As you know, I’m a Nora Roberts fan again due to her In Death books, and that generally means that even though I may have dissed her in the past, I love her now, (aren’t we readers fickle?) so I’m interested in any NR related scandals (what? You know you are too!)
Anyway, I heard from
ReneeW, who posted on Kristie’s blog that there’d been a kerfuffle over at the AAR Reviews message board, so I duly went over to look at the car wreck.Apparently, Nora’s newest In Death book, has a controversial photo of her on the back of the book. The conversation somehow managed to veer off the actual book, and a discussion of how she was portrayed in the photo ensued.
Here are some conversation excerpts:
Somebody initially posted (Erm… Robin was it you?)
I’m still waiting for my copy to arrive, but I’ve seen that back cover photo, and it adds weight to something I’ve always thought about the series: that Roberts is somehow projecting herself onto Eve (or vice versa). And I’m the reader who finds that . . . disturbing.
I understand that this series is marketed in the most aggressive way possible, and I know that Roberts has a fan base that likes to personalize her and her books, but frankly, I don’t want to have the suggestion put into my head that the author is being merged with the heroine. Nope, Nope, Nope.
I like Eve. I don’t know Nora Roberts, but I KNOW I want Eve to be a character — a separate entity from the author. I don’t care if Nora fantasizes about Roarke, or if she imagines herself as Eve as she’s writing; I just don’t want HER face attached to Eve in MY head. I already think Romance encourages overidentification with its authors, and this newest version of that icks me out on a gut level.
Nora Responds:
I don’t post here as a rule, but as this discussion isn’t about the book but rather a photograph, and me personally, I feel sort of compelled.
First, let me say I find it a little baffling that someone who doesn’t know me–and makes that clear–should form such strong opinions about my motivations or my process. As illustrated in the statement:
and it adds weight to something I’ve always thought about the series: that Roberts is somehow projecting herself onto Eve (or vice versa).
So I’ll address that. I’m not projecting myself onto Eve Dallas, or projecting her–if I read the statement correctly–onto me. She’s a creation–one I’m very proud of and fond of. Honestly, it actually weirds me out a bit that a reader might believe I do.
Physically Eve and I have pretty much nothing in common. I’m not tall and thin, I don’t have short brown hair, brown eyes or a cleft in my chin. I’m considerably older than she is. I’m a grandmother who hasn’t met a baby who doesn’t make her melt–while Eve sees babies and children as suspicious, a little scary and somewhat alien.
I don’t drink coffee–though I admit the character and I share a fondness for Diet Pepsi. I like to shop, I love clothes, love jewelry and have a deep personal relationship with shoes. Eve dislikes or tolerates this sort of thing.
I was never beaten, raped or abused by anyone, and had a nice, normal childhood.
I don’t live in NY, and instead live in a rural area she would detest.
We do, I’d say, share a passion for our work.
Not only do we–writer and character–have very little in common, I have no desire to be Eve, however much I respect her character and enjoy working with it.
As for the photo its conception and execution was exactly as another poster suggested. It was meant to be edgy, hip, interesting, fun, dynamic. And to contrast with the photos taken for other work. It’s just that simple.
The coat’s mine (love that coat) as are the sweater, the jeans, the boots (I did have another pair, pointier toes, higher heels, that was left behind in the hotel room on the day of the shoot.) Indeed all the clothes I’ve worn for ALL my shoots are out of my own closet. I’m firm on wearing my own clothes for shoots. I like my clothes and feel I know what works on me.
I like the picture, not only because–hey, I look pretty damn good–but because I thought it was fun, interesting and creative and fit the tone for the series really well.
I’m not looking to suck readers into a personal relationship so they’d feel hesitant or unable to dislike one of my books. Jeez, I just don’t think about that sort of thing. I post on only one site regularly because I enjoy it, and then I hope I post with humor and brevity. I enjoy communicating with my readers, and value them. I don’t blog. I have no interest or inclination to do so. I write books. While I believe I’m a fairly frank person, I don’t share areas of my personal life I don’t wish to share.
To have someone suggest–and fairly strongly–that I’m projecting myself onto a character, to have someone who doesn’t know me, how I work, what I think, feel is, imo, blurring the very lines she believes should be kept separate. Not only because it’s simply not true, but because it’s speculation on me, personally–not the work, but me.
That’s not only really over-thinking, imo, but for me, it’s mildly disturbing.
Physically Eve and I have pretty much nothing in common. I’m not tall and thin, I don’t have short brown hair, brown eyes or a cleft in my chin. I’m considerably older than she is. I’m a grandmother who hasn’t met a baby who doesn’t make her melt–while Eve sees babies and children as suspicious, a little scary and somewhat alien.
I don’t live in NY, and instead live in a rural area she would detest.
We do, I’d say, share a passion for our work.
As for the photo its conception and execution was exactly as another poster suggested. It was meant to be edgy, hip, interesting, fun, dynamic. And to contrast with the photos taken for other work. It’s just that simple.
I’m not looking to suck readers into a personal relationship so they’d feel hesitant or unable to dislike one of my books. Jeez, I just don’t think about that sort of thing. I post on only one site regularly because I enjoy it, and then I hope I post with humor and brevity. I enjoy communicating with my readers, and value them. I don’t blog. I have no interest or inclination to do so. I write books. While I believe I’m a fairly frank person, I don’t share areas of my personal life I don’t wish to share.
That’s not only really over-thinking, imo, but for me, it’s mildly disturbing.
Robin Responds:
I’m sorry if you think my comments represented a “blurring” of lines; I’ve said in this thread, multiple times, that I have no idea what you are doing, thinking, or whatever. I don’t really care, and I don’t want to know. Perhaps my first statment was not clear enough, and I absolutely apologize for that. Sometimes, especially when I’m in a hurry, I forget to be extra cautious about my word choice, since others who don’t know me won’t get my point right off. And I can see, taken out of context, how it appeared at first blush, which is why I went out of my way to clarify my meaning.
My point was, is, and will continue to be that the marketing photos on those books do strike me as creating an affirmative connection between the persona of JD Robb/Nora Roberts and Eve Dallas — a visual projection of the author onto her work. It’s something, as I said, that I believe is an industry-wide phenomenon.
Would my observation be overthinking if I made it in absolute happiness over the connection, as I’ve seen so many readers do? I made absolutely no comment on what you say or don’t say, encourage or don’t encourage on your board, nor have I made any speculation on what you do or don’t do in your personal life. I don’t speculate on your kids, grandkids, the inner life of your characters, etc., what kind of underwear Roarke wears that many of your fans do, quite publicly, in fact, and without public rebuke.
I respect your right to comment on what you thought was an inappropriate comment on my part, but I also won’t take blame for something I absolutely did not intend. I may not have made myself absolutely clear in my first post, and as I said, I apologize for that. But I absolutely won’t apologize for my belief that the industry encourages such personalization of authors, or that jacket photos are exempt from this trend. And, really, what do I matter, I’m just one little person? I’m surprised though, to have garnered such a vigorous and detailed defense.
Nora again:
It’s difficult to understand why, when I see there are posts expressing the view that more writers and industry professionals may do well to interact here, posts that appear to want writers to respond, that it would be speculated my reason for doing so might have been a way to generate more attention.
This is an interesting board, and I have a lot of personal respect for Laurie. But it feels that, at least for some, if an author takes the time and makes the effort to post an opposing view, her reasons will be called into question.
I can only say my intent was simply to correct a misinterpretation as applied to me directly.
I can only say my intent was simply to correct a misinterpretation as applied to me directly.
Nice one Nora! The argument went on, and on, and effing on. Sheesh, I just couldn’t be arsed posting, and by the way, the KarenS who regularly posts over there is so not me!
I predict that the sales of Memory In Death will shoot up due to people being curious about what the photo looks like. I already Amazoned it!
If you want to have a look at the train wreck, the link is at the beginning of this entry…
The Newsbitch
February 1
11:24 pm
Hi Karen,
Thanks for stopping by my blog. I found you whilst ‘bloghopping’ – I cannot remember exactly whose blog linked to you, but I found your blog and loved it! The design is gorgeous, too.
CW
February 1
11:41 pm
Heh. I have a copy of the back photo up, but there’s also a pic at Nora’s husband’s bookstore site.
Eve Vaughn
February 2
12:36 am
You have no idea how many Nora Roberts books I have in my To be read pile. It would be awesome if you got her interview
Paige Burns
February 2
4:12 am
It’s crazy the stuff ppl argue about. I for one like the new pic, the old one was getting to me! 😉
Dramedy Girl
February 2
4:14 am
Seriously? Obviously some people have a lot of time to burn when it comes to ‘discussions’ such as these. It is definitely a downside to the internet. I guess it just never crossed the reader’s mind that her picture on the back of the In Death series is just slicker and hipper than her regular romance one because it fits the books and her J.D. Robb persona. Sheesh, all that kerfluffle over something so simple.
Dakota Cassidy
February 2
7:13 am
I just gotta ask ya. Who the HELL takes that much time to put all that thought and conclusion drawing into into a pic?
If Nora were naked, I’d have to agree with all the speculation. But to draw such stupidly, ludicrous conclusions is waaaay too much time not spent where ya really oughta be–hitting the therapy couch.
Dakota 🙂
Sam
February 2
11:02 am
I hear ya Dakota!
It does seem odd to read so much in a photo. (note to self – when I become a famous author, do not put photo in back of book…)
LOL
Anne
February 2
12:58 pm
Oh, for Christ’s sake! Get a grip people! I’ve seen the photo on the back of the book, just yesterday in fact when I went to Waldensbooks, and Nora Roberts looks NOTHING like I pictured Eve Dalls in my head… NOTHING like she is portrayed in the In Death books, but rather Nora is looking rather hip, cool, and trendy… exactly what she was going for I think. I thought she looked great! Cripes… some people need to find a hobby.
Angela James
February 2
1:55 pm
Actually, this debate started on an actual Nora Roberts message board and then moved to AAR. I can’t recall specifically, but it might have even been the same person posting both times but Nora did respond in both instances. I find the whole thing completely ridiculous. I thought the photo was fabulous and I’m with Dakota–who the hell has time to think of shit like that and project such a bullshit theory onto an author. Blech.
Millenia Black
February 2
4:26 pm
Personally, I would not have responded. The comment was hollow and seemed very arrogant. Didn’t need a response from Nora…
I guess it bothered her that someone would think she envisioned herself as Eve Dallas…
Ann Wesley Hardin
February 2
6:11 pm
Guess I should nix that photo of me in a cockpit. *gg*
Lauren Dane
February 2
6:28 pm
Nora was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t.
The person who first wrote made it very personal and essentially accused Nora of having issues and needing to live through her characters.
For goodness sake, it’s a publicity photo. It says, “ooh, I’m hip and I write futuristics! Read this book!” It does not say, “i have mental problems and live through Eve Dallas”
I think the bigger your celebrity profile is, the more people want to rip you down. I think the “who me!” attitude of the original poster who pretended like she had no idea why Nora would be defending herself was ridiculous.
That said, I think Nora would have been better off ignoring it. It wasn’t worth her time and effort.
Anne
February 2
10:06 pm
Nora Roberts has a message board? Where is it located? And why did I not know about this? LOL Anyone with any info, I’d really appreciate it.. annejg24@gmail.com
Dakota Cassidy
February 3
12:41 am
you know what? I was thinking about the whole pic thing? Good hell, if I had to take a pic that looked like I was mimicking every one of my heroines, I’d be a vamp/supermodel/fairy godmother/hispanic/divorcee/witch/werewolf/secret agent/movie grip.
Just THINK of the wardrobe I could have. LMAO
Dakota 🙂
Robin
February 3
1:24 am
“The argument went on, and on, and effing on.”
Ah, just to clarify, the discussion actually went on and on and on WELL BEFORE Nora Roberts got on board. Like you, though, she seemed only to focus on my first post, which I composed hastily and not even thinking it was controversial. Why? Because my point, which, BTW, I clarified WELL BEFORE Roberts responded, was far more boring than that first one that some people are reading as so much more personal and inflammatory, especially dragged out of context like that. My much more boring point was simply that I think the marketing of the In Death books includes an invocation of Eve through the cover photos (a visual merging of author and character intended to make me identify the two more closely than I might otherwise) a tradition in some Romance marketing that I don’t really like. The photos are not how I envision Eve, either, but I’ve seen a number of people make the comparison, which made me look more closely at the pics than I probably would have otherwise. Luckily, enough people understood what I was trying to say, so I know that I made it clear at some point, but it’s probably not nearly as fun to respond to as that first post. I don’t blame you for not wanting to trek through the whole thread; it was a big drag for me, too, after a while. Ah, if I had only said, “Wow, I love that new photo –isn’t it cool how Roberts is dressed in such an Eve-like outfit and walking down such a NYC-like street!” The whole thing probably would have turned out differently.
“Actually, this debate started on an actual Nora Roberts message board and then moved to AAR.”
Really? Well, I guess that figures, since I was hardly the inventor of the idea that the pictures of “Robb” seemed very Eve-like. I’d heard it so often, in fact, that the idea that it was controversial completely shocked me.
“The person who first wrote made it very personal and essentially accused Nora of having issues and needing to live through her characters.”
I don’t want to word this rudely, but I know it’s going to come out this way, so I apologize in advance. I think what some people are saying about my initial post is itself a BIG over-reading and a mirror image of what I’m being accused of.
“. . .who the hell has time to think of shit like that and project such a bullshit theory onto an author. Blech.”
I understand this point, because I think this sometimes when people go on and on about who’s going to play Roarke in the movie, for example, or what kind of underwear he wears, or how whether Roberts should bring Eve’s mother back, etc. And if it makes you feel any better, it really didn’t take any time to notice what people were saying about the cover photos and making a general observation about how Romance is sometimes marketed.
Really, I don’t care if people take my first statement a certain way, or even if Nora Roberts did, since I made myself clear quickly enough, and I got some really thoughtful and articulate comments of understanding from people whose opinions I respect on that board. When I think, though, about all the comments I read on blogs, reader sites, etc., that any particular author might take personally if they decided to, I wonder if everyone who makes a provocative comment is ready — or should reasonably have to expect — to have a firestorm descend on them. And why, for example, some seem to think it’s okay to lash out at a reader, or perhaps even a less popular author (which I’ve certainly seen plenty of in my various treks through blogland), but not at Nora Roberts.
Desiree Erotique
February 3
1:32 am
Gods help those of us who have posed as our heroines!
The lady ought to be able to have any photo she wants on her own damned book and whoever takes issue with it needs to get a life.
Years ago I bought a copy of the original paperback version of Stephen King’s Misery. Talk about an author being transposed into their own story -very humorlessly, of course. But I’ve never read any complaints about Mr. King over that one! Is that because he’s a man?
Rosie
February 3
1:12 pm
I had some really good snark to add to this conversation. But most of my comments were about paying this much attention to something that should have been a passing comment. It just goes to show that our intent and meaning don’t always come across in our posts. It’s hard for me to believe this much attention is being paid to ANY author’s cover photo. At least it’s accomplishing one thing it’s supposed to…attention to the book.
Beverly
February 4
2:25 am
I guess I’m the only one who thinks this way, but I got the impression that the original comments were not at all personal, but meant to start a discussion on the marketing of romance and its authors. And though there may be many here who aren’t interested in talking about that, there are those (like me) who find those discussions interesting. That doesn’t mean that the ones who do enjoy those discussion have a problem or something to prove. To each her own.
Reese
February 4
4:16 pm
As the John Goodman character in “The Big Lebowski” would say: “that’s what you get when you fuck a stranger in the ass.”
Good for Nora – I love the way she doesn’t take any shit.