HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

wtf

Listen, I know that advertising on one’s blog is all the rage these days, but I must admit to feeling slightly uncomfortable when I saw that Chancery Stone had an ad up at the Smartbitches website.

You remember Chancery Stone, surely? She was the seemingly messed up individual who thought that incest was romantic.

Not only that, but she started that random kerfuffle on Amazon, for no other reason than to try to drum up some publicity for her self-pubbed book. I believe she ended up getting banned from Amazon eventually.

The woman even has a full Wiki page on Fandom Wank dedicated to her.

I don’t know, I guess I have my judgemental (yes, there’s an e in judgemental!) head on, but I’ve always been hugely against books that glorified incest, so to see such a book advertised on the SB’s website, was bad enough, but for the incest book in question to be penned by none other than Miss FUBAR herself, well….

Listen, the girls can advertise what the hell they want to, but I’d have thought they’d have been a bit more choosy.

But we’re all different I guess. I admit to feeling a tad disappointed by their willingness to display Chancery Stone’s wares on their website though, I don’t care how much money was involved.

Judgemental much? Hell yeah.

Edited to addAzteclady here.

When I saw the ad late last night, I sat there in shock for a bit.

Why the shock, you ask? Because my feelings about Ms Stone and her oeuvre are pretty much the same as Karen’s and I wondered about the SBs choosing to advertise this stuff.

And perhaps shock is too strong a word–what I am is puzzled. I may be indeed doing them an injustice, and if so I apologize, but I find it unbelievable that they could be ignorant of what Ms Stone writes.

65 Comments »


  • sallahdog
    August 5
    5:43 pm

    ehh… It doesn’t bother me… but then I only remembered who this gal was because you reminded me of the last kerfluffle…

    I don’t take ads on the SBs website, or any website for that matter, as a product endorsement….

    ReplyReply


  • Randi
    August 5
    6:28 pm

    It’s entirely possible the SB’s have no idea who Chancery Stone is or have read the thread here or at Amazon. I just re-read the thread here and there were no comments from Sarah or Candy (that I could tell). Since this took place in Sept of last year, my guess is they were pretty busy with the Bosoms; they could have missed the whole thing.

    It was entertaining to re-read the thread, though. Gah, what a looney.

    ReplyReply

  • I find myself…longing for an all-consuming, no-holds-barred tale of madness and lust.

    Okay, not really…

    My guess is the bitches didn’t realize whose ad they’d taken. *I* didn’t realize till I couldn’t find Chancery Stone anywhere on their sidebar and finally clicked through on the one with no author mentioned. And yeah, maybe they don’t know who Chancery Stone is. I didn’t until I read this post. But I’m sure we’ll find out WTF is going on very soon…

    ReplyReply

  • PS–I didn’t know about Chancery Stone because I was tearing my hair out on deadline when the big dust-up over him happened. Even the bitches might miss stuff now and then.

    I know, I know. Say it ain’t so…

    ReplyReply

  • Even I who am a faithful reader of KKB did not remember Chancery Stone (actually I remembered the name but not the reason why I knew the name) until you brought it up. My guess is that Sarah has no idea who Chancery Stone is. So many author brouhahas, so little time to keep them all straight.

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    August 5
    7:40 pm

    Good to see I wasn’t the only one that was caught by surprise. There’s a good chance they don’t know anything about that person, given how busy they have been.

    ReplyReply

  • I am not a fan of reading incest romance except for the days of VC Andrews when I was a teen. If the Smart Bitches had a VC Andrew’s ad up for say the Flowers in the Attic series that has heavy brother and sister incest, would that be wrong?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon76
    August 5
    8:01 pm

    Sigh. I didn’t remember the name CS at first, but clicking on the links it all comes back in ugly detail.

    I lubs the SB’s, but a quick google search or what not should have warned them about this author. I know they are darn busy, but how long would that really take?

    Personally, I feel bad for them over this slip. It’s not their normal way of operating. In my mind, money for the ads are important, but not to this extent.

    Just a FUBAR.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m probably going to regret wading in here….but what the hell?

    My gut reaction is that they can take advertising dollars from whomever they want. Advertising doesn’t equal “endorsing.” I’m sure there are plenty of people who work for the major TV networks who loathe WalMart – but it hasn’t kept their commercials off the air.

    That said…..

    I’m wondering what the reaction of Romance Bloglandia would be if this ad wasn’t at the Smart Bitches – but say on an author’s web site or in Romantic Times? Food for thought.

    ReplyReply

  • Oh my, yes, of course they can take advertising dollars from whomever they want–and I do believe Karen said it in as many words.

    Frankly, I do hope the SBs do not (did not?) know who CS is and what she peddles–though it is their business, regardless, of course.

    But hey, I can be surprised (yes, to the point of shock) and puzzled to see CS’s stuff advertised there if I want to, can’t I?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon76
    August 5
    8:14 pm

    Katiebabs, I don’t feel the same way about Flowers in the Attic as I do about the CS stuff. Flowers is a twisted story, yes, but I often wonder how the Diary of Anne Frank would have played out if she’d had a brother instead.

    That total isolation makes for twisted stuff.

    ReplyReply

  • Anon76: Is CS’s book darker than VC Andrews? What makes Andrews books so acceptable to the public? It seems every teen girl, and I was one of them, picks up the Flowers in the Attic series. And that was indeed twisted.

    ReplyReply

  • AL: Certainly. You are allowed to be surprised.

    ReplyReply

  • Sorry, Wendy, I didn’t mean to jump down your throat–I mixed my reaction to katiebabs’ comment with my reply to you.

    The thing is–and here I’m ‘thinking out loud’ so please bear with me–that I’m surprised, if the SBs knew who CS is, because they have taken ethical stances in other areas, and while I am all for adults to do whatever they hell they want, as long as everyone involved is capable of consent, CS’s seems to me to cross a line there.

    Then there’s the line between what is genre romance and what is gothic/horror. Is Flowers in the Attic ever marketed as romance? Because if CS were to be believed, her stuff should be considered romance. That’s another line for me.

    ReplyReply

  • Unless you’re on crack – there is no way FitA would be classified as a “romance.” Not sure where the books are shelved in bookstores – but my guess is horror. I know for certain they ain’t in romance.

    As a librarian I’m forever dodging “authors” who self-publish manifestos from their bunkers – and I’ve learned over the years that Google is your friend (well most of the time anyway). The Fandom Wank page was actually the first hit I got when I googled Stone – which jogged my memory of the original incident. Then I remembered…”Oh yeah, Karen did post about that….”

    ReplyReply

  • Personally speaking, I’m more like to eat raw sewage than do anything that might help that woman sell books.

    However, until you mentioned the debacle here, I didn’t recognize the author’s name. She just didn’t make that much of an impact on me as far as that goes. It’s possible the SB ladies don’t know who she is-even very likely, unless they followed the mess on the blog.

    Also, unless they already know the book’s content, I don’t know that they’d think to question advertising it. I’ve done a few ads with them and they don’t ask what book I’m promoting-they just need the materials.

    In the end, it’s their (the SB’s) site and if they want to take her money, it has little impact on me. She might get some hits, but her attitude is likely to chase off potential readers if they poke around her site.

    Still, I’d eat raw sewage before I took did anything to promote her.

    ReplyReply


  • Lauren Dane
    August 6
    12:21 am

    I dunno, I’d weigh in on an ad is an ad. It keeps their revenue in a place where they can keep the site going. I can’t imagine Sarah or Candy having the time to vet every ad at that level.

    At my blog I don’t take money from people so I can choose to pimp a book or author at my whim. But that’s entirely different from paid ad space and I’d be far more bothered if the SBs didn’t take an ad from an author who I found to be a douche, than taking ads that are not vulgar, obscene or illegal – even if the author is a loon, jerk, moron or batshit crazy.

    ReplyReply

  • What Shiloh said. But for the record, I remembered exactly who she was–and I’m not proud of it.

    ReplyReply

  • LOL. Julie, I remembered once Karen mentioned it here. But I’m lazy. I save my brain power for what I want in my head…or the things I have to have there. Like bills. Taxes. You know. She doesn’t qualify. ;)

    ReplyReply

  • I remembered the name immediately, but have to admit, I use Firefox and never see any ads at all on the SBTB site. I would never have known they had the ad if Karen hadn’t mentioned it here.

    That said, I have to agree with Shiloh and AL and to give them the benefit of the doubt as well. It is their option to take whoever’s money for ad space they choose to. Do they know who she is? I’m guessing probably not. I don’t *think* they’d be likely to post her ad if they did, but I’m not them. I’m making assumptions.

    For the record, and this is strictly me, I hated VC Andrews first book and never got past it. Just not my cuppa…incest in fiction. There’s no way I’d read the tripe CS tries to sell either.

    ReplyReply

  • I remember none of this.

    Honestly, I never pay any attention to the ads on the SB site. Truth be told, I think they’re kinda tacky, so I never really look at them. They remind me of Bedford Falls turning into Pottersville: too busy and too flashy and generally unappealing.

    But, my guess is they didn’t realize the content of the ad placed. Dunno…

    ReplyReply

  • Eew…I remember the Chancery Stone brouhaha! Perhaps the SBs simply forgot?

    I don’t consider ‘Flowers in the Attic’ a romance. I read it when I was going through a phase of reading horror, and it was in the horror section at the bookstore. I guess it could be put under women’s fiction or general fiction, but I wouldn’t put it in the romance section.

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    August 6
    10:57 am

    Thing with advertising is that, even if you are not endorsing what you are advertising, it still gives the appearance that if you are allowing the ad in your site and accepting the money for it, you are, in some way, giving the content of the ad the thumbs up. Anyone thinking otherwise, is just being naive.

    On the other hand, with online ads, most people tend to ignore them unless they are one of those really annoying pop-up types.

    ReplyReply


  • Las
    August 6
    12:15 pm

    I’m all for them making money off whatever ads they can get, but, from the little I read on that site, I get the impression that the Bitches are hardcore about their ethical stances. Correct me if I’m wrong. The fact that they have that ad can be considered a bit hypocritical.

    ReplyReply

  • Can’t say as I’ve ever paid attention to any of the ads but having it pointed out – yeah – I’m disappointed that they didn’t do their screening too. While they may not endorse this crap – by having it on their site, they are condoning it – and that’s not right.

    ReplyReply

  • No one can seriously believe “an ad is just an ad”, and that there are no ethical limits when it comes to allowing ads on one’s blog.

    Let’s say the KKK debut a line of romances in which white heroines reject their black lovers and find happiness in the arms of a white man and his KKK lifestyle. Can anyone seriously say that it would be ok to host an ad for that product?

    While this doesn’t imply that hosting ads is an endorsement of the products, it follows that the site owner is responsible for the content she allows on her site. That is, she either did know or should have known.

    Assuming there are some ads it is unethical to allow, the next question is whether this particular ad is one that it was unethical to allow.

    The author’s current book does not itself raise ethical issues relating to endorsing incest. (right?)

    So, the interesting question for me, is whether it is ethically problematic to host an ad for a book by an author whose previous books — but not the current book — violated ethical norms.

    This raises so many questions. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

    ReplyReply

  • Jessica, in this case, yes I do believe it’s just an ad-and on CS’s part, it’s most likely just a waste of money.

    The SB’s ad space books up like you wouldn’t believe and considering how many other things they have going, if they aren’t familiar with an author, I’d be surprised as hell if they checked out the website for each and every author.

    And unless the SB’s had a disclaimer that they reserve to right to refuse to promote for an author/to remove ad if they felt it didn’t meet their ‘standards’, then they’d be violating a contract, of sorts, I’d think.

    They took her money-and yes, I really do believe they probably took her money without realizing the kind of stuff she writes-and since they took her money, wouldn’t they be required to provide the services as advertised?

    It’s not like this lady is Nora Roberts, JR Ward,
    *G* Shiloh Walker… (I wish)* where pretty much everybody in romance land has at least HEARD the name. She’s a self-pubbed author with a few titles out and she proved to be less than professional in some blog posts.

    Unless people were following those posts, I’d be surprised as hell if people had even heard of her. As far as romance goes, she’s an unknown. (And nooooo… I don’t see her work as romance. Hell no.)

    But chances are the most promo she ever got was out of the posts here at Karen’s and the like. So why would the SB’s know what she writes?

    ReplyReply

  • Plus, to be entirely fair, it’s not like CS blatantly states on her site… THIS BOOK IS ALL ABOUT THE BEAUTY AND ROMANCE OF INCEST. Unless somebody read the book, or she offered the info…and I’m not inclined to read every one third of a paragraph to see if that provides this info.

    ReplyReply


  • M E 2
    August 6
    2:05 pm

    I didn’t even know there was advertising over at the Smart Bitches blog, LOL. Kind of defeats the purpose, huh? It wasn’t until I scrolled all the way over to the right side of my screen that I saw what you were talking about. Sorry, my screen as it is, doesn’t display the advertising unless I actively look for it. :-X

    ReplyReply

  • Shiloh, thanks for sharing your perspective.

    I wanted to add that I actually don’t know whether I think there is something wrong with writing, reading, or advertising incest romance. My above comment assumes for the sake of argument that there is, but I’d have to think about it some more.

    Also, when I looked into the Wankdom link I noticed, after I stopped giggling hysterically, that the major objections to this person were not so much what she writes but her actions in defending her book and attacking critics. That raises a slightly different question: should bloggers not accept ads from authors who display egregiously bad real life behavior? Again, I don’t know.

    The contract point is apt. Legally, it could be too late to do anything. But to my mind that’s a separate question from whether the ad should have been accepted in the first place.

    (Damn you people and these hard questions! I’m going to get nothing done all morning!)

    ReplyReply

  • Did the Chancery Stone ad disappear from the SBs? Or has my eyesight taken a turn for the worse?

    ReplyReply


  • Leah
    August 6
    9:40 pm

    SarahT: Nope it’s still there…

    ReplyReply

  • Leah: Now I see it! Thanks. Or not, as the case may be…:-)

    ReplyReply

  • Out of curiosity I visited her publisher’s site. Now, since I don’t know squat about her writing I don’t want to pass judgment on it except to say the subject matter doesn’t appeal. Yet, I have to admit I found her covers rather shocking. One has a stoner looking dude dressed up like Jesus and the other has an erect d*ck manipulated over a photo of a dog. Now I’m not a Christian, but that Jesus one just struck me as insensitive toward Christians. And a doggy weinie? Maybe I’m just some ignorant pagan, but my first thought: what the hell??I know, these days there is a fine line between avant garde and just everyday nasty, but for me that one made a flying leap straight into nasty.

    ReplyReply

  • @Shiloh: “And unless the SB’s had a disclaimer that they reserve to right to refuse to promote for an author/to remove ad if they felt it didn’t meet their ’standards’, then they’d be violating a contract, of sorts, I’d think.”

    They do actually have a disclaimer of sorts, but it doesn’t specify whether it’s prior to ad placement or not. I’m unclear on the legalities, but it does say they reserve the right to reject an ad they find objectionable. They might be within their rights to take the ad down and refund the author’s money on those grounds, but I don’t know.

    We reserve the right to reject any advertisement if they advertise or link to any content we deem inappropriate (e.g. child porn, pyramid schemes, Elmo fansites).

    ReplyReply

  • I don’t think Flowers was or is romance, but I remember buying into the Cathy/Chris storyline when I was a kid. I have mentioned to people how funny it is to look back and realize how desperately I was rooting for them to be a couple.

    ReplyReply


  • West
    August 8
    6:44 pm

    Michelle, I too was rooting for Cathy and Chris. But I was eleven/twelve years old when I read those, and I didn’t really understand the concept of incest. I tried to re-read them a few years ago, I have to say, it really put me off (along with the fairly bad writing).

    And you guys are right- V.C. Andrews in considered fiction/horror, not romance.

    I’ve never read CS, and I never will. Even if I didn’t find the subject of her books one of the most unromantic things I’ve ever heard of, her behavior would have put me off them.

    ReplyReply

  • West, that’s how old I was — 11 or 12 for the first couple books. I remember reading the second one, Petals on The Wind, on the bus to Catholic school. Cathy was sleeping with her guardian, and he asked her to “come,” and she was like, “Come where?” I didn’t understand the term either. ::grin::

    ReplyReply


  • Karmyn
    August 9
    4:07 am

    Has anybody contacted the Bitches about the ad?
    It is a truly disturbing ad. Even if I didn’t know what it was about or how much of a truly epic wanker CS was, it would still be disturbing.
    M/M romance is not my thing, but I know it’s popular. Incest is not my kink, but again it’s popular. but I absolutely draw the line at watersports. Big time squick for me.

    ReplyReply

  • @Karmyn I’m surprised the Smartbitches have not responded to this, even if it’s simply to say that they can’t comment for legal reasons. I’ve been waiting for a response for days and, so far, nothing.

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    August 9
    2:27 pm

    @Karmyn: no idea. That ad was there days before Karen noticed it. Personally, I am beginning to wonder what gives.

    ReplyReply

  • Michelle- I remember that scene! I laughed really hard, because although I didn’t understand the concept of incest, I certainly understood the concept of an orgasm. But I will give Andrews credit, it was pretty true to the character.

    My best friend and I read those in school too. I remember a teacher (not ours) wasn’t very happy, but the school librarian went to bat for us. Now I look back and wonder what she was thinking. Even with our advanced reading level and slightly higher maturity level, I’m not really sure those books were appropriate for our age (hmmm, I think I just found my blog subject for the day).

    ReplyReply

  • My guess is that Sarah has no idea who Chancery Stone is

    She may not have known who Chancery Stone was when I posted this thread, but she knows who she is now. I didn’t expect the ad to be removed, but some sort of comment would have been a good idea methinks.

    If the Smart Bitches had a VC Andrew’s ad up for say the Flowers in the Attic series that has heavy brother and sister incest, would that be wrong?

    For me, it’s the double whammy of her writing incest, and also being an asshole. In my opinion, letting that woman advertise on their website is no different to letting Victoria Laurie or Deb Macgillivray post ads at Dear Author. It’s just not cricket. She maybe less well known, but surely the principle is the same?

    In the end, it’s their (the SB’s) site and if they want to take her money, it has little impact on me.

    Could the same not be said if they took money off Cassie Edwards too? It has little impact on me personally, but I sure wouldn’t want to see one of her ads up on their site.

    I’m wondering what the reaction of Romance Bloglandia would be if this ad wasn’t at the Smart Bitches – but say on an author’s web site or in Romantic Times? Food for thought.

    I think you and I know that there probably would have been a huge outcry once her background had been unearthed. There would have been all kinds of questions asked about whether or not such mainstream romance sites should be endorsing authors who A, write incest, and B, who have displayed such consistent assholic behaviour.

    I dunno, I’d weigh in on an ad is an ad. It keeps their revenue in a place where they can keep the site going. I can’t imagine Sarah or Candy having the time to vet every ad at that level.

    I disagree that an ad is just an ad, because that implies that the background of the person placing the ad doesn’t matter. Do you think they would have let Cassie Edwards advertise on their site? As for not having time to vet every ad that’s placed, that’s fine, but the work’s been done for them on this occasion, so it’s hard to use that excuse.

    While they may not endorse this crap – by having it on their site, they are condoning it – and that’s not right.

    That’s exactly how I feel Kristie.

    Let’s say the KKK debut a line of romances in which white heroines reject their black lovers and find happiness in the arms of a white man and his KKK lifestyle. Can anyone seriously say that it would be ok to host an ad for that product?

    While this doesn’t imply that hosting ads is an endorsement of the products, it follows that the site owner is responsible for the content she allows on her site. That is, she either did know or should have known.

    What Jessica said. That’s why an ad is never simply just an ad. What’s that quote from Spiderman? With great power comes great responsibility?

    ReplyReply

  • Just one more thing to add, if an author with a dubious history (such as Deborah MacGillivray, or indeed Cassie Edwards) had an ad up at AAR, would we not expect some sort of comment from the peeps at AAR on why they were seemingly endorsing her?

    ReplyReply

  • If the subject matter of her books, and general crappy behaviour wasn’t bad enough, there’s also that time she decided to start a one-sided war against La Nora.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m wondering what the reaction of Romance Bloglandia would be if this ad wasn’t at the Smart Bitches – but say on an author’s web site or in Romantic Times? Food for thought.

    Bloglandia would have gone apeshit, as they would have done if this had been on almost any other blog except the Smart Bitches.

    Look, I like the SBs and I admire what they’ve done with their blog and their book. But the silence to this Chancery Stone business has been deafening, not only from the SBs themselves, but from other bloggers and commenters. Only Karen – and a few of us commenting here – have had the guts to come out and say we don’t think this is OK.

    Why is this? Are people reticent to speak out because the ad is on the Smartbitches site specifically? Cos if that’s the case, it’s bullshit. I don’t care how popular their blog is. That ad is just plain wrong. I’d say that no matter where the ad was placed, and I’m not making an exception for the SBs.

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    August 10
    1:08 pm

    @Karen: I had forgotten about that one. And she calls herself a romance author, when anyone that reads romance knows who Nora Roberts is, even if they don’t like their work. *snort*

    @SarahT: I agree with you. At this point, the silence alone, is speaking VOLUMES.

    ReplyReply

  • People are so up in arms over Amazon. But look at the amount of Amazon ads and widgets on sites and blogs.

    Karen: I can totally understand your point, but if the owner of the site or blog doesn’t think it is a big deal, they are not going to do anything. Unless that is they lose traffic and because of it, it hits them in the pocket books.

    ReplyReply

  • […] may have seen Karen Scott’s recent blog post about the Chancery Stone ad which is currently running at the Smart Bitches blog. […]


  • I came here via SarahT and this was my reaction to this news:

    First of all incest and romance, those two theme’s really don’t mix IMO, it gives me the creepers! Second, I feel that you’re responsible for the content of your blog, including the ads placed on your blog. I do not frequent their site often but I do know they have strong opinions and not afraid to say it. I feel now with this ad that they say: Incest in a romance setting is okay. I know sites can have, and I quote you SarahT:

    We’ve all seen disclaimers along the lines of “The site owners do not necessarily share the opinions expressed, etc.”,

    This may be legal talk but it is not what this ad makes me feel. And that is my initial response when I see such an ad on a blog like SB’s. I have yet to read the blogpost of Karen Scott or KB and I will not be afraid to say my piece. Sometimes a story needs various voices for it to be heard over a wider spectrum.

    SB seem like ladies who do their thing in their own way and time but incest, jeez, we’re talking incest here. Even among adults it leaves such a faul taste with me, and to link this feeling with SB is troubling to say the least.

    ReplyReply

  • People are so up in arms over Amazon. But look at the amount of Amazon ads and widgets on sites and blogs.

    You’re totally right, but I have to say, I can’t bring myself to reverse my decision about not buying books from them, plus it’s not like I blog for money, so not having the revenue from being part of their Associates thingy isn’t a problem for me.

    but if the owner of the site or blog doesn’t think it is a big deal, they are not going to do anything. Unless that is they lose traffic and because of it, it hits them in the pocket books.

    Well, I think you’re probably right.

    I think that after this though, I’ll probably find it hard to take any of the SB’s ethical rants/campaigns/crusades seriously again.

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    August 11
    12:02 am

    Karen said: “I think that after this though, I’ll probably find it hard to take any of the SB’s ethical rants/campaigns/crusades seriously again.”

    And you hit the nail on the head. I feel exactly the same way.

    ReplyReply

  • […] third example is the ad for a book about incest at the Smart Bitches website, first discussed by Karen Scott, and then picked up by […]



  • Jen
    August 11
    1:51 am

    To play devil’s advocate for a second, I don’t think the comparison of Chancery Stone to a writer of KKK-romance is really fair. When it comes right down to it, Stone isn’t writing anything approaching hate speech (I assume- I’m not going to be wading through her novel any time soon). There are three basic problems with her- 1) the subject matter of her book is completely disgusting 2) she demonstrates at best a tenuous grip on English grammar and 3) she behaves like an ass on blogs. Certainly none of these qualities makes her an endearing figure, but should she lose the ability to attempt to profit from her writing, however inept or offensive it may be, because of them?

    Cassie Edwards may not be an irritating internet presence, but she is plagiarist. Deb Macgillivray stalked and harrassed a reader. (Victoria Laurie, I don’t remember.) Those are much bigger problems to me than what Stone seems to have done, and much more worthy of shunning.

    Of course, I don’t know much of anything about Chancery Stone, so if she goes around harrassing readers, too, I’ll stand corrected.

    ReplyReply


  • CindyS
    August 11
    2:12 am

    They posted a private e-mail probably over 2 years ago and the dancing and prancing over how they had the right to do so was sickening to me. I was done. I went back when I heard about Cassie Edwards and I thought the dancing again was the least classy thing I’ve ever come upon. I remember posting and having Jane of Dear Author respond like she was one with SB’s. In fact, I look at DA and SB as one entity. They slap each other on the back and rarely (if ever) disagree with each other.

    So the silence on this just doesn’t surprise and maybe other bloggers in blogland aren’t commenting because we already know ‘they’ can do no wrong.

    My opinion

    CindyS

    ReplyReply


  • medumb
    August 11
    10:51 am

    Am finding the uproar about people not posting interesting, I haven’t posted previously, not because I am a diehard fan of SB and that they can do no wrong in my eyes, but because it is not really an issue that I care about. I do not look at advertisements, so what is advertised is not really of interest to me.
    I may be morally corrupt?? But am not overly convinced on the moral/ethical issue here, and it just doesn’t hit any of my many and varied hot buttons so not inclined to do my usual disjointed, poorly worded rant about it. Sure if they had reviewed the book in their content, rather than had it in a ad that I was never going to click on, then it might have hit some buttons.
    While personally thinking incest icky, and thinking it might have been the better option for the SB ladies once alerted to the “distasteful” nature of the product/author behind the ad, if the ad contract allowed them, to remove it. But then we enter the area of censorship, where I am not overly comfortable residing, and how/where do you draw the line? As someone said elsewhere, what about the m/f/m that includes brothers? A personal eek.. but anyway. Just my rambly two cents.

    ReplyReply


  • humbledsinner
    August 12
    3:07 pm

    Chancery Stone, thank you so much for clearing that up! And here I was tempted into falling for the optimistic falsehood that god might just not be a jealous, vengeful, insane entity. Ssheew, close call! Now I know.

    ReplyReply

  • Jen wrote: “To play devil’s advocate for a second, I don’t think the comparison of Chancery Stone to a writer of KKK-romance is really fair.”

    Just to clarify, I was not comparing the two. In fact, I actually said that I wasn’t sure if writing about incest in a romantic way was morally problematic.

    The KKK book was my imaginary example to show why the notion that “an ad is just an ad, any ad is ok, it’s just business.” is wrong.

    ReplyReply

  • It’s always nice to see a hard working author who doesn’t let a little notoriety go to their heads. I applaud Chancery Stone for staying so grounded and level-headed.

    /sarcasm.

    ReplyReply

  • West, now come on… you know arrogance is the key to impressing people, right?

    /sarcasm here too. as well as smirking, snickering and rolling eyes.

    ReplyReply

  • Oh good, for a moment there I thought I was the only one awed by Ms Stone’s blog’s url (and it does seem that there’s a danny-is-god one there too)

    (do I need to add the /sarcasm tag, you think?)

    ReplyReply

  • Shiloh- this is why I love you. It’s not just for your awesome books.

    Aztec- you might want to add that- you know, on account of her being god and all, she might be too busy answering all those prays to notice (when do you think she’ll answer our prayers?)

    ReplyReply

  • I’m disillusioned. I thought God was above putting a spin on the opinions of mere mortals. Dam nice of her to take time out of her busy schedule to set things right!

    Hail Chancery, full of waste,
    Your ego is with us,
    now and at the hour we read.
    Holy Chancery,
    mother of DANNY,
    Blessed are you among the mediocre,
    and blessed be the fruitcake of your pen.

    ReplyReply

  • Tuscan- I heart you.

    And now I must clean the orange juice you made me spew off my screen.

    ReplyReply


  • Francine
    August 17
    8:56 pm

    For all of me, SBTB can run Chancery’s ads if they want. It’s just an ad. But I’m surprised about two things:

    (1) I’m surprised that *she* will deign to do business with *them*–that SBTB hasn’t yet done something to earn her ire and shunning, and
    (2) Chancery has money to buy ads?

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment