HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

CHANCERY Effing STONE.

The woman is too stupid to be real. She’s spent days arguing and trying cause a kerfuffle on the Amazon boards, all because she wants to sell more books. She obviously believes that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. (I wonder how that’s working out for her?)

She then decides to act like the injured party, and posts this crap, on the Amazon romance readers board:

Hi, my name is Chancery Stone. I am the author of The DANNY Quadrilogy and I first posted on this forum two days ago. Since then I have witnessed some strange and occasionally, at least to me, entertaining behaviour, and what I want to ask you now is this:

Do romance authors hate all other authors? Do YOU hate other authors? Or is it really a small clique of authors on here that simply create this impression?

Now that we know what her usual MO is, this seems like such an obvious ploy to get people to lash out at her, thus generating more talk about her and her books. I don’t mind giving her the publicity she obviously craves, but sooner or later, she’s gonna learn that most valuable of lessons: Nothing really ever dies on the internet.

The silly arse continues:

In my short two days I’ve had authors stridently assert that my book wasn’t a romance – without them knowing the first thing about it. I’ve had them tell me it “couldn’t qualify as a romance” because it contained incest. I’ve had them assert very aggressively, and repeatedly, that ALL romance readers have to have a happy ending on their romances or they will boycott any authors that dare to do different. I’ve had them assert that Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre – the prototype romances upon which all modern romances are based – are not romances. Neither, apparently, are Gone With The Wind, or the works of Virginia Andrews.

I imagine there are an awful lot of readers around the world right now cheerfully believing they are reading some of the finest romances in the world only to be bitterly disillusioned, by this board, to discover they are not.

What an utter fuckwit.

have also been told that the definition of romance is determined by the Romance Writers of America, an appallingly xenophobic remark that we shall put to one side for just now to discuss what this says about the board. Is everyone on it really that narrow in their definitions? Are YOU only confident you are reading a romance if the RWA says so? Who exactly ARE the RWA to determine what is a romance and what isn’t, and to lay down rules – if they actually do – about it’s ‘true’ nature?

She is such an attention-seeking dickhead.

I am curious as to what all the hundreds (thousands?) of silent readers think, reading this hostility masquerading as “advice”. Does it make you want to take part in discussions? Do you feel these people represent your views? Are you afraid to venture your true feelings, ‘advertise’ your own work, say anything, indeed, in case the self-appointed clique-of-the-week decide to take you down for not conforming?

I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of the silent romance readers, think you’re a cock.

This comment had me choking on my lemon tea:

Part of this charming definition of ‘etiquette’ has, for my part, included me being threatened with the ‘report abuse’ button. It has also had me referred to as “one of those foreigners” who, allegedly, come over to Amazon.com just to break these ‘rules’ of ‘etiquette’, perhaps by stealing your jobs and raping your women.

Yes, people, this twat is actually comparing the reaction of romance readers to racism.

There are lots more, but this little comment tells you what that whole post was really about:

This sad and moving speech has been brought to you by Chancery Stone, author of The Danny Quadrilogy, volume 1 of which may be bought from Amazon.co.uk and Volume 2 of which appears here on Amazon.com.

At one point, she boasts that she has loads of readers and her sales are fabulous. But this naturally begs the question, if she’s got that many readers, why does she feel the need to go around and harp on about her books to an audience that she surely knows wont be adding to her sales figures?

This comment from ‘Francois’ had me laughing my tits off:

So we’ve established that Chancery Stone is a nutcase who’s been shilling her “novel” for upwards of fifteen years to no avail whatsoever in between masturbating to her own genius. Oh, and I have a new favorite quote:

“I like going for the jugular and watching them squirm as they try to redeem an irredeemable faux pas.” This coming from a woman who showed up on a quiet romance novel forum screeching “READ MY EDGY GAY INCEST STORY!!”

I swear, she even makes the Vicious Rhinoceros and her sidekick, look slightly less insane.

My hope for her is that one day (soon), she learns about the benefits of taking one’s medication before logging onto the computer.

34 Comments »


  • Sparky
    September 7
    1:16 pm

    I just love how quickly she leaped off into the deep end. I mean, one polite comment about how they questioned whether “incest” was really romance (because, y’know, incest is just so wonderfully romantic) and that’s it, she’s in full rabid-wolverine-on-LSD mode.

    However, you have to feel for her. Clearly her ego is taking all the available air from the vicinity and damaging her brain with oxygen deprivation.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m starting to suspect it’s a lot more complicated than ego or even a promo scheme gone mad.

    Might just be me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something ‘wasn’t quite right’ in CS land. That being the case, I don’t want to add to whatever issues there might be. I don’t want to feed into the mess.

    ReplyReply

  • I have to agree, Shiloh (you have the best first name!) in that I think in this woman’s case, the wheel is spinning but the hamster has died…and frankly, it’s starting to stink. So really, the farther people stay away from this lunatic in author’s clothing, the better…

    *notices I’m on an adverb kick today*

    ReplyReply


  • Anon76
    September 7
    3:07 pm

    I really don’t want to feed the beast, but…

    Though Amazon removed the forum where CS spouted all this gobble-dee-gook, I was there early enough to see a discussion between Shiloh and Agent Scully that was rather brill.

    After Shiloh made a post and CS lashed out, Agent S posted and gushed over Shiloh’s works. Shiloh in turn directed Agent S to her website or email to continue the discussion. Why? Well because it was CS’s forum, and Shiloh’s books weren’t supposed to be the topic of discussion.

    Hmm, were the two perhaps trying to show CS the proper way of bowing out of a forum gracefully?

    Of course, CS didn’t “get it”, and avidly went on the attack then, prompting Shiloh and Agent S to really ramp up the “lurve” fest. I found it rather fun to watch, as the whole reason for thier postings totally escaped CS.

    Not long after the forum was pulled by Amazon.

    ReplyReply

  • The Amazon discussion has been removed.
    I, for one, think to write about an incestuous relationship as a romance is sick and disturbing. But, hey that is just me.
    But it seemed to work for VC Andrews and should I be ashamed to say I enjoyed VC Andrews?
    I feel the need to go take a shower now. 🙁

    ReplyReply

  • VC Andrews didn’t write romances.

    Really.

    And the thing is, whether a small percentage of people in the world find incestuous relationships romantic or not, it doesn’t make whatserface’s drivel romance. Not anymore than the fact that there are people who actively look for snuff porn make all porn watchers fans of snuff.

    Or something like that *off to get more coffee*

    ReplyReply

  • She was still going at it? I drifted away after the first series of posts, but thanks for the link to Fandom Wank, some of the links provided from there were too funny.

    I will agree with Shiloh, though, CS is one fry order short of a combo meal.

    According to Fandom Wank she’s been indulging in this behaviour since March 2006 when she pulled the same stunt she did on the Amazon romance forum in a Wuthering Heights Community!

    Oh, yeah, can imagine how well that went down. ::chortling::

    ReplyReply

  • AL: Also with Andrews, her incestuous plot lines were sometimes so ridiculous such as the sister and brother who really weren’t sister and brother, thus allowing them to act on their sexual urges for one another and get married, have children, blah blah.
    And the TSTL heroine always found her real brother in high school and would almost go past that point of no return.
    I will never forget the soap opera, Days of Our Lives, back in the day about a sister and brother who became lovers but didn’t know they were related. The sister was so scarred she became a nun and the viewers were gaga over that relationship. Bleck? 😛

    ReplyReply

  • Good lord.

    I would be offended if the underlying issues weren’t so obvious. Rather, it’s just quite sad.

    ReplyReply


  • Jenns
    September 7
    6:34 pm

    Why do so many people refer to V.C. Andrews as a romance writer? I haven’t read the books beyond the Flowers in the Attic saga, so maybe I’m missing something. But I always thought of Flowers and the rest as gothic horror –
    definitely not romance.

    Why would anyone think that the RWA is solely responsible for the creation and definition of the romance genre? The power of publishing companies and the readers is hugely underestimated with that assumption!

    Why do so authors go nuts online? It’s common knowledge that nothing on the web will ever truly go away.

    I need more coffee.

    ReplyReply

  • Why would anyone think that the RWA is solely responsible for the creation and definition of the romance genre?

    First, I don’t think RWA is responsible for any definition of romance.

    That said, this misconception likely comes from the misguided attempt by a previous board of directors and president of RWA to do just this–define romance. The general membership was up in arms and the idea was squashed…but it did come up. A black stain on RWA history, IMO.

    ReplyReply


  • katieM
    September 7
    6:54 pm

    Why do so many people refer to V.C. Andrews as a romance writer? I haven’t read the books beyond the Flowers in the Attic saga, so maybe I’m missing something. But I always thought of Flowers and the rest as gothic horror –
    definitely not romance.

    I thought the same thing! I never read the books, but I had a friend who read Flowers in the Attic. She raved about the book, but at the time I only read science fiction so horrors weren’t my thing.

    ReplyReply

  • Of course, CS didn’t “get it”, and avidly went on the attack then, prompting Shiloh and Agent S to really ramp up the “lurve” fest. I found it rather fun to watch, as the whole reason for thier postings totally escaped CS.

    Yep. agent skully, my new bff. i feels lost without somebody to praise and admire me (fyi, for those that aren’t familiar with my odd sense of humor, I’m being sarcastic/goofy/droll/fillintheblank)

    Seriously, once I’d made my final comment in that thread, I went back and scanned some of the various threads. Ended up leaving me wishing I’d done that BEFOREHAND, because, as I said, something seems off.

    If I’d read all that crap, and I do mean all, beforehand, I dunno if I would have said a single thing directly to CS because I don’t want to feed into whatever ‘possible’ problems she ‘may’ have.

    I don’t care to have people ramming their opinions down my throat and then following up with their superiority-complex issues at all.

    But I get the feeling there’s something driving this woman besides a need to cause trouble or even promote. All sorts of people hang around places just to cause trouble and a lot of us have seen the moronic promo whores, but this just seems more than that.

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 7
    7:34 pm

    I imagine she’s proud to be banned as she pogo’d over the top into a brand new dimension of whacky. You just can’t do that by accident.

    ReplyReply

  • I did check out one of CS’ blogs as recently as Friday. Brrr. A lot of “poor little me,” and “I’m so wonderful” comments with no response. Like she’s talking to herself, but online. Also, I saw a writing “sample” posted on her Amazon blog — belongs more to pornography than it does to any kind of romance, erotic or otherwise.

    ReplyReply

  • I read about this when it first came off and passed the person off as your basic ego driven nut job. I laughed to myself that she thought they could redefine romance.
    Looks like I missed a lot of later hooplah though.

    ReplyReply

  • Defining romance is like defining handsome…all in the eyes of the beholder. But for me incest goes way beyond any boundaries of taste. Romance or otherwise.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon76
    September 7
    10:37 pm

    Hey, Shiloh, when I said on CS’s loop that your and Agent S’s posts were brill, she named me as your mother.

    Nope. I’m a stepmom and grandmother of eight, but so not connected to Shiloh in any way. And def not her “Mom”.

    It was the best swipe CS could take at me.

    ReplyReply

  • Hey, Shiloh, when I said on CS’s loop that your and Agent S’s posts were brill, she named me as your mother.

    Mommy! 😉

    LOL. I put her on ignore after I made my last post, but oddly, that doesn’t surprise me.

    ReplyReply

  • You’re all despicable whores to mindless tradition. You just don’t know genius when you see it. So lick your envelope flaps, crawl inside, and seal them.

    😉

    (Blame the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. Yet, even through the haze they’ve induced, I still know Shi rocks!)

    ReplyReply

  • I still know Shi rocks!

    LOL…nah, I don’t think so, but thank you.

    Ummmmm….drool….slobber. peanut butter cups….

    ReplyReply


  • RenaRuadh
    September 8
    7:33 am

    Shiloh – as for sarcasm, our friend CS seemed to have a pretty selective sense of it. When aimed at her, it seemed to have gone straight over her head and she took every word, every syllable, serious.

    What really bothered me about this whole ‘incest is oh so romantic’ bit is the insult that it constitutes to victims of childhood abuse and incest all over the world. This is something that leaves people traumatised for probably the rest of their lives and if written about in fiction, should be – at least in my opinion – treated sensitively and sensibly. Not sensationalist and as ‘romantic’. Brrrr – it makes my hackles rise!

    ReplyReply


  • The Profane Angel
    September 8
    7:56 am

    Rena is right, sarcasm aimed at her went “Whoosh” right over that pumpkin head of hers (am I insulting pumpkins?)Subtlty (I probably misspelled that, insomnia brings out the worst in my phonetic spelling skills) was lost on her as well. She’s just a sick person, in a world of sickos, but one that chose to try and stir a major stink in a quiet place – who knows what she expected, but I expect her to show up here again, although I have every expectation Karen will smack her down to tumultous applause. Kind of sad to see someone so ill be proud of it. TPA

    ReplyReply

  • I think in surfing around the links on the Fandom Wank site and the blog title entry of “I love the smell of menstral blood in the morning” pretty much turned my stomach into looking further. Ewwwww!

    The comments made by this person on Amazon about “how do you know” regarding her book is a blatant attempt to get people to buy and find out. Ugh. As if!

    ReplyReply

  • Girls, please stop sending trolls over to give me links. I know you’re here, okay?

    *And* still obsessing about me, I see….

    I’m afraid I don’t have discussions on other people’s blogs, so the trolling/baiting thing is wasted on me, but, hey, you got me over here – twice now – so kudos to you. As a reward I *promise* you will get at least another 15 minutes when I do my ‘Bleedin’ Nora’ blog, okay?

    Now relax…..

    ReplyReply


  • Anon76
    September 8
    10:02 pm

    “swoosh” right over her head again.

    The discussions I mentioned occurred on her own Amazon heading, hence no outside blog.

    Sigh

    (How often does a person have to Google his/her own name before it becomes labeled as an obsession/addiction?)

    ReplyReply

  • I’m afraid I don’t have discussions on other people’s blogs, so the trolling/baiting thing is wasted on me,

    Does any one else here see the irony in this? *rolls eyes* You’re right, Anon76…”swoosh”

    ReplyReply


  • Karen Scott in Florida
    September 9
    2:23 pm

    I’m afraid I don’t have discussions on other people’s blogs, so the trolling/bdaiting thing is wasted on me

    Oh the irony.

    Crazy as ten fucking badgers.

    ReplyReply


  • RenaRuadh
    September 9
    4:12 pm

    One very interesting fact: Ms Stone regularly exclaims gleefully about the wonderful attention she is getting, which will increase her book sales tremendously. Well, logic is not her forte, obviously. It is highly unlikely that the people who she has been regularly offending now on the Amazon forum as well as here are going to buy her ‘masterpieces’. So where does that leave her motivation? Attention seeking for attention’s sake. Period.

    ReplyReply


  • Jenns
    September 9
    10:10 pm

    Well, I’m kind of glad that she’s enjoying the attention so much. Honestly, she doesn’t seem like a very happy person – let her have this then.

    ReplyReply


  • Ash
    August 15
    4:13 am

    I don’t see what the big deal is with Chancery Stone. I read some of her writing, and it’s not that bad. It’s not my favorite style, I’ll be honest–I prefer less of the sparse Hemingway-esque prose and more lush descriptive language–but the premise is interesting, the characters are interesting, and her writing got that across to me.

    Heck, if I was her and I was constantly getting shit for what I wrote, over petty things such as “incest is WRONG OMG” and who-knows-what-else, I’d be bitter too. Luckily, I’ve grown up in an environment where the internet and all its…fuckwittery…is obvious. The web, some iconoclastic haven of free thought? Yeah right. I’ve seen more tolerance and nonconformity in some northeast Ohio trailer parks. Where Chancery Stone went wrong, I think, is not seeing internet forums for what they are. She was too idealistic. Having one’s idealism trampled to the ground by people who miss the point and don’t want to get the point at all…I don’t blame her for getting disgruntled.

    I think it’s amusing, and by amusing I mean sick, that much of the criticism against her (fandomwank and the like) say little to nothing about the writing itself. Aside from one grammatically-imperfect sentence and vague buzzwords of the parts people found unpalatable, I couldn’t find anything to judge on my own.

    That said, she should have thought before she typed.

    P.S. Maybe I’m being oversensitive, but what’s with calling her “Ms. Stone” in a pejorative tone? What’s with calling disdained female authors in general “Ms. XYZetc?” I don’t see disliked male authors being referred to as “Mr.” anything on a regular basis, and not with implied condescension.

    ReplyReply

  • changed my mind

    ReplyReply

  • P.S. was referring to a reply to the previous post that I had started writing, my opinion on the original subject of the blog post hasn’t changed one iota. Hey, it’s Sunday and am kinda bored at the moment 😉

    ReplyReply

  • @ Ash…

    One problem w/C. Stone was that she wanted to call her stuff romance, and those in the romance community?

    Well. We know it’s not romance.

    Romance, as a genre, has rules. Period. People can say that’s not fair, it’s not this, it’s not that… but the things that define a genre and make it workable-thus easier for readers to buy, for authors to sell, for the community to discuss, etc, well, those rules make romance what it is. Things like having a HEA. Things like… NO INCEST. Characters that the audience will relate to. And by large, we don’t tend to relate to those involved in an incestuous relationship-we don’t care if this one IS consensual. Incest has no place in romance.

    What C. Stone writes? It ain’t romance. It may well work in whatever niche she wants to sell it. That’s fine.

    Nobody is saying she can’t write it. But she can’t expect to call it romance and have the romance community be happy with it

    And while I realize you’re not trying to be cruel, there’s also an unintentional slap for those who’ve been victimized with incest, and those victims are MANY.

    Reading posts like this where people are staying, “oh, she can write what she wants and you all are mean for not respecting her for it”… it’s a slap in the face for those who have dealt with and overcome what was done to them.

    Some of us get upset thinking of those-I know I do.

    Although I’m not going to back and read thru that mess, a lot of the problem, though, if I recall was plain and simple her attitude. She wanted attention, though. And she got it-whoa did she get it.

    Re:

    P.S. Maybe I’m being oversensitive, but what’s with calling her “Ms. Stone” in a pejorative tone? What’s with calling disdained female authors in general “Ms. XYZetc?” I don’t see disliked male authors being referred to as “Mr.” anything on a regular basis, and not with implied condescension.

    Aztec has called me Ms a few times and she likes me… it’s not a disdainful thing on her part.

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment