to discourage more “stars,” or if it’s simply responding to the available talent. 

I tend to see writing as both a talent and a skill, so I believe in cultivation, but as Candice Proctor pointed out in that provocative essay of hers, how can anyone be cultivated as a writer when they are pressured to write so many damn books?  My own sense of Stuart’s comments were that they came from someone who truly loves to write, because anyone who didn’t probably would have given up long before—and generally, people don’t raise their voice in serious dissent unless they are engaged in what they’re doing.  That such could be termed disloyal seems completely opposed to where I would intuitively think the response would be.  But then I tend to see reading as a public rather than a private good (anyone ever read Albert Hirschman’s “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty”?—great economic analysis).

Also: that video of the UCLA guards tasing the college student made me so angry, I couldn’t even watch it all the way through. I stopped about two to three minutes in because I thought I was going to vomit.

I felt that way the first time, through, but by the second time, I was more paying attention to what was happening and trying to figure it all out.

I was talking to my bankruptcy professor a while ago (she’s a former US Trustee, which is a VERY powerful position in bankruptcy), and she was saying that for women, law school can be very personally empowering.  I think this is true for any social group that has felt historically disenfranchised.  I know it’s true for me; there is something incredibly comforting, almost—at a very personal level—about understanding the way the legal system works, being able to negotiate it, knowing the relevant issues, etc., that no matter what, I don’t think I’ll ever regret getting a JD, even as I am made more aware of the complexity of true justice.  I am so discouraged at the passage of Prop 2 in Michigan, which effectively demolishes the effect of the University of Michigan law school admissions program okayed by the Supreme Court (at least in Michigan and any other state that enacts similar legislation).  Sandra O’Connor was so right, IMO, that it’s precisely in fields where social leaders are made that we need the greatest diversity, and where achieving it has been the greatest challenge.

The pile-on mentality is the one thing that makes me most uncomfortable about the blog or messageboard situation, and I think it’s tough to create an environment in which it doesn’t happen but in which one still cultivates strong opinions and free exchange.

That’s one of my favorite thing about this site. People disagree without the pile on, just state their opinion, discuss a bit and move on. It’s cool, and a huge compliment to the bitches that comment here.

‘As for pile on, I’m still bemused that again, Stuart makes a comment about her feeling that her publisher doesn’t have her back, and instead of asking whether (a) it’s true or (b) if anything can be done about it, the debate is focused on whether or not she should have said anything.’

Excellent point. And there’s no real way to debate that without more information.

So what I would like to know:

Did the publisher promise something to Stuart and drop the ball, or is Stuart wanting something extra the publisher is not obligated or capable of producing?

If I dropped the ball for one of my people, I would much rather have them approach me about it than read about it on their blog. Was this done, and it was blogged about because the publisher did nothing, or was the blog post done without taking that action?

I don’t think Miss Snark’s general message was wholly wrong, either. While an author shouldn’t feel obligated to shut up and just take it, posting diatribes about how badly the people who are selling your books suck is hardly a way to negotiate. I’ve had people do that just to get out of a contract, so I’m naturally suspicious of the motives of those who do. In the end, it’s your professional image that suffers.

So what I would like to know:

Did the publisher promise something to Stuart and drop the ball, or is Stuart wanting something extra the publisher is not obligated or capable of producing?

Anne Stuart gave an explanation on the Story Broads blog:

Mira had screwed up on a number of things, leaving me with a lower print run and not the kind of placement I needed.

So if that’s what happened then presumably Mira knew they’d messed up. I don’t know anything about publishing, but is a print run something that can be fixed at a later date? Can books go back quickly for a second print run? And, to look on the bright side of all this controversy, which, from the sound of it has upset Anne Stuart and her friends, maybe it’s helped raise her profile and got her some more sales? Anyway, if Mira were at fault, and the book sold well, I can’t see any reason why Mira would be annoyed with Anne Stuart.

‘Mira had screwed up on a number of things, leaving me with a lower print run and not the kind of placement I needed.

So if that’s what happened then presumably Mira knew they’d messed up.’

That’s what started all this?

If that’s what Miss Snark was commenting on, she had a point.  It wasn’t necessary for Anne to make that comment on her blog, and it does come off as a bit unprofessional.  But it certainly wasn’t worth anyone getting wired about, or anyone else getting wired about someone getting wired about it. It was just a tired author venting a little stress. I hear worse than that every day.

So my opinion is: Anne was not WRONG to post the comment on her blog, but it wasn’t necessary to do so. And a simple fact of life--the first amendment gives you the right to say what you like, but it does not protect you from actions resulting from those words.

Now let’s should go have a margarita and talk about Napoli. Better yet, go stick SBTB stickers on the Metro ads.

Oh dear, I seem to have confused things a bit. I think what happened was that Anne Stuart made a comment in her interview published at AAR. In that she spoke about a number of her publishers, including Mira. It was posted on 29 October. Miss Snark’s post, written on 3 November refers to the comments made by Anne Stuart and posted at AAR.  Anne Stuart’s comments on the Story Broads blog were made on 6 November and I mentioned them because they seemed to clarify what the specific problems with Mira had been. But if you read it in full, it doesn’t seem to me that she’s said anything particularly bad about Mira. And her original comments at AAR were about a lot of different publishers. She also said, in the AAR interview that ‘right now I’m pretty disillusioned about the lack of support from them. I’ll get over it’, and that’s precisely what she did, because she had got over it by the 9th of November.

‘She also said, in the AAR interview that ‘right now I’m pretty disillusioned about the lack of support from them. I’ll get over it’, and that’s precisely what she did, because she had got over it by the 9th of November.’

Okay...if she’s over it, why isn’t everyone else?

but Anne Stuart herself hasn’t reacted (directly and publicly, anyway) to this brouhaha, nor has she tried to duck responsibility, backtrack or justify her words. Just thought I’d like to point that out.

Okay..and another person said she’s over it. So why are other people leaping to defend something that is apparently a non-issue?

Okay...if she’s over it, why isn’t everyone else?

Well, I imagine she was over her original disappointment with Mira, and on 30 October Isabel Swift (Vice President Author & Asset Development at Harlequin) posted about how she and some colleagues had formed a ‘imaginary buddies of Anne Stuart’ group because they love her books so much. So probably if things had stopped there, Anne Stuart and Mira would both have been fine and ‘over it’. But maybe Anne Stuart’s been upset by some of the comments made by Miss Snark/people who agree with Miss Snark. That would explain why Jenny Crusie got involved, in defence of her friend. Also, it seems like the discussion’s really gone beyond what Anne Stuart said and onto the topic of what’s professional behaviour for authors, and whether or not authors should speak publicly about problems within the industry.

Like Robin said, other authors have criticised aspects of the industry. Robin mentioned an article by Candice Proctor which the RWA declined to publish in the RWR and Jenny Crusie wrote an essay on why category romance isn’t given much respect which criticises the attitudes of publishers, editors and authors. There are probably other authors saying similar things. It’s also related to what Laura Kinsale’s said in comments on this blog about her writing being art. Other writers didn’t entirely agree, and were of the opinion that their works were products. I can see both sides of the argument, but it does seem that there’s a divide between (a) the writers who see their work as art and want it to be appreciated and might therefore feel inclined to speak out when their publishers/the industry aren’t, in their opinion, doing enough to promote the books and (b) the writers who are worried about keeping their jobs/who perhaps see their books more in terms of ‘products’/for entertainment (maybe not at the stage when they’re writing, but certainly once they’re in the hands of the publisher). It seems to me that these two groups might have rather different ideas of what constitutes ‘professional’ behaviour.

And there are probably lots of less vocal people who either don’t think about these issues, or don’t talk about them publicly.

Anyway, I’m speculating here, basing my opinions on comments I’ve read online, so I could be completely wrong, but that’s the impression I’ve got.

That makes sense. There’s certainly many valid reasons to complain about the industry.

So the reason it got so out of hand is (your opinion) that nasty things were said after the actual issue was resolved?

So the reason it got so out of hand is (your opinion) that nasty things were said after the actual issue was resolved?

Well, it seems that way to me. It was Miss Snark who got personal by calling Anne Stuart a nitwit and started talking about ‘clue cake’. It was also Miss Snark who started off the discussion about what is or isn’t professional behaviour. Jenny Crusie didn’t like her friend being called a nitwit, and she didn’t like the reference to ‘clue cake’. She also didn’t agree on the issue of what’s appropriate professional behaviour for a writer. So yes, it seems to me that as far as Anne Stuart and Mira were concerned the issue had been resolved, but then things got really, really heated because of Miss Snark’s comments. That said, it wasn’t just because Miss Snark said ‘nasty things’, it was also because the issue of what constitutes professional behaviour seems to be one which provokes a lot of controversy.

“It’s happening right now with Witliz’s comments, just in rebuttal.  The pile-on mentality is the one thing that makes me most uncomfortable about the blog or messageboard situation...”
Robin,
I posted on the Jenny Crusie blog about Witliz.  I didn’t realize I was adding to the pile-on mentality until you said something.  I will be careful in the future.  I just found what she said to be kind of threatening - here is a sample:
“I’d hate for both of you fine writers to learn that the hard way, and I’d really hate for you both to go down together. But it’s possible if neither one of you cultivates the fine art of gratitude as well as learning the fine art of grace, even in the face of getting dissed.

For the commenters, aka ex-snarklings, who just dissed Miss Snark...It’s not a good idea to burn a bridge this publicly, ‘cos if I recognize you, so will others.

Really, the best thing anybody can do that feels slighted is to keep mouth shut, and remember to be grateful for what you’ve been given.”

As of today I think only about 3 people commented on the site about what Witliz said.  Does that constitute a pile-on?  I am not being smart, I really don’t know.  Or is it what was being said to Witliz?  Who, yes I did call witless...(rolls eyes, after being caught by Mom...)

And Candy - your cat pics are fab!

oooh!  Verification word: strength31

‘it was also because the issue of what constitutes professional behaviour seems to be one which provokes a lot of controversy.’

That’s what I’m curious about. It had seemed to me that Ms. Stuart opened the door by posting the less than flattering comment about her publisher. Why is it that Miss Snark is condemned for posting her opinion of that comment, yet Ms. Stuart and Ms. Crusie are lauded for speaking out on their own blogs in a similar vein?

Isn’t the root issue that people should be able to say what they like on their own blog? If so, why doesn’t that ideal also cover Miss Snark?

Unless she somehow produced legal paperwork that proved beyond a doubt that Miss Stuart is a nitwit, it’s simply her opinion.

If Stuart should be allowed to post her opinion about her publisher without repercussions, then MS should be allowed to post her opinion of that opinion as well. 

You can’t have it both ways. Either your blog is your sanctuary, or everyone starts getting censored from now on. Nobody makes you read it, and to cause a major fuss just sends more people to look at it--and gives people more incentive to write this sort of thing.

Isn’t the root issue that people should be able to say what they like on their own blog? If so, why doesn’t that ideal also cover Miss Snark?

Again, just my impression, but there seem to be lots of different issues, including the one you raise. Some others are

1) Is it better to make negative comments about an individual (e.g. Anne Stuart) or about a group of unnamed individuals (Mira)?

2) Is it better to make comments while anonymous or when posting under one’s own name?

3) Some people think it’s brave of writers to criticise certain aspects of the publishing industry and they think that any attempt so silence/criticise such people is a form of censorship. Other people think it’s stupid and/or unprofessional/unwise to criticise one’s publisher.

4) All the people involved have fans - Miss Snark has her Snarklings, Anne Stuart has friends and admirers and so does Jenny Crusie. Some people may be responding out of loyalty, not just because of the other issues.

5) Controversies get people worked up and generate lots of posts

Which of these issues get particular people posting will vary from one individual to another. My reason for commenting is that I’d noticed another primary source (Anne Stuart’s blog post) that hadn’t been mentioned, and as it seemed to answer one of the questions you asked, I posted it. I like Jenny Crusie’s books, have only come across one book by Anne Stuart, and not knowing anything about publishing have at various times read both Crusie’s and Miss Snark’s comments on the industry with interest. I haven’t thought through my position on the anonymity and the right-to-post-on-one’s-own-blog issues yet.

Thanks, Candy and Laura, for clarifying. I honestly had no clue why everyone was getting so riled.

I still don’t see what all the hubbub was about. Seemed like just another game of snark-tag to me.

These Romance blogland disputes always seem to come down to power and issues of respect/disrespect. I’ve got a colleague at work who says that every meeting we hold at my company is less about the agenda items and more about reinforcing the hierarchy of power within the department & reaffirming allegiances. Which is what seems to be happening here, in part. I look around at the participants & ask: Who’s got the power? Is that what they are doing, sorting that question out?

Is the publisher the most powerful, and are authors permitted to disrespect that entity, or is that not forgivable? Are authors’ allegiances primarily to the publisher because of the business relationship or to themselves & to each other?

And who’s more powerful, an anonymous blogger who claims to be an agent, or an author who’s sold a lot of copies & who puts her name out there? Is it heinous when the former disrespects the latter?

A blog really feels like a power base, if it’s got a lot of traffic from fans or friends or fellow travelers. Do these affiliates feel that they owe their liege support & take up arms when their blog’s hostess is disrespected?

More often than not, when one of these disputes blows up, it really seems to come down to giving propers. Whether reviewers/bloggers are allowed to disrespect authors, and still expect to publish, and whether authors are allowed to disrespect publishers, and still expect wholehearted support for their books, & etc.

I don’t mean to keep kicking this dead horse but I’ve been way busy so just one quick one.

I see this as a very simple and personal issue for me:

1. Anne Stuart responded honestly to a question about her publisher.

2. Miss Snark, who is cheap entertainment if she is anything wrote in her blog that AS shouldn’t speak her mind (i.e. practice free speech) and any author who follows her example will suffer, suffer, suffer. Yes, that is her opinion and she is entitled to it.

3. J. Crusie, who’s work I love, says that AS should speak her mind even when it means criticizing her publisher, (i.e practice free speech) in fact every author can speak their mind.

I’ve been hearing other writers say what Miss Snark said and frankly it pisses me off and makes me feel threatened. I think they and Miss Snark are trying to assert power over me.  I don’t like it and don’t see their attitude as being productive for me.

J. Crusie, on the other hand, makes me feel empowered. I think she’s trying to tell the truth from her perspective and in her world things aren’t that bad. I like that better.

That’s my opinion. Kind of simple I admit but my braincells are kind of fried right now and I can’t see a better way to describe it anyway. If that’s pile on mentality, sorry, some days I’m the piler, some days I’m the pilee. (teehee)

For the record, I don’t get the gripe about anonymoty (sp) at all. I’m not planning on putting my real name on the internet anytime soon.

Robin,
I posted on the Jenny Crusie blog about Witliz.  I didn’t realize I was adding to the pile-on mentality until you said something.  I will be careful in the future.

I don’t know what your comments were, Vicki, but just for the record I think there’s a big difference between commenting on, arguing with, or rebutting someone’s comments and piling on them.  The pile on, IMO, is all about those comments about how poster x is “crazy,” or some such label directed at the poster him/herself.  Those comments are, IMO, personally directed and require much less thought than an actual response to the words as separate from the poster (especially since, for the most part, we don’t personally know one another in blogland). I know some people have no problem with the pile on, but I’m not a fan of it.  Although in this case it’s clear that it’s not just authors who get lambasted in blogland. ;)

I’m coming late to this (thank God) but since so many people were asking why I posted the blog . . .
On Nov. 3, Miss Snark called Anne Stuart the Nitwit of the Day.  On Nov 9, she posted a blog about Anne Stuart that said “Cause once is never ever enough times to be the nitwit of the day.” On Nov. 11 she posted a blog about Anne Stuart called “Nitwitery Follow up.” At that point, I asked Anne Stuart if she had run over Miss Snark’s dog.  When she said, “No,” I posted my blog.  Miss Snark stopped harassing Anne Stuart, very possibly for reasons having nothing to do with my blog.  Anne Stuart and I went back to our regularly scheduled lives.  Everybody lived happily ever after. 
Hoping that clears up any questions about my motivation . . .