Ann Jacobs On Beating Dead Horses…
Saturday, May 3, 2008Posted in: Ann Jacobs' idea of professionalism, Authors behaving like twits, e-pubbed authors behaving like fucktards?, hypocrisy
Thanks to Emily over at Erecsite, I came across this little gem from Ann Jacobs. Apparently, she’s still pissed at JC Wilder, and in her oh-so-passive-aggressive way, takes another swipe at Wilder, in a post entitled A Word On Pseudonyms.
She starts by explaining the reasons for her pseudonyms, and then she launches into the real reason for her post:
Some authors may use a pseudonym, or another one, because they’re writing books of a different type than what they’re best known for. In ebooks, authors may use two or more identities so it looks as if the “real” author isn’t putting out too many books.
Can you all guess where this is headed?
If I were to take a position in publishing other than as an author (which I’m not), I would use my legal name–all of it, not just my first name which happens to be “Ann”, with a made-up last name. I doubt, in that case, that any of my publishers or former publishers would fail to see that “their” author was working for a competitor in a position that might or might not show a potential conflict of interest.
Oh gee, I wonder who she’s referring to? Let me think…
Come to think of it, I would even *inform* all my publishers that I was taking this paid position with a competitor, before doing so. That’s because I would want no questions raised later if one of those publishers I wrote for sensed a conflict of interest on my part.
Seriously, could she be any more sanctimonious?
When someone comes up with another name (besides their legal one) without informing anybody–publishers, other authors, etc., it stands to reason that the “new” pseudonym wouldn’t be connected to the author’s original one(s), or to her legal name.
In a world where most business is conducted online, it’s quite reasonable that a potential conflict of interest can be cloaked until the author shows up at an in-person gathering of publishers and authors, and “outs” herself there.
And she calls herself a professional? Professional, my arse. Professional Suck-Up maybe.
Pseudonyms are good to hide behind if you don’t want your neighbors or your kids’ friends knowing how you earn your living. They’re bad when they cloak identities that will eventually be discovered once the person steps out and put a face to that name–a face that’s already known by another name, particularly.
Good grief. Indida’s infamous ‘Just write, bitch’ seems quite apt at this point.
Well, the wench was determined to become my Fucktard of The Week, and now she’s succeeded. I hope she feels honoured. Only very special people get on this list.
Emmy
May 3
11:23 am
By all accounts from those present, the ‘outing’ wasn’t an accidental slip of the tongue, which would suggest that the author in question wasn’t attempting to hide anything.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain the conflict of
interest here. If I recall correctly (ok, I went and counted), the author (do we have to keep calling her that instead of saying the name??) has 13 books/anthologies published with that house. Any attempt at corporate espionage would, by default, hurt her own sales and result in less money in her pocket. The proverbial cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Oh, and why are the books still available on the publisher’s website? It appears that while they are blocking her from super seekrit email loops, they aren’t adverse to making money off her. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that someone should be informed of business decisions affecting their book sales. If such info is disseminated via email loop, she should be a part of it.
Why not give her the book rights back and make a clean break???
And who appointed Ann to be EC’s flying monkey anyways???
Grrrly
May 3
11:27 am
Get your screenshots now folks! I suspect this post will go the way of her original “JC’s a big ol’ poopyhead” rant.
ilona andrews
May 3
1:57 pm
There are a dozen reasons why people use pseudonyms and the fact that she doesn’t mention the most obvious ones is telling.
1) Author’s name is too long, difficult to spell, doesn’t sound well, or is difficult to remember. Example: Samuel Langhorne Clemens vs Mark Twain. Pearl Gray vs Zane Gray. Carolyn Janice Cherry vs CJ Cherryh.
2) Author is writing in more than one genre and is “branding” the genres to the pseudonyms. Nora Roberts and JD Robb.
3) Author seeks to disguise the amount of his output in order to not oversaturate his own market by flooding it. Richard Bachman and Steven King.
4) Author becomes a “house name”, such as Carolyn Keene.
All of these are business decisions. They are why people most often get pen names.
Some of my friends write erotica and use pseudonyms simply because they are attractive women and some men tend to make assumptions about female erotica writers. But I’m not sure I have ever run across someone so embarrassed by what they wrote that they had to use a pen name. Her supposition that people who use pseudonyms are guilty of some nefarious wrongdoing strikes me as a bit odd.
You know, come to think of it, blocking this person from an internal publisher loop might be the result of a pending lawsuit Samhain has filed not too long ago. Unless I lost my marbles and getting my epublishers mixed up, which is always possible.
ilona andrews
May 3
2:14 pm
Correction: suit was filed by Christina Brashears, not Samhain Publishing – sorry, still my first cup of coffee.
Carolan Ivey
May 3
4:42 pm
[[“Just write, bitch.”]] Amen to that.
There is no conflict of interest here. I myself write under different names. I write fiction under a psuedonym for the same reason ilona states – privacy. Anyone who knows me personally knows my real name, so it’s not a big secret.
Like JC (and, pitiably, unlike some authors who clearly don’t have enough to do to fill up their time), I have more skills at my disposal than just writing fiction. I write technical materials, marketing copy, web content, articles, etc. under my real name. And yes, I have done contract work for various publishers of romantic fiction.
This is completely separate from my fiction writing, gains me no “ins” where submissions are concerned, and frankly it’s nobody’s business.
I write, and I get paid for my work because I’m damned good at it and I have kids to put through college and bills to pay. End of story.
Anyone who has a problem with that, you know what? I don’t care.
This is a non-issue, a big waste of time and energy, and it needs to die a merciful death.
Lori Foster
May 3
6:44 pm
I don’t want to call anyone names, even when annoyed.
But I don’t see why Ann won’t let this go. Surely she has to realize that she’s making it worse, not better.
Does she think this is gathering her respect within the industry?
More readers?
More author friends?
Or is it just EC loyalty she’s after? Is that enough? I wouldn’t bet on it. Seems to me EC can change loyalties quickly enough. Scary.
This is crazier than crazy.
Lori
Jennifer McKenzie
May 3
11:58 pm
Huh. I have a “pen name” because I decided fans of romantic suspense that was more “sensual” wouldn’t appreciate my erotic romance. So, I write erotic under one name and romantic suspense under my real name.
Shannon Dauphin
May 4
3:17 am
Same here. I write sweet romance under my name, and I have a pseudonym for my erotic romance. Readers have told me they prefer it that way, as they always know which side of the romance spectrum they are getting, but they also have the option of reading my other works if they are so inclined.
But to use it to hide something? No way. If you do a little digging into one of my names, you’ll quickly find the other. It’s the same for most authors who have more than one name, I think.
If publishers are really worried about it, they should take the time to do some of that digging. I personally don’t see where there’s any conflict of interest in the situation.
And I’m still confused as to why Ann Jacobs keeps harping on this. It’s unprofessional to the point of becoming personal — if I were EC, I would be less concerned about ‘conflict of interest’ and more concerned about reining in the author with an agenda.
Teddypig
May 4
6:15 am
I thought CJ Cherryh did that because she was in the early “only men write sci-fi” croud.
melisa
May 4
8:47 am
I have a friend that writes erotica novels and she uses a pen name. Her ‘day’ job, which is teaching, would have issues with her writing in erotica. So that is why her more erotic novels are under her pen name and her light romance is under her real name.
Lori Foster
May 4
1:20 pm
Didn’t Ann mention in the beginning of her post that authors use pennames to distinguish between different genres/voices? I thought she did.
I realize that wasn’t the point of her post, but I do think she covered that.
The part about hiding how many books get published… really? I hadn’t realized that. Does it concern some people?
Since first publishing way back in the stone age (remember, I’m old. LOL) I’ve routinely had 6 to 10 releases a year. In the early days, it was a mix of single titles, category and novellas. And then later when I moved completely to single titles, it was a mix of just single titles and novellas.
This year is the first year of my major “cut back,” and I still have 4 new releases – and a slew of reissues.
I hope to always have 3 new titles out: a new contemporary romance, a new urban fantasy/horror, and a “benefit” novella. (I, and other authors, donate all author and agent proceeds to worthy causes.)
I took my L.L. Foster name so as not to mislead readers into thinking my urban fantasy/horror books were romance. There’s romance in them, but there’s also a lot of blood and gore.
The whole point, to me, is that JCWilder (I don’t mind using her name. LOL) didn’t take a pseudonym to deceive anyone. EVERYONE knows that, despite claims to the contrary, made to justify behavior ill suited to professionals.
Lori
Throwmearope
May 4
3:59 pm
I think EC is letting Ann Jacobs act as a lightning rod for them. Unless her sales with EC are huge*, it’s probably not a big deal if she shoots herself (repeatedly) in the foot in the name of suck-uppery, er loyalty to the Epub. Then if her sales tank, they probably won’t be out all that much. If her sales are huge and she wants to keep them that way, she should stay out of the fray.
*I shopped at EC once then I had to go scrub my eyeballs. So I don’t know if Ann is a biggie over there or not.
Robin
May 4
4:10 pm
I think that’s become obvious to anyone paying attention. But let’s face it; this whole thing is nutty, from the idea that booting Wilder from that EC loop was a well-considered business decision to the way RT and EC have handled the general backlash from the event. Had EC simply ignored the Wilder post, no one would still be talking about this. Had EC and RT issued a simple apology to those attendees who felt that the conference was tacky, over the line, sexually inappropriate, porny, whatever, can you imagine the good will they would have engendered?
This is where, I think, you see clearly what SHOULD BE the differences between an organization and a blogger. People often blog because they have opinions and want to share them. While people in organizations have opinions, too, it’s not the primary role of a publisher or RT to offer an opinion about what went on in such a way that it offends, disenfranchises, or otherwise disregards the valid concerns of people who paid big bucks and time to attend their event — they’re supposed to be more generally representative than that (at least RT for sure). A simple apology — something like ‘we are so sorry anyone felt uncomfortable or that some of the program was inappropriate; we value everyone’s opinion on how to make the event better in the future’ — would have at least given the impression that they aren’t completely biased themselves. And would have, IMO, shown way more class than some of the event did, apparently. But neither they nor EC did that, and it doesn’t seem that they’re inclined to do so, which just seems stupid to me as a basic business/PR stance, since that kind of apology does not constitute an admission of guilt or a judgment on the validity of the complaints — it’s value neutral, which is why it is such an effective strategy.
Some kinds of discomfort you’re never going to be able to address. My understanding is that RT is kind of known for a certain level of raunchiness, so I think it’s inherent in the conference to some degree. Not everyone is going to be happy at such a large event — that’s a given. But if the conference is going to be taking on a certain personality from now on, then people deserve to know that before they make their plans to go. Of course the irony of what happened last year with Laura Baumbach’s material (apparently sexy is okay only as long as it’s of a certain orientation) doesn’t suggest that this will happen, but hey, maybe in the future people will feel more comfortable speaking up and out, now that Laura Baumbach, JC Wilder, Lori Foster and others have broken that initial taboo.
Lori Foster
May 4
4:52 pm
Good post, Robin.
I’d like to point out that EC didn’t “out” JCWilder’s blog, though. I think it was just an author who did that, right?
And that’s what started this whole zanniness. Otherwise, it would have all likely blown over by now.
Course, EC didn’t take the high road, once the blog was thrown out for all the whole to see. No, instead, they kicked Wilder to the curb, so… they got guilty real fast, imo.
And as to RT, I HAVE been contacted and I have been given an apology. I hold RT in the highest regard. They’ve always been very fair and honest with me.
I think, in this situation, they mean well.
If I was them, I’m not sure I’d want to get involved in these blogs either. That’s almost always a no-win situation.
Anyone with honest concerns should contact RT directly, and I bet their concerns would be addressed.
However, Katheryn Falk’s comment to the EC group rankled plenty of people – including me. If RT isn’t going to get involved, then don’t get involved. But that was taking sides, big time.
And I feel bad even about that because I’m not sure Kathryn entirely represents RT. I mean, is she responsible for coordinating the conference? No, I don’t think so.
The magazine? I’m not sure, but I think she’s left the handling of that to others.
She’s a founder, but at this point, maybe her endorsement isn’t that of the main RT staff? Possible?
Probably.
The thing about Laura Baumbach – I’m not up on that whole situation. Is there a link anywhere so I can check it out? I like to draw my own conclusions on things and not willy nilly condemn.
Thanks! And now, I’m off to write. Finishing the book has to come first, no matter how I enjoy visiting with you all here.
Lori
veinglory
May 4
5:13 pm
The manloveromance/baumbach thing was all over the internets a year ago: http://www.thisweekintexas.com/artman2/publish/Discrimination_Commentary/Author_Targeted_at_RT_Convention.php
Lori Foster
May 4
5:34 pm
Thanks Veinglory. I thought that was the incident, and only heard about it recently. Of course, the version I heard was totally different from that expressed in the article you linked.
If the poster shown is the one that was removed, then man, I was misled.
What shows in the article is DEFINITELY not as risque as MUCH of what is displayed at RT.
This has opened up so many twists and turns, I just don’t get it.
I wanted to add, before I really do get busy writing, that I don’t feel RT owes me an apology. It’s their convention and they can do it however they want.
It was that I felt I owed them an explanation as to why I couldn’t recommend it, and wouldn’t attend any more.
So I think we all have our perspectives on this.
Thanks for sharing that link. If I was that author, I’d want my regisration fee back too. I wonder if she ever did get it, or if any more ever came of it.
Anyone know?
Lori
Anon76
May 4
8:28 pm
Okay, I must speak up.
I am astonished to this day that people think that when the RT convention is booked at a certain hotel then that means it’s a private palace and be damned to any of the “outsiders” who happen to have innocently acquired rooms in said venue.
And… “Author row” is not a sacred place set aside for the convention attendees. That’s the whole point of the darn thing; to allow the attendees AND the general public access to promotional materials from authors and publishers, etc.
This is all before even the book signing events.
Now, I am not a prude by any means, but I can totally understand hotel upper-ups having the heeby-jeebies when they see the offerings now being set out at these conventions. The convention is there once, but they must deal with alienating others who may rent their rooms year after year, or dealing with very irate families who never knew their children would pick up a lolly-pop and find it to be a condom.
Again, these hotels are not a personal palace rented by RT. Other people room in them. Think on that before you go for the long grope.
anon
May 4
9:15 pm
Maybe Ann Jacobs won’t let it up because EC and RT don’t want her to. After all Jacob’s son is daughter the daughter of one of the RT head honcho’s. Whose got the conflict of interest now.
Anon76
May 4
9:33 pm
Um, last anon,
I have no clue what you are saying. Repeat?
Anon ROFL
May 4
9:44 pm
Ann’s son is the daughter of who?
Now THAT’s a plot twist.
veinglory
May 4
10:12 pm
The author row also had art with naked and hogtied females. Having a level of acceptable explicitness is fine–but it must be across the board and clear to participants in advance (i.e. before they pack their bags and bring stuff).
Lori Foster
May 4
10:24 pm
Did she maybe mean to say her son is married to the daughter of…
???
I agree that whatever the level of sensuality/explicitness of the promo stuff, it needs to be fair.
Lori
Robin
May 5
2:04 am
Yes, I understand that, Lori; all I meant was that EC should have just let it go, made no sign of any kind that it even knew of Wilder’s blog post, and certainly not banned her from an EC loop. Had they done what, you know, most businesses do when someone says something about them they disagree with, and just ignored it, they would have looked like a million times better, IMO.
And I’m glad you got an apology from someone at RT; I’ll bet it went a long way toward assuaging some bad feelings.
Emily Veinglory already said about the Baumbach situation what I wanted to. Except for the fact that I think it was pretty plain that Baumbach was singled out because her work was m/m instead of m/f. Oh, and Barbara Vey also blogged about it, confirming the poster in question. Anyway, I think part of Baumbach’s frustration was with HOW things went down, not just with what happened.
Regarding the controversy over whether the conference went over the lines of decency, class, personal dignity, whatever, I think it does, ultimately, come down to a combination of taste, expectations, interest, and sensitivity. Personally, I would not have any interest in attending a ROMANCE conference where the atmosphere was predominantly about oiled male chests and random gropes and simulated sex (even if no one’s top came off). I also wouldn’t want to attend a Romance conference where people simply sat around with cups of tea and scones and read passages from various novels in serious voices, pausing to glance over their serious eyeglasses. I don’t this this should be or is about Romance as high art v. Romance as porn, about a no sex environment or a sexually saturated atmosphere. IMO there’s a middle ground, and that’s what I hear most of the people who were uncomfortable this year saying — that this year’s event, FOR THEM, crossed some lines, whether they be the appropriateness of that particular 9/11 tribute or lap dances or mutual groping and moaning and dirty talk in semi or full public.
My own personal boundaries here are born not from prudery or even modesty, but from a sense of respect; gratuitous groping, grinding, and groaning from models, strippers, or whatever else these guys were doesn’t speak to me of high respect for women or for female sexuality, for that matter. Ditto the whole 9/11 thing. Others don’t feel that way. Fine. But IMO if most people are going to be attending RT for the more earthy delights, if that’s the direction the conference will embrace, then RT needs to be up front about that. Does that constitute a generally representative Romance conference for readers and authors and other industry professionals? I don’t think so, but, hey, attendance is hardly mandatory and RT runs the show (or should, anyway). But in any case, not feeling comfortable in a relatively sex saturated atmosphere at a Romance conference does not smack of prudery to me, any more than the unqualified enjoyment of the conference smacks of sluttishness.
Jaynie
May 5
8:25 am
just to help out anon 🙂
I met Ann’s son at RT. Pretty sure he said he was dating Jo Carol’s daughter. Jo Carol is the one who pretty much organises the whole convention
Karen Scott
May 5
10:43 am
Is that what some might call having a vested interest?
No wonder she seemed to take things so personally. She was trying to look good in front of her son’s girlfriend’s mother. What a total suck-up.
Anon76
May 5
12:57 pm
Yeah, Robin, I agree with you.
” Does that constitute a generally representative Romance conference for readers and authors and other industry professionals? I don’t think so, but, hey, attendance is hardly mandatory and RT runs the show (or should, anyway). But in any case, not feeling comfortable in a relatively sex saturated atmosphere at a Romance conference does not smack of prudery to me, any more than the unqualified enjoyment of the conference smacks of sluttishness.”
Speaking only for myself, my frustration comes in what I see as an “escalation” of crassness from year to year. A progression of sorts. As each incidence occurs with no repercussions, it opens the door for someone to try something even more daring the next time the conference rolls around. The line in the sand keeps moving.
Now while I don’t want to be considered as stuck in a time warp, that line is moving a little too fast for my tastes. I understand that it is optional to attend the EC party, but the action is spilling over into the public areas and that is unfair to other guests, be they conference attendees or joe schmoe and family.
Plus, all attendees are charged for these parties whether they attend or not. And let me tell you, food isn’t cheap to come by at these conferences. If dinner is served at a party, many will attend because they’ve already had to pay for it and they don’t have the expendable cash to hit a restaurant.
Perhaps it is time for RT to reconsider their conference fee structure, allowing attendees to pick and choose which events they want to attend, and hence pay for. Yes, I know that each of these events have a sponsor/sponsors, but I believe some part of the registration fee also goes to hosting these events. I could be very wrong, so if anyone is in the know, I’m willing to be corrected. I’m guessing that a portion of the fee is used in this manner because, at least in the past, you could purchase an extra ticket for one of these sponsored events.
Jaynie
May 5
2:19 pm
Anon76 – the EC party doesn’t include dinner so that isn’t an issue. They did have chocolate though – always a plus.
To be honest, the food at those parties isn’t normally so fabulous that it’s worth lining up for and then waiting until it gets served. I prefer eating elsewhere and then going to the parties later to dance.
Nora Roberts
May 5
2:52 pm
I was still writing for Silhouette when I started the In Death series as JD Robb. I felt no obligation to inform them I was taking another writing name with my other publisher. Why would I? What a silly thought.
I haven’t attended an RT con for a dozen years or so–for reasons of my own. The reports coming back in the last few years tell me I made the right decision–for me.
I agree with Lori. RT has a right to put on whatever kind of event they want. Maybe attendees should have a clue to the tone simply by the title of parties and workshops.
Oh, and I’m with Robin pretty much down the line. For me, it’s a matter of respect and image. I like fun. But I have lines I wouldn’t care to cross.
Anon76
May 5
4:02 pm
Nora said:
“I agree with Lori. RT has a right to put on whatever kind of event they want. Maybe attendees should have a clue to the tone simply by the title of parties and workshops.”
And I agree too, however…
There are other great parties and workshops there that aren’t in the “over the top” vein. Costumy for some of the parties? Yes. Risque for some of the workshops? Yes. But you can’t paint the whole conference with just one brush, unless…it all starts leaking from the seams. And it is soooooooo now leaking from the seams. LOL
Mayhap the best for some of us is to do as Lori has decided; that the aggravation isn’t worth the exposure. Which is a darn shame because it’s a great place to hook up with old friends and new readers.
Robin
May 5
4:52 pm
It sounds to me like the seams have split. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that reports from the conference, especially this year, seem to follow a similar trajectory as discussions about the direction of EC lately. Although it is interesting to see the tandem discussions, because some of the most open critiques of RT have come from people who have no interest either way in EC (i.e. “independent” observers).
I suspect that as long as Kathryn Falk is in so tight with EC, and as long as there are enough people who embrace (to whatever degree) the whole Caveman/cover model/male dancer aspects of the conference, it’s going to keep on moving in its current direction. And people will make their choices about whether or not to attend. And other PUBLISHERS will make those choices, too, whatever they may be, depending on whether they their interests are being met at the conference.
What hopefully the breaking of the bubble in terms of people feeling like they can question it, is just less of that bizarre forced conspiracy of silence, and ultimately, more choice for people who are trying to decide whether or not to attend. Some people obviously love where the conference is going, and some don’t, which is just as it should be, IMO. That may mean that RT becomes something wholly different in the next few years, and it may not.
What I find so utterly ridiculous, though, is the implication that anyone who isn’t into the more sexually saturated RT environment is a prude or doesn’t enjoy erotica or erotic Romance. I can think of numerous authors and readers of erotic Romance whose image is not at all in line with the EC/RT culture. I’d bet there are EC authors who aren’t into it, either. And there are obviously many who love the event whom I wouldn’t judge as skanky or slutty or whatever. To me, dismissing people’s concerns, and especially implying that they are prudish or hate sex or erotic material, is akin to all those accusations that Romance is nothing but trash.
It doesn’t completely surprise me, but it does disappoint me that a publisher and the CEO of RT seem to have fallen right into line with those insinuations, and I know there are people who will feel too uncomfortable to complain after those statements (isn’t that the point of them?), which is too bad. People can disagree and have totally different perceptions of the same event, and that doesn’t mean that either of them is wrong or that there’s something wrong with them. It just means that people have different expectations and interests and ideas about what a mainstream Romance conference should offer and represent to the entirety of its attendees.
See, this is the problem with taking such a hard line position — it’s very difficult to escape the double standard/hypocrisy trap. I mean, can you really call someone else deceptive about disclosure when there was no disclosure from Jacobs about this? Or argue so certainly about a conflict of interest when one could easily argue the same thing here? I mean, if Jacobs were to argue — which I presume she would — that she wasn’t trying to deceive anyone, that this was common knowledge, why should anyone assume that Wilder wasn’t in precisely the same place (it was common knowledge, no intent to deceive, etc.)?
Anon76
May 5
5:47 pm
“See, this is the problem with taking such a hard line position — it’s very difficult to escape the double standard/hypocrisy trap. I mean, can you really call someone else deceptive about disclosure when there was no disclosure from Jacobs about this? Or argue so certainly about a conflict of interest when one could easily argue the same thing here? I mean, if Jacobs were to argue — which I presume she would — that she wasn’t trying to deceive anyone, that this was common knowledge, why should anyone assume that Wilder wasn’t in precisely the same place (it was common knowledge, no intent to deceive, etc.)?”
AMEN
Anon78
May 5
6:11 pm
Instead of celebrating female sexuality, the entire erotica / erotic romance subgenre as promoted by EC has turned into some kind of weird dichotomy of its writers and readers and the others. Except this time instead of the usual madonna / whore, we have prude / slut.
Robin
May 5
11:29 pm
I think some of this is the product of ye olde debates over the relationship between erotic Romance and so-called “mainstream” Romance — that is, the arguments of certain folks that erotic Romance isn’t really Romance, or that it degrades the genre, or that it’s over the edge, etc. And I understand the feeling of defensiveness that has developed in certain erotic Romance circles.
BUT, the comments here and elsewhere aren’t coming from that camp or that POV. We’re not dissing the sex, just saying that there can be a middle ground here, a Romance conference with, you know, Romance as well as sex. Which is why the dichotomy you’re talking about it so inaccurate — even though it seems to be applied indiscriminately these days to any POV that doesn’t conform to a certain party line.
The question I would ask is whether people really feel that bringing these guys to the conference and focusing it so heavily on the related entertainment is REALLY pro women, pro female sexuality, and pro Romance. THAT, I think, is really where a lot of the difficult and uncomfortable questions and issues lie.
veinglory
May 5
11:43 pm
I am one of the biggest supporters of the legitmacy of erotic romance and just plain erotica. I, personally, don’t think that has anything to do with it. I write sexy books but I don’t go anywhere dressed in a bikini and never have and never will fondle anyone in a public elevator. The genre is the words printed on the page and the covers printed on posters–not a performance art. Erotic authors don’t need to fondle nekkid men anymore than romance authors need to ride in on a white horse to the sound of harp music.
RT - Why do you go? Does something need to change? « Jaynie’s Place
May 6
3:14 am
[…] 6, 2008 @ 10:14 am } · { Uncategorized } { } There’s an interesting debate over at Karen’s right now on behavior at RT – you’ll need to scroll down to the bottom half of the comments […]
Jaynie
May 6
3:22 am
Brat 🙂 …and I just wrote a long post on my blog about it, and if I’d waited a few minutes I could have just said: “I agree with Shi.”
And, Nora and Lori – I totally get the professional thing. I guess as a reader, I’ve just never really thought about that before, but I totally recognise that authors need to think about their image on all occasions.
So although I can ignore most of the things that cross my lines, thereby still having fun, I can’t ignore authors I like not turning up because of it. That will then affect my experience.
Shiloh Walker
May 6
3:48 am
Heh.
Shiloh Walker
May 6
3:49 am
Ooooohhhhh…. that’s good, since I write both, it would be awkward to both fondle and ride while listening to harp music.
😉
In all seriousness, a very good point, Emily.