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

Sarah, I think you did a fantastic job of standing up for all of us “idiots” out here in the jungles of romancelandia unable to think for ourselves. You are a much better woman that I will ever be to set there like the lady that you are and be insulted by Michelle without punching her out…or at least putting a fart cushion under her as she sat back down…lol. My hat is off to you. :-) 
PS her site is as boring and plain as dry bread left out in the sun too long.

Spamword: usually27(seconds)....have ya’ll been peeking in my bedroom at me and my hubby with a stopwatch….Stop it!!! ;-)

I met her at Lori Foster’s last year and wasn’t impressed.  Thought then she was thinking she was something better than the rest of us and this certainly doesn’t improve my opinion of her.  I really hope folks will take a look and make sure not to invite her any longer to let her talk in this denigrating fashion about the readers of romance.  We have enough detractors without one of ‘us’ (questionable, really questionable) doing the dirty work for those detractors.

Shame on her!

The real question is…

Is she really gonna attract people by implying they are sheep?

As a fellow “mean girl” who openly invites heated debate let me express my displeasure through quoting the timeless singer P!NK…

Keep your drink just give me the money
It’s just you and your hand tonight

I think that about sums it up right there.

I’m all for positivity online and off,but much of what this lady had to say leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth. Several of her comments came off as severely elitist, for example:

“I’m not so presumptuous as to thank you on behalf of all romance readers. But on behalf of my online community of readers – from those who didn’t make it through high school to the doctoral candidates and everyone in between – I thank you for welcoming to Princeton and acknowledging as important the books about which we care deeply.”

Thank you for being so humble there,Ms. Uriah Heep! Also, why bring the educational level of your readers into this? This little tidbit bothered me too:

“You know, the first fan letter I got after RBTB went online was from a woman who apparently never met either Strunk or White. But she was eager to let me know she appreciated having a place to go online where she could talk about romance without anyone making her feel embarrassed – especially not other romance readers. She told me how much she learns from romance novels, and how she works that into dinner conversations with her romance-eschewing family.

This woman whom some might deem ‘limited,’ considered romance novels in a literate way, and had more to say about them when we began exchanging emails. She knew way more than I.”

Does she have any idea how condescending that sounds? I’ve never read her blog before now and now certainly have no desire to ever again.

Her insistence that romance studies could only be relevant if presented to “non readers” is absurd.  I’m a fan of Jane Austen and horror films and believe you me,some of the best scholarly work on both subjects comes from within the devoted fan communities. Yes, it’s good to make things interesting to the uninitiated,but if your goal is merely to make your time and attention “worthy” by impressing those who don’t share your enthusiasm for such and such in the first place,your results will be severely limiting and ultimately disappointing in the end.

As for her complaints about “heat and light”(she sure loves using those air quotes!), it is possible to have a lively discussion and still remain civil without being too nicey-nicey. Every website has it’s own set of rules for talkbacks and if you don’t like how things are done at one place,then find another that suits your needs. In other words,if you can’t take the heat,what are you still in the kitchen for?

I may be just a small fish in the internet pond(unlike some people
” whose job is working IN Internet – as opposed to hanging around ON the Internet”) but I hope to do more with my writing and if some of my blog readers are willing to go along with me,that’s great. However, I refuse to act as their “guiding light” and would prefer to credit them with as much intelligence as I have,if not more so. People who feel they need to lead a horse to water shouldn’t be surprised at the refusal to drink it(or the Kool-Aid,for that matter).

Wow. I mean, WOW. I think there must be a gene missing to be so unaware of the fact that you’re insulting the audience you’re addressing by saying such things in such a forum. I am so thrilled to see Princeton and the kick ass people involved in this conference finally shining a light on the estimable scholarly value of the romance genre. To have a participant insult the online community of same at large in such a, well, clueless way is disheartening. We’ll just have to continue being the bitchery and keep pressing on.

Sarah and Candy - Thanks for being so up front and honest. One of the reasons I so enjoy spending time with you ladies each day is your no-holes-barred, upfront, direct attitude and your frank, funny, and intelligent dialogue. Keep at it! Looking forward to meeting you in person in Clifton next week.

Sarah! Yes!

One of the things that continues to puzzle me is if MB is “media savvy” (which I am sure I am NOT), if she’s also a “Romance expert,” then shouldn’t she be familiar with the character of the online Romance community and therefore eschew making collective dismissive statements about its communities?  It seems to me, given the way she constructed her terms, that she either a) doesn’t know anything about SBTB, DA and the many other Romance-focused blogs/messageboards out there, which IMO would bring into question the media savvy expertise thing, or she’s being disingenuous about not referring to you, since she echoes a lot of the language used to dismiss sites like SBTB and DA every time we say something that is not “nice.” 

Either way, I agree that she undermined the very principles she was espousing, and worse, IMO she did a HUGE disservice to her own readers by choosing that talk to represent them, as well.

Sarah:

I had read Ms Buonfiglio comments and saw at once that they were directed towards this site.  (wished I could’ve been at this conference, sounds like it was great!) It is very clear to me she meant to trash Smart Bitches. I hoped against hope that you would not dignify such nonsense with a response and thus lend this incoherent rambling silliness more attention than it deserves. But I suppose you felt the need to defend yourself. 

I really do think the best response would have been silence on your part.  The excellence of this site is such that it speaks for itself.  Have you seen Buonfiglio’s site?!  (I don’t reccomend it!)  ‘Nuff said.

Sarah, I don’t alway agree with your point of view, but I keep coming back for the intelligence, wit and humor you use to such great effect in analyzing a genre that is near and dear to my heart, as it is yours. 

I do think this site goes overboard at times with the sort of community code words used here and I do have a problem with the word “bitch.”  Makes me wince just to write it.  But I respect intellectually what you are trying to do.  You’ve move the dialog regarding romance to a level I never even thought about and made me consider the genre in a new light.

Buonfiglio does romance no service at all by trashing people/ communities who are too critical.  It’s time certain romance readers grew up.

Who is this person? I have never heard of her until now. I did click the link, but I couldn’t get past the misspellings of Selinger, Frantz and bell hooks to the content. Oh, and the extra large ego was in the way, too.

Her whole presentation has just about ruined my day off and that pisses me off big-time.

My questions keep coming back to WHY?
WHY appear at a forum with comments that demean the genre community you say you’re representing?
WHY separate & divide the readers/reviewers/moderators into (her idea of) groups of nice/not nice?
WHY tell people how you are not self-aggrandizing and then proceed to be just exactly that with the most egotistical mommy-knows-best attitude I’ve seen in a long, long time.

The next time you go close to the ground to research, check out the light and look to sites where the readers say things with simplicity and dignity.

Yeah, researchers should always get only one vanilla point of view before publishing their findings.

I can only think MB is one of those people who swaths herself in superiority in order to drown out the demons of insecurity. No one wants to hear that they are “stupid,” “ignorant,” or somehow “lacking” whether the speaker is doing so directly or indirectly and this is what romance readers have been told since the genre’s inception. (Hell, it’s what women have been told since humans became bipedal). Buonfiglio doesn’t get it; her diatribes may appeal to the upper echelons of literary snotterotti, but they hold no appeal for the legions of she so carelessly mocks. Her bad. (Woops—the preceding should garner a visit from the language police!) :)

Dear Author also has a response up: Romance B(u)y Whose Book?

I don’t understand this gentle shaming of online readers and commenters to make nicey-nice.

First of all, being able to engage in an intellectual community that can handle disagreements and incorporate diverse viewpoints is kind of the definition of what intellectual/academic pursuit should be.

Secondly, most girls are raised/women are admonished into being “nice” in all realms of their lives. Being thought a “bitch” (i.e. having an opinion and voicing it) is the worst thing that can happen to us, according to some folks. I know fighting the impulse to just “play nice” (to not speak up for myself or my opinions/feelings) is something I still have to check myself on, in many situations, both online and off. I find it incredibly liberating and empowering to visit online spaces like SBTB and DA where the bloggers and commenters value honesty and strong opinion over “ladylike” behavior. The Smart Bitches are role models to me—unapologetic, passionate, funny as hell, and unwilling to let others dictate the terms of their opinions—as well as willing to engage in those who disagree with them and to think through their own reactions and viewpoints. That is real intellectual and emotional maturity.

I have never found this to be an unsafe space—there is a real difference between creating a thriving, yet sometimes messy, online environment, and an anything-goes, meanie-meanie-meanie environment. Buonfiglio seems to be conflating the two.

The argument Buonfiglio introduced is tired and outdated and rests on antiquated stereotypes that are still too prevalent in the romance community. The pressure to conform and to deliver palliative reassurance without criticism, or even justifiable anger, is not progress. And it sure as hell isn’t freedom.

Score one for Sarah!

This is precisely why my heart sank as I waded through the utter tripe of her address.  Well, one of many, many reasons, at any rate.  The fact that she was invited to speak at the closing panel was such a huge honor and should not have been abused in the name of blatant self-promotion and the type of snide denigration that all-too-often accompanies mention of the romance genre. 

She wanted to issue a challenge?  Fine—she should have challenged everyone in that room to continue to fight the good fight on behalf of the genre—to break through that glass ceiling that keeps romance (or other genre fiction) from being considered as worthy of study and analysis and criticism as any other form of creative writing. 

She should have challenged everyone who studies or enjoys romance to search out and investigate all of the wonderful communities online and off to best judge and evaluate for themselves which serves their needs best.

She should not behaved as if she were raised in a barn.  And for the love of all that’s good and holy, if you’re giving a spoken address, why on earth would you have so many internet shortcut spellings?  Really?  Was that necessary?  They just look tacky.

Then again, everything about that address was kind of tacky.

Okay, the link to the DA post isn’t letting me post it for some reason. But it’s over there.

I’ll just say that I think you guys are all great. *spreads the love*

(growing42: Penis jokes ahoy! In the SmartBitches tradition, of course.)

Went to Ms. B’s blog. Meh.

De-lurking here to say keep up the GREAT work! I bought Heaving Bosoms (wishful thinking) at my local independent bookstore (they had three copies in stock!) just so’s I could keep Candy and Sarah in sparkly-rhinestone-sexy librarian eyeglasses.

Lady T, you took the words right out of my mouth.  Condescending!  How nice that she appreciates the illiterate gushing of her “limited” readers.  How kind of her to “give them tools” to communicate the thoughts attempting to escape from their dense brains.

And if there’s any doubt about who she was aiming her diatribe at, she responded to commenter with:

Also,for me, it was spending so much time w/the sister Bellas and rom community that made me certain there’s everything right about reading romance. I noticed a long time ago here we stopped expressing disgust or exasperation over getting dissed by the outside and trying to figure out ways to combat it. We figured out early on how to simply define w/out giving away our power, and that’s made a lot of difference.

Nope, not Smart Bitches at all.  Can’t imagine how anyone got that impression…

I started reading her speech thinking, okay.  Fine.  There may be a point in all that somewhere.  By the end of it, all I could think of was Dolores Umbridge in the Harry Potter books.  “Hem hem. I’m going to rule like an iron-fisted despot in the nicest, sweetest possible way. Fear my treacly wrath.”

By the end of the speech, I was feeling a little unclean.  It displayed the worst possible traits I find in women—controlling, angry, elitist, and sugar-coated.

As well, she maintains the fiction that disagreement is bad and unwelcome.

One thing I deeply appreciate about this community is that we don’t pile on.  Everyone is welcome to dissent.  If they can’t back their argument up with logic, they may feel piled on.  That, however, is their own fault for failing to support their argument.

Argh.  I’m tired of the fake niceness.  Thank gods for the Bitches!

Forgive me for saying this, but reading the snippets that were blogged and tweeted from the Princeton conference had me feeling it was like every conference I every attended on any subject (I work in a science/engineering type field) that I’ve attended over the decades - a basically dull meeting, the occasional lively talk, no new information, great net-working thing.  I am somewhat reassured that you also had the requisite elitist asshole present.  I was starting to think that was just something I and my colleagues endured.

Perhaps the surest sign that you have ‘arrived’ is that someone is sufficiently jealous of your work they throw a hissy fit about you.  I think you and Dear Author should feel flattered.  You are officially in the ‘Big Time’!  Besides, she was likely just pissed about your book.

I am impressed with others’ ability to parse MB’s comments in her address, as I can barely understand what she’s trying to say. That is some terribly convoluted, over-the-top writing, right there. And what is all this nonsense about “heat” and “light”? Good god, they sound like dreadfully twee sex euphemisms.

One word comes to mind: Jealousy.
There will always be one who wants to the best of the best. Not sure if it is to get montary gain from the situation or be bowed down to, or to name drop. What is the gain in that? Community builds friendships, confidence and suppport. I feel like I have been slapped in the face. Aren’t we all, from big to small, working for one common good?

I’m with Karen.

I want to hit her speech with a red marker.

having92- Having 92 words when fifteen will suffice doesn’t make you appear smarter.

Wow. I’m stunned speechless…almost.

What other than self-aggrandization would drive this woman to make “this” speech in “this” setting? (And I don’t give a rat’s ass if that sentence isn’t perfect.)

It was not the time, nor the place, and set the actual genre she was “supposedly” lauding back a number of years. She might as well have had a backdrop with the “Dueling Banjos” scene of the movie “Deliverance” playing as she spoke.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

I think my favorite bit is how Buonfiglio decries “mean girl” tactics like criticism and bullying while SB Sarah is sitting right there. Hypocrisy, your doin it rite.

And man, is that some tortured syntax and convoluted writing.  I read an entry of her blog at the Barnes & Noble site and seriously considered sending them an email asking if Buonfiglio is really the romance expert to whom they want to hitch their wagon.

@JenD

I know, she was the one snarking about a reader not being introduced with Strunk and White?  Did she miss the part that went, “be clear?”

Nice does not equal spineless or afraid to voice an opinion; I’m teaching this to both my son and my daughter.  The romance community benefits from the politics of inclusion, not junior high “my clique is better than yours” nonsense.  I’m so sorry you had to sit in that room.

All I got to say is this:  that anyone who uses non-words like “telephony” and “nichiness” in the same paragraph needs to re-acquaint herself with Mssrs. Strunk and White.

My main objection to Michelle’s speech was its passive-aggressiveness. It was clearly directed at sites such as SBTB and DA. She should have named them directly and given Sarah the chance to defend herself and her blog. 

The only point I agree with in the presentation is that online bust-ups can get out of hand. But then I think we all know that and can choose whether or not to participate. Also, this phenomenon is hardly confined to the romance-reading community.

I find sites such as SBTB and DA refreshing because there’s no bullshit. My first experience of an online romance forum was the Avon Authors’ messageboard. All the gushing and ass kissing got very old very fast.

I read MB, and I gotta say, I had a kind of sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I always hated when my mom told me, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all!” I always felt like she was saying that it didn’t matter if I was unhappy/uncomfortable/bleeding as long as I was being pleasant. And, let’s face it, that pretty much puts us right back into the days of “women are non-card-carrying-humans-and-therefore-only-have-value-as-property.” At least, when it’s directed to us as readers of romance, as it seems to be by MB.

I was going to rant about paternalistic attitudes and the subtle whiff of elitist condescension, but then the real question occurred to me.

Isn’t whining in public about the Mean Girls, while standing right next to one of the Mean Girls, kind of… mean?

I’m so confused.

Oh, fer fuck’s sake.  Condescending much, MB? 

No, this blog is not going to appeal to every romance reader.  Same as not all romances will appeal to every romance reader.  We are individuals, after all.  But I can’t wrap my mind around the assertion that divergent opinions in a community that encourages frank speaking detracts from the scholarship of the genre.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The first thought that flashed into my head was that this woman obviously wasn’t around for the hella long threads on “The Jewel of Medina.”  There was disagreement, sometimes quite emotional to the point of flames, but there was intelligent exploration of the book and attendant controversy.  I’m sure I’m not the only person who learned assloads from those posts.

I come here *because* people are comfortable expressing a different opinion, because minority opinions are valued.  Because one poster can say she loves Twilight like a fat kid loves cake and the next can rag on Edward’s sparkly stalker ass and it’s all good.  And because I can say “fer fuck’s sake” when it’s warranted. ;)

research69: 

>Blogs like mine or Dear Author or Romancing the Blog or Ramblings About Romance or any of us are about the community and about the experience of interacting with that community.

One thing that humbled me beyond belief when I started my own blog was the number of other bloggers who supported my effort (too many to list here!). And a few of those folks who welcomed me were bloggers from the SF community. It didn’t occur to me that any of them were supposed to be competitors.

And I learned and continue to learn much from sites like SB and DA and others who with obviously great love, frankness, and enthusiasm explore romance from the inside out—I didn’t know there was any other way to blog about it!

Oh, and she refers to her readers as “Bellas”? Shades of Twilight, anyone?

I really do think the best response would have been silence on your part.

No. “Dignified” silence in the face of such drivel is exactly the kind of ladylike response she espouses and I can’t abide. On the contrary, let’s dissect her speach and debate the meaning. Let’s argue and create a whole lot of light. And if we happen to generate some heat as we go? Well, us big girls can handle that.

I feel fucking insulted. Note the word fucking, Ms. B. That was by way of lighting up my comment for ease of view through the heat-haze.

I didn’t read through the whole speech, but it seems to me that this person is attempting to appeal to the gatekeeper mentality of her scholarly audience.  The traditional gatekeepers of our culture, whether it be editors, encyclopedia publishers, magazine and newspaper reviewers, or credentialed scholars, had to deal with a major paradigm shift with widespread use of the Internet.  Culture and news is no longer mediated through 20th Century checkpoints, and the traditional gatekeepers are pissed.  To gain an audience on the Internet, all you have to do is write well, write consistently, and write entertainingly.  What you do is more important than who you know, and what you’ve produced in the recent past is more important than any number of traditional credentials.  The attention of the audience is the only currency.

By attacking some sites as having more heat than light, she is attempting to endow her community with an authority beyond that of mere popularity.  Unfortunately for her, popularity is the only authority that matters.

I don’t know if any of you read the comments to her post.  Most of them are loving licks of the hand by her fanpoodles (a term used by a commenter, logophilos, on fashionista_35’s Abriendo Puertas site—and one I’m obviously appropriating!)  but I loved this one:

11:39 AM CDT
Anonymous said…
Hi Michelle,

And no, I’m not signing my name. My colleagues would use the fact that I spent my time answering this blog against me.

If only this person wasn’t anonymous—he/she deserves a personal kudo or two.

@SarahT: One of the things that makes this tough is the way such dismissals make it difficult to talk about concepts of civility, etc. in anything but the most extreme ways.  As someone who is deeply committed to extremely broad First Amendment protections, I also see a complementary obligation to being as responsible as I can in my own speech (not that any of us don’t have some a-hole moments).  Not everyone will feel the need to measure what they say in the name of being able to say it, but that doesn’t mean we throw out everything that’s said in the vicinity and even inclusive of inflammatory, even deeply offensive statements.  Polite speech can be vapid and inflammatory speech can be meaningful depending on the recipient, context, speaker, etc.  But how do we talk about civility in ways that honor the nuances in the issue. 

And in the end, how interesting would the community be without all the passion, even the stuff that pisses any combination of us off at any given point?  There are a number of blogs I avoid because I was feeling personally burned out by the intensity, but I still think they serve an important function in the community or make a contribution.  Yes I would like it if people took the time to read carefully and think before they speak, and yes I dislike ad hominem attacks, and yes I would love an absence of name calling, but if I have to accept that in order to get other things—like intelligent, passionate, argumentative discourse—then that’s the deal.  And I feel that addresses like Buonfiglio’s make it MORE, not less, difficult to mount a compelling argument for civil discourse.

The thought comes to my mind that the phrases Smart Bitch and Dumb Bitch really are poles apart. I’m not pointing fingers, I’m just saying…It took me a long time to figure out that is was ok to speak my mind (as well as have a mind). If that makes me a mean girl, oh dear.

In the interests of academic research, I clicked on some of the other posts on Buonfiglio’s blog.  Was she quite as clueless as the most recent post made her seem?  No, she’s worse.  After reading her self-admittedly Sophomoric “Five Things You Won’t Hear” at the Princeton conference - #1. Does this dissertation make my ass look fat?” - I needed some eye-bleach and mind floss.  By the time I got through her sycophants constantly calling her “Queen Bella,” and her calling a frequent poster “Principessa” (even if Portia is a Principessa,  that is just too precious for my taste) I couldn’t face Buonfiglio’s opinion on whether jelly beans or peeps were the ultimate spring treat. 

Yep, those are some hot academic subjects. I see why the researchers are beating a path to her door to look into all the important topics in the romance genre.

I personally prefer a site where people aren’t afraid to laud the good and laugh at the bad. It’s usually those people who are the true fans of the genre. They’re the ones who want the industry to expand and keep getting better. They won’t settle for mediocre.

Without somebody speaking out and saying: “Hey now! What is this piece of crap? We know you can do better. We know there is better out there. Step up your game, please.” there is very little forward progress. There’s no incentive for people to strive for more. There’s no reason for them to create a better product, to write a more compelling story.

I’ve seen it on several different forums. The dissenters get shouted down and silenced by those who only want to discuss the positive and the whole board stagnates because there’s no real discussion. There are only so many times you can say “OMG!! I love this liek woah!!!” before you get bored and look for a different venue.

spamword - take49 Heh… take this post with 49 grains of salt. It’s just my personal opinion.

Previous posters have already covered most of my thoughts about this, but I will add one thing—-if Ms. Buonofiglio thinks that Smart Bitches is filled with mean people generating more heat than light she needs to get out more.

The comments here are passionate, but not mean. If she’s unclear on the difference I can point her to some political blogs that would give her the vapors. And if her point is that it’s OK to talk that way about politics, but romance can only be discussed in an atmosphere of total agreement then she really needs to think through the implications of that. And then never make this kind of speech again.

Ok, I just read the speech. Wow. I feel personally insulted as an enjoyer of a ‘mean girls’ blog.

If you want puppies and rainbows fine- that doesn’t mean that you have to put down those of us who wear big girl panties and can handle some dissention in the Pretty Pretty Princess Romance blogosphere.

There is an overall snobbish tone to the whole thing.  Does she not realize that there is tons of crossover traffic on the web? Does she think that there’s a ‘blog limit’ to what people can view? “Oh crap! I can only go to one romance blog today! Which one will I choose?!” 

Instead of broadening her readership, it feels more like she’s standing with the ‘nice’ girls on the playground and calling other kids grody and stupid-head.

*scratching head* I just don’t get it.

Some people simply don’t like and/or understand smart bitches.

Their loss.

I just want to say that having read through the entire list of comments on this post, I can qualitatively state that no one in this particular intimate public is reducing any commentary’s relevance by responding so sharply, wittily, and thoughtfully to this issue.

Carry on.

The good thing is that she isn’t smart enough to be crafty but clearly revealed what a pompous, self important twit she really is, and I agree with those that mention jealousy as a factor.  The ones you have to watch for are the intelligently evil ones that appear to be upstanding and then stab you in the back, bless their hearts. 

Has anyone turned this into a drinking game yet?  I think anytime the mean girl comment gets flung about you should have to take 2 shots.

I really just think with people like that it all comes down to the very simple, old as time, issue of jealousy and self-esteem. Perhaps she feels intimidated by the well educated romance lovers posting on blogs like DA and SB. (I only have a BA and for a writer I have horrible editing skills, but that doesn’t stop me.) Perhaps she believes if the industry grows and changes and becomes embraced by more and more sophisticated readers she’ll be left behind.

But there is just no way that anyone with confidence in themselves and passion for their work would act with such underhanded maliciousness and not welcome debate and growth.

Thank goodness we have y’all.

@Elaine - I loved your comments on gatekeepers - it’s hard to find sites like this one where there’s intelligent analysis and the disagreements can be public and respectful at the same time.  Especially since sites like this lead me to other good sites like Dear Author, and to excellent books.  Really, there’s no gatekeeper for the internet if you just click on your first Google hit, but aren’t we all each other’s editors and gatekeepers, pooling information on where to find the good shit and how to keep away from the bad shit?  It’s related to what Sarah was talking about re: horizontal marketing - on the internet everything is free, but it still costs you time to look at.  Directing people to other well-writen sites only makes your site stronger.

@Candy - as a former law student, it makes me squee with joy to watch you connect the legal analysis dots to things that have nothing to do with legal analysis.  That talent fades a little after law school (and I found it a little annoying when I was doing it incessantly myself, you have no idea how irritating every “harvard educated lawyer quits and goes back to her small town” book becomes when you’re spending the whole thing thinking about malpractice claims… oh wait.  You probably do know how irritating that is.) but it’s awesome to watch you do it while you’re there.

@Robin: As you say, it’s up to individual posters to conduct themselves as they see fit.

The more controversial blog posts tend to generate the most comments and, in turn, the most interesting discussions.  On occasion, the debate has become too heated - or too personal - for my tastes. So I chose not to follow it anymore. This was my decision and it certainly didn’t stop me from visiting the blog again.

IIRC, Michelle Buonfiglio was referring to online discussions on certain sites as being an unreliable source for research. If she means fact gathering, then I think she has a point. In the heat of the argument, people (in general, not exclusively on blogs) can jump to conclusions and misinformation is disseminated. Sometimes the real picture doesn’t come to light until after the dust settles. And, unfortunately, I think she’s right when she says many people believe what they read online must be the truth.

The rest of her presentation was self-promoting shite and a total up yours to her fellow bloggers. And dissing her readers’ intelligence? Definitely not classy.

Aargh! I hit ‘send’ too soon! And there is no edit option…

Just to clarify: blogs can be a great source of accurate information. I was referring to discussions where assertions are thrown around prematurely in the heat of the moment which later turn out to be false.

What I found interesting and really, kind of sad, were the anonymous responses that claimed to be from published authors who were afraid to reveal themselves as supporting her, allegedly because they were afraid the “mean girls” were going to come after them.

I’m trying to wrap my brain around the logic behind this and failing miserably.

don’t know if any of you read the comments to her post.  Most of them are loving licks of the hand by her fanpoodles

An insult to poodles, most of which are highly intelligent, independent minded, and very, very fierce.  :)

This same thing happens on internet forums all the time.

Especially, for some reason, tabletop game forums.

There’s several forums, with sizes ranging from Wizards of the Coasts’ own huge chaotic forum, to smaller places, like The Gaming Den, where a substantial number of posters actually know each other in real life.

I saw the results of a forum (Okay, I’ll say it: Paizo) trying to enforce a ‘play nice’ mentality; people disagreed with what the forum owners were producing, and could provide colorful ways to say this mixed with anecdotal and mathematical proof. But because they disagreed (or said an idea was a bad idea/stupid/whatever and backed it up), they’d get whole squads of people who’d pounce on anything they said to attempt character assassination—either the poster raising (or just plain griping sometimes) about a problem was a bad player, or he was wrong, or the game only worked like that if you let it, or any of a number of other reasons. And then the poster would respond, and any abrasiveness would bring the moderators down on them. Which may be justified to a degree—if you set rules, you’d expect people to follow them. But when you’re only punishing the people who are making you look bad, then it’s just hypocrisy.

It really reached the point when the forum added a “Don’t be a jerk” rule to the Code of Conduct so they could pretty much ban one person, who could do some thorough analysis and mix it with biting commentary when he found a flaw (Much like Sarah and Candy can when they find some weirdnesses in a novel). Naturally, he had an entire hate squad following him around, trying to say his analysis was crap, or just bitching about his talent for abrasive commentary.

The reason for making this new rule was to make the forum a “place of cookies and candy” by allowing them to ban people who aren’t actually breaking any of the previous rules but were riling people up.

Burns my ass.

Mind-boggling.

Just out of curiosity, I skimmed through some of her other blog entries. How many pictures of yourself can you put on your blog before the internet police crack down? How many times can you mention b&n before you are officially their bitch? How many times can you show your total lack of respect for your *cough* peers by constantly spelling their names wrong before b&n drops you because you’ve annoyed everyone in the biz?

I like variety in my blog-hopping diet. When I’m in the mood for a delish dish of snarky goodness, or if I want a taste of the latest goings-on in the community, I come here or stop by Dear Author.  I don’t see anything wrong in that. Likewise, I don’t think it disloyal if I happen to want a sweet confection that particular day, or something completely different. We’re all part of the greater online romance community and the diversity is what makes reading blogs so appealing. Well, at least to me. :)

p.s. forgive the food references. I am also baking snickerdoodles as I type this. :D

For all she condescends to those uneducated, don’t-own-a-copy-of-Strunk-and-White-readers, her speech (or blog) doesn’t seem remarkably well written.

And what was with all this drivel about “heat” and “light”? The BA in English Literature part of my brain (currently in overdrive, thanks!) got all squirmy in my seat. I’ve never heard a true academic—someone interested in knowledge, the having of it, the pursuit of it, the sharing of it—blather on that much about “elucidation,” being “erudite,” without getting parodic movies made about them, i.e. Smart People.

Talk about needing a take a page out of my personal favorite style manual, Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style (oh, wait…). If she’d read it, she’d realize it truly is a manual of style—not wholly about correct grammar, spelling, or any of the things she undoubtedly meant when she referred to her first bit of “uneducated fan” mail. Strunk and White both would undoubtedly have a collective fit at the construction and execution of her speech.

Dear Smart Bitches,

Thank you for being honest.  Please continue to do so.  I value the insight from your site consistently.

Her “I am so wonderful because I am an inspiration to the lowly high school dropout” attitude reminds me of the high horse bubble I was in back when I thought that my reading level was so advanced that the lowly romance novel wasn’t worth my attention.  The Smart Bitches are at least partly to thank for my reality check.  If I was still of an anti-romance novel mindset, MB would not have impressed me enough to change my mind. 

Frankly, I’m impressed with those who heard her in person and understood what she was trying to say, because I had to reread many lines more than once to figure out what she was going on about.  If she can’t write a clear blog post, this does not bode well for her narrative skills.  Here’s one author I won’t be checking out.

spamword “with95”—with 95 high fives to the bitchery!

Frankly I prefer a more open playground (such as this one). Sure, there are times where I was not comfortable with the turn of conversation… and yet the beauty of free speech is that no one has me tied to a chair forcing me to read what I don’t want to. In those cases, one can take their toys and go home, and are still free to come back and play another day.

Alright, enough with the playground analogies I swear. :)

For me, I would much rather have some frank discussions. The idea that the whole world is pink and fluffy, and we all fart butterflies gets old REAL quick. Even worse is when anyone who says “Wait! The Sky is blue, and your farts stink” is automatically labeled mean. And as others have already mentioned, why is it that girls are always expected to “play nice”? It drives me nuts.

I would much rather be around people who are honest to my face than stab me in the back with sugar-coated knives (or in my front, if I’m seated right next to them).  I have to be nice to people at work no matter how badly they behave—surely I should not be expected to behave the same way in my free time!

because34: Because I look forward to reading this blog and check it 34 times a day :)

Is part of being “nice” kissing her digital a**? Cuz it seems that’s what most of the comments on her site were doing,

I love you bitches, but don’t need to tell you of your awesomeness in every comment I write…how boring is that?

As the blogs you linked pointed out - some of the best research and discovery come through disagreement and arguments and down and dirty fighting. The best lit analysis discussions I have had ALWAYS involved some heated discourse betwixt and between different viewpoints and interps. I like the heat, I’ll stay in the SB kitchen!

Like you, I thought the simple truth that “I don’t agree with you” does not equate to “I don’t like you” was just that: a simple truth, obvious in itself. Sadly (and frankly annoyingly) I have found that many people assume that if you disagree with them on something as simple as the color choice of throw pillows, then OMG you hate me and are so mean! That smacks of insecurity…in oneself and one’s choices in life. I don’t have time to nurse someone’s insecurities….I’d rather clash mental swords with someone confident…it’s more fun…and a heck of a lot more enlightening.

Some people simply don’t like and/or understand smart bitches.

Their loss.

What Nora said. Exactly.

I have found the community here to be wonderful—supporting, caring, intelligent and OMG funny as hell.  Disagree?  Sure!  Opinions are like arseholes and all that. Argue?  Hell yeah!  Good intellectual argument is a great source of new ideas.  Deny the validity of my opinion or shift from “I don’t agree with you” to “I don’t like you”? Nope, never, not once.

I was rereading the BHB section on Mean Girls under the hairdryer today (my stylist gets to borrow it next) and thinking that I haven’t heard that complaint in a while.  Oh well.

I tried reading and understanding what she wrote a couple of times and maybe ‘cause it’s late at night and I had a busy day at work - but I didn’t really get what she was trying to say.  So I’m glad others are picking it up :)
From what I gather, she seems to be saying that we should be ‘nice’ and ‘happy’ and all play happily together (while the nicest ones stab the back of others).  And I call bull on that.  I can’t express how much I loathe the “if you can’t say something nice etc. etc. etc.” philosophy. 
I go through the same drive-through to get my morning coffee on my way to work in the mornings and there is one clerk there who is the crankiest, bitchiest, unsunniest person you could meet in the service industry.  And I adore her!  I want to leave her money in my will.  Because she is honest.  If someone has pissed her off, she’ll complain about them to me.  And I think good for her!  She makes me laugh just about every day. 
Same goes for romance blogs.  I would read an honest blog that bitches about some of the downsides of the romance industry over one that is nice-ity, nice, nice all the time, every single time.
What I find endlessly fascinating about blogs is there IS room for all types.  I’m often sunnier then I want to be - but when I get a mad on - I’ll express it.  I think that’s why SB & DA are both so popular.  They are honest and don’t adhere to that outdated (and frankly to me scary) philosophy of one must be nice above all things.  And let’s be honest - always being ‘nice’ is kind of boring after a while.  While I don’t much care for spicy food - I do prefer it in life.

You know, I’ve been thinking about this on and off all day.  I think one of the reasons we have so many anger management issues in north america is that we’re taught that we have to be nice.  Many of us aren’t taught how to disagree with each other without being assholish or violent.  We just bumble through on our own, and often fail miserably.

It’s like we’ve been mandated abstinence-only education for social interaction.  If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.  Heaven forfend that you display irritation over someone else’s asshattery.  Goodness knows you should never WANT to say something not nice.

So really, in being honest, and in disagreeing with each other, and pointing out that some ideas are just wrong and stupid (and explaining why we think that), we’re MODELING appropriate behaviour to the over-nice, treacly-sweet, tamping-down-the-rage-inside cuntmonkeys out there who can’t bear to hear an off-colour joke, or the thought that somebody disagrees with them.  The cuntmonkeys.

The more controversial blog posts tend to generate the most comments and, in turn, the most interesting discussions. 

This is exactly why I read the SBs and DA. The discussions are interesting, my tendency toward being a stick in the mud is constantly challenged, and I learn something at least once a week. I get my mind stretched (sometimes forcibly) by people who love romance as much as I do but who want to see it become even more of a force in the world by honestly critiquing it and those who write it.

Please, please continue to be the aggressively controversial, snide, argumentative and generally smart bitches we have come to love. We need you.

I’m so thrilled to see that Princeton is doing this.  I was just talking to my husband about how weird it is that romance is such a popular genre (at least in regards to book sales) and yet I feel I have to confess my ‘guilty pleasure’ in reading the books - you’d think that by now, I wouldn’t get “oh, you’re one of *those* people” statements from others.

I think this is also timely, considering the reports on the publishing industry basically stating that though book sales may seem to drop due to the economy (or whatever other factors there may be), the romance genre continues to grow.  It’s a good time to be supportive of everyone involved in romance, I think.

Finally, I wanted to thank you for being honest.  The thing is, I’ve found that reader experience varies - sometimes greatly, but there are similarities to reader experiences.  Though I may not agree with everything you ladies have to say in your reviews, I respect that the comments are completely based on facts.  It’s not an emotional attack on any author or book, it’s *your* reaction to the book.  No two people are exactly the same, so it would be ridiculous for me to expect that I would agree 100% with the reviews.  This, however, does not make the reviews any less relevant to me.

You ladies tell it like it is, but you are also consistent.  You do not appear to play favorites, nor do you seem to pull punches (which is a kind of favoritism, isn’t it?).  I respect your intelligence, experience, and most of all your opinion.  Thank you for being here to share your thoughts - it may not be gospel, but I like that I can trust that you are telling the truth.

Oh and as an aside, I don’t feel attacked by your reviews.  Or anything else you say.  I feel your site is a place where I can lurk or comment as I please *and* enjoy stimulating discussion about my favorite genre.

You know why I don’t think of Smart Bitches as “mean?” Because what is said here is usually backed up with reasons, explanations, and, -this is really important- clearly stated as being so, opinions. This is what makes it honest. Coupled with having a really bad first Romance read experience, this mentality of only the nicey nice opinion is a valid one, you must only say nice things is what put me off of Romance for years.

Do I always agree? No. But I’ve never felt beaten up for having a different opinion. If I want to post why I don’t agree I do feel that I have the freedom to, and have the responsibility, and am indeed expected, to clearly state why. I’m encouraged to a)think b)think for myself and c)to express myself intelligently. Because I don’t expect anyone to just take something I say without my being able to back it up. Because this is a place for ideas, debate, and suggestions. In fact I like the fact that I’ve seen people say, “Please explain why you think this or like that because I want to understand.” Wow, how terrible that we don’t all think and speak the same way.

I’m a grown up and, no matter the language used to express opinions here, I’ve never felt like I’ve been treated as anything but. I found her condescending, passive aggressive, back handed insulting, and self congratulating speech offensive. The idea that you guys were sitting right there adds on tacky. While I personally don’t practice the same language as our Smart Bitches, I can honestly say that I’ve never found “cuntmonkeys” and “horses freaking the fuck out” to be as insulting as this.

Thank you for being honest. Thank you for creating a space where others can be honest either with or right back at you.

*Brava!  You Smart Bitches are the most WONDERFUL and SMART bitches in the WHOLE WORLD!!!*

Sorry, I felt strangely compelled to do some ass-licking - obviously induced by all the manic nice-making over at the RBTB blog. 

Like many here, I was insulted by the high-handed, condescending, passive-aggressive tone of that speech/post, and just appalled that she would presume to be some sort of self-proclaimed doyenne of what constitutes relevant and appropriate discourse for any internet community. 

One of the comments to her post made a very excellent point about something that I noticed - she identified the people who read and comment at her blog as her “viewers.”  This really speaks to the heart of the issue here - she sees herself (benevolent queen) as delivering a product to an audience (the unwashed masses).  It’s a one-way trip.  She doesn’t really seem to understand or value the give-and-take nature of blog discussions, despite her cute stories of “limited” people. 

I agree with Suze’s comments above about the cultural expectations to be nice.  This cultural imperative is especially strong for women - and as a result, I think there are many women who do find it difficult to read or engage in heated, critical discussion.  So it’s wonderful, truly, that MB has chosen to make her blog as a haven for people like that.  The rest of us meanies will keep on enjoying the highly relevant discussions elsewhere. 

Ha!  My spamword is “mean35” I do not lie.

“For all she condescends to those uneducated, don’t-own-a-copy-of-Strunk-and-White-readers, her speech (or blog) doesn’t seem remarkably well written.”

Also, at the risk of coming off as an ultra-snarky design snob, this woman is trying to pass herself off as a definitive online resource, a place of professional-caliber insight into romance literature and romance publishing, and she’s using Blogspot? Hell, she’s not even using THAT with the limited elegance of which it’s capable.

I read a lot of bookblogs, dealing with literary and popular fiction, and Romance B(u)y the Book is easily one of the most self-absorbed sites I’ve ever come across. It’s as if the rest of the world only exists in order for Michelle Buonfiglio to have an opportunity to define it.

This is an amazing discussion site - and your book is AWESOME!!
RBTB is a PROMO site.  No more, no less. 
It generates sponsors but ...  Honesty is always the better policy. 

How many romance writers became so, because they’d read enough bad books to make them sit up and say - I can do better - and did. 

Now, with “Beyond Heaving Bosoms”, the potential for better romances blooms - in rampant, ostentatious blossoms, for those that “get it” and aren’t just trying to sell it.

I. Am. Appalled. The smarminess in that post…and oh my GOD was she the keynote speaker? Tell me this wasn’t the keynote speech at one of the first, if not the first, conference devoted to romance fiction in academia…at Princeton, no less. If this speech represents the most important talk given, and it’s about BEING NICE TO EACH OTHER ON THE INTERNET, I just might have to KILL myself.

I so wish I’d known about this conference so I could have made the effort to attend…even though RT and National aren’t in my budget this year. There is so much work to do here…and I’m sobbing at the thought of the effort.

What appalled me most about the speech—I was there listening and Tweeting right alongside Sarah Frantz—was that it was part of the closing panel, in which the Romance community was supposed to be responding to (or “reading”) the academics.  This was a great opportunity to step back and assess the work that had been done at the conference from a more fan-based perspective, and I really do think Michelle blew it.

Not only does her commentary represent a misunderstanding of online romance community-building (I don’t read her site enough to call it full-blown “self-absorption,” but I can see where that thought comes from), but it shows a radical misinterpretation of the conference’s—and particularly that last roundtable’s—goals.  This was a moment where romance, so often shelved and cast aside in scholarly debate, was brought into the limelight.  Yet no sooner did she thank the academy for opening the door for her than she slammed the door again, as if to say, “No one else in here but me!”

That’s the exact attitude that the academy has been accused of holding for far too long.  It’s exactly why the academy’s most significant identity crisis is about doing good and important (dare I say elite?) work while still remaining relevant to a large swath of the rest of the “real world.”  I astounded that someone as intelligent as Michelle managed to miss that.

She’s the Church Lady from SNL! We like ourself, don’t we? Iisn’t that special. Could this blog be….SATAN?

/delurks to support you in comments. I LOVE this site and have lurked here for many a year. I love the discussions, and so too the more heated debates, because I learn a lot, and I appreciate that you smartbitches and your readers/commenters are honest and insightful and supportive of each other and your genre.

MB’s speech is condescending and poisonous - I can’t get over the fact that she a) found it necessary to comment on the education of her readers and b) is patronising enough to mention Strunk and White! What the hell has that tome of bullcr*p to do with anything? Personally, I congratulate anyone who *hasn’t* had to “meet” them, because they clearly are happier people than MB.

And now, I shall go back to lurkerdom. Luv youse bitches. Please don’t ever change.

Carrie, you just made me shoot tea out my nose. Thanks (and I mean that in a totally non-sarcastic way, I swear).

And now I shall fawn: My copy of BHB arrived last night! *squee*

All I can say is SBTB and kindred works for me….. because I don’t particularly feel an affinity with sparkly gingham scrapbooking SAHW/Ms who can spend all day on teh intarwebz while DH sweats it out for the daily dollar.  I don’t have time to wade through a mass of overwrought gushing book reviews,  *kisses* and (((hugs))), and stories about the kids latest “cute” act to find one decent book to take me on a little adventure in my own make-believe world.

Nadia said:

I come here *because* people are comfortable expressing a different opinion, because minority opinions are valued.  Because one poster can say she loves Twilight like a fat kid loves cake and the next can rag on Edward’s sparkly stalker ass and it’s all good.  And because I can say “fer fuck’s sake” when it’s warranted. ;)

Exactly, Nadia.  I’m rather new to the ‘business’ side of this business.  I’ve been to one National, and am just starting the process of selling my first book.  As someone new to the party, I have to say that rarely have I observed so much passive-aggressiveness and self-sensoring amongst a group of people in my life, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the honesty, diversity, and yes, the snark and salty language, I know I’ll find at SmartBitches and Dear Author.  These sites give me the fortitude to read yet another sugary Yahoo loop posting where no one shares how they REALLY feel, lest their professional reputation and sales be damaged somehow.

As a woman with a PhD (the first in my family on either side, no less!), I find Buonfiglio’s comments to be just the sort of passive-aggressive, underhandedly insulting discourse that makes both academics and non-academics (especially the female ones) loathe the “Ivory Tower.”  It is that snide “I must pat you on the head, you well-behaved monkey” rhetoric that I myself have experienced at more than one conference before I earned the appropriate letters after my name.  And, quite honestly, it sucks! (Take that Strunk & White!)

The reason that I have been a loyal follower and occasional respondent at SBTB over the years is definitely because of the smart, witty, and erudite people here who reject precisely what Buonfiglio says we should like.  She also attempts, with rather an off-hand sort of hubris, to dictate how an entire community should not only comment on, but also how they should love, their chosen genre of literature. 

Indeed, academia has ignored contemporary romance for far too long in favor of the canonical genre of medieval Romance (which as a scholar of 13th/14th-century British literature I also love and adore), and this quite simply must change.  However, as early feminists also realized, the beginnings of change does not come from being nice, nor does it come from the sychophantic blatherings of yet another “make nice” blog.  An honest, and sometimes justifiably angry, dialogue amongst groups of various people from all races, ages, sexes/genders, educational levels/backgrounds, countries of origin, and so forth is what is necessary to fix what is so obviously broken.  That is what Sarah and Candy have created here, and that is why we, as romance blog posters and readers, come here.  And, if you think that this isn’t the best way, Ms. “Goodson,” then perhaps you need to reread bell hooks.  She would understand what we are trying to accomplish here, even if you don’t.

Here’s what I put on Ms. Buonfiglio’s blogsite:

Coincidentally, I discussed with my 10-year-old daughter just yesterday the pervasive American phenomenon: “girls and women should not have opinions, should not say anything that might be seen as ‘not nice,’ and should try to make everyone else happy at their own expense.” She thought that that was bunk.

I have worked very hard to raise a young woman who asserts herself and her opinions, and is never shamed for them, or ashamed OF them. I am very proud to have succeeded.

Excluding what (to this neophyte lurker) read as an advertisement for your blog and your new B&N gig, the anonymous, finger-pointing shame game in which your post indulged was what I found most inexecrable.

Personally, I find it much more mean-spirited to see you malign nameless ‘others’ than I do to read a statement naming what blogs you think are harmful, and why. The way you have stated your case gives the other blog sites no way to argue the relative value of their methodologies.

This post did not come off to me as “Pollyanna’s revenge.” Rather, it was more like, “Dolores Umbridge’s passive-aggressive punishment.”

Wow - maybe someone needs to start a blog called Dumb Bitches and every post needs to ‘make nice’ with someone.

Of course I wouldn’t read it…

I don’t know about you, but that picture of her on her title bar kinda scares me a little.  It’s like that look you get when you’re talking to someone, and you know what you’re saying is seriously pissing them off, but they aren’t saying so.  They’re just listening, and waiting, and getting more and more pissed…

(Yeah, that was really catty, I know.  But it’s been bugging me all day.)

@Dave:  Yes, thank you for articulating that.  It’s one of the things that frustrated me the most about Buonfiglio’s presentation.  That beyond all the patronizing and maternalism and “throw the rock and hide the hand” stuff (thanks to Steve Almond for that wonderful image), ultimately it’s just plain sad that she threw away an opportunity to reflect on the big issues of the conference and instead played out a beef she had with *others* in front of—and ostensibly to—the academic audience.  And in trying to contort her point (the mean girls do not belong at the table), it just came out sounding ridiculous within any kind of scholarly context.  And it’s pressed a bruise on an event that should not be so marred.

@Anne Calhoun: Your point number one was one of the funniest, most incisive thing I’ve read in response to the presentation. 

@Joanna S.:  The reverse resentment—toward academia—in some corners of the online Romance community has always concerned me as much as the resentment from academia toward Romance.  As part of both worlds, I see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and the similarities, too, and the mutual antagonism just seems so senseless.  Romance itself is relevant within the context of many literary traditions, and the critical analysis and theory essential to academia can bring so much depth to the reading of Romance.  The two camps are deeply enmeshed, even if they don’t realize it. 

So here comes a person who is not herself an academic, but who considers herself both an intellectual and a Romance fan,  and who manages to fuel BOTH SIDES of the divide.  It’s like amazing, but in a really bad way.

okay, call me a dumb bitch, and allowing for the fact I am in australia, wtf is a Strunk and White?

okay, call me a dumb bitch, and allowing for the fact I am in australia, wtf is a Strunk and White?

It’s the common usage name for a book called The Elements of Style.  Strunk and White are the authors.  Strunk wrote the original edition and the White did edits for later editions.  (White is E.B. White, who wrote Charlotte’s Web & Stuart Little.)

American students are frequently assigned Strunk & White at some point in their education because many teachers swear by it as a grammar guide.  Others hate it because neither Strunk nor White were grammar experts so a lot of the advice is sort of crap. 

I think it was ironic that Buonfiglio invoked it as if all educated people use it, since that indicated to me that she isn’t educated enough to realize that it has significant flaws. I decided not to comment on that before because I didn’t want to sidetrack the main discussion into a Strunk & White cage match between fans and non-fans.

I don’t think Ms B grew up with sisters…

One of the reasons why I started reading SBTB was that it was so honest and open. I hate reading reviews that say “this book was amazing” or “oh it was a good read, a little slow in some parts”.  Shallow reveiews that are overly nice are meaningless.  True critique picks apart both good and bad and then comes up with some middle ground based on merit.

Reading SBTB allowed me to take more chances in my reading and even get into genres that I might never have even thought of picking up.

This whole notion of being nice and keeping your mouth shut goes against the whole reason for being a blogger, or even being a writer for that matter.  Smart Bitches say it like it is. This passive aggressive mealy talk isn’t helping our cause as neither women nor romance readers and it’s a shame.

Robin -

I completely agree with you!  It is the infinite loop of antagonism that myself and many of my colleagues are trying to stop by opening up dialogues and forums like this Princeton conference (which I was not involved in but totally applaud what they accomplished).  And it is especially why, when inidividals like Buonfilgio, come into these spaces and try to bring in the same tired arguments that inspire the same sort of divisive finger-pointing - in a particularly underhanded way - that gets my kinkers in a twist!

So, I say that we all keep doing precisely what we’re doing because, if we irritate Buonfiglio and her faction, then obviously we are doing something right.

*initiating Strunk and White cage-match…. now.*

Just goshin’. Although the new swanky illustrated edition is very stylish! A perfect gift for a high school teacher.

I just liked the guide because a) it offered more opinion than fact and b) it was funny. Not Smart Bitches funny, but, y’know, English nerd funny.

Delurking to add my voice to the masses.  The behavior that M.B.‘s displaying in that blog post is why I developed a disgust for my gender that I have only in the last few years started to shake off.  The entire post was by turns convoluted enough to make my eyes glaze or just plain irritating.

In addition, I find it ironic that someone who is so obviously obsessed with the business side of this arena would publish such an unprofessional looking product.  That was half of what raised my hackles, really.  I very nearly closed the tab the first time she wrote “w/out”.  I.  T.  H.  It’s three letters.  And she’s demanding to be the only one taken seriously?

(any51: I’ll take any 51 Smart Bitch posts over that tripe.  I like this game!)

Honestly, Sarah - I don’t know how you didn’t smack a bitch (literally or figuratively) right there.  I would have lost it, so kudos to you on your ability to not make a scene.  That was EPICALLY Not Cool.

I’m not really sure what her distinction is between working in the internet is as opposed to hanging around on it, but when it’s your business, you do a lot of both.

(You’d also have a more professional design for your site.  Like, say, here.  Just sayin’.)