HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

Warning, the following post is long and rambling, and somewhat incoherent in places, but long over due, so if you want to avoid drama, you might want to look away now.

I don’t like Cindy Cruciger, and I never have, even during her more sycophantic phase, but I kinda accept that she’s just a foolish, bitter, malicious broad, who can’t see the wood for the trees, and who doesn’t seem to understand what the phrase, ‘get over it’, means.

She constantly bangs on about my evil ways, but what she fails to recognise is that her bestest friend, Ann Vremont, is without doubt, the most vile, and vicious person, most of us Romancelandia folk have ever come across in Blogland (or in real life come to think of it), bar none. That’s some feat, right?

Ann crosses so many lines it’s laughable, (see Revenge Greeting Card on right) and all the while, her best friend, Ferfelabat AKA Cindy Cruciger, cheers on her genius. Cindy thought the picture on the right was hilarious.

The more I look at this card the more I could see myself sending it to any one of several friends who are in fertility treatment hell just to make them laugh. There should be a guy version as well.

Yeah, because that would be so darn hilarious. Even if there was a liklihood that one’s friends would find it amusing, why would you even go there? Surely sending them a teddy bear and chocolates would be more effective?

Anyway, I had a bit of a confrontation with Cindy Cruciger over at Capo’s blog earlier this week. Basically, Cindy had gone onto the Pickled Cupid blog (formerly C’um Hither Global) , and accused them of taking the piss out of her dead father-in-law. In actual fact, they weren’t, and if she could have removed her ‘Karen Scott and everybody who likes, her must die’ head on, she’d have had a clearer picture.

If any of you read C’um Hither Global before Capo, Bailey and Peter closed it down, you’ll know that they basically take Romancelandia news, and poke fun at it. Anyway, Cindy took exception to this post, and said so, in her usual passive aggressive way.

Peter responded to her comment, and then she had this to say:

You are assuming “Karen Scott” is telling the truth. On the few occassions when she has posted supposedly “personal” things about herself, it was to get people who are commenting under their real names or verifiable pseudonyms, to reveal real conditions they have. She then uses it against them later in one of her hit posts.

Does that gal ever think of anything, other than me? I never imagined she was a woman who did drugs, but how else can one explain her wild ramblings? I’m trying to think of the last time, I asked readers to ‘reveal conditions they had’, and then went on to use it against them, and I admit, I keep drawing a blank. Anybody remember such an event? Cinny, help me out here.  Surely, this is the pot calling the kettle black? It begs the question, has Cindy Cruciger ever looked in the mirror, and seen herself, as she really is?

Anyway, she had lots more to say for herself:

The truth is, you have no idea if “Karen Scott” is even a she and you don’t know if “she” really has fertility issues. I think that if she does, it’s reprehensible to use it to lure in victims to use as blog fodder, which is why I wrote that post you so obviously took issue with. I’m sure there’s no need to personalize what you read there.

See what I mean? Wild rantings, with little or no relevance to anything. Yeah, I guesss I could secretly be a man, and yeah, I could have been making up the whole fertility thing, just to garner sympathy, because (run-on sentence ahead) that’s the kind of thing I do all the time. And I guess I could have been trying to get others to admit to their fertility problems, so that I could take piss out of them later. Hmmm… Smokescreen much?

I think Cindy Cruciger knows she did a bad thing, and now she’s trying to justify it. She trawls through my blog often enough to have found my not-so-upbeat posts, back when this blog didn’t have as many visitors as it does now.  She knows she was wrong to take the piss out of my fertility issues, and now she’s trying to pretend that what she said wasn’t one of the most vile things one human can say about another. Like I said to her, what she did was akin to me finding out that her hubby had been giving it to some young, slim, pretty thing (hypothetical you understand), and mocking her on my blog because of it. Any smart person would recognise, that most people at heart are mostly decent, and wouldn’t tolerate such a thing.

She goes on to add: (more…)

Some of you guys may remember that way back when (seven weeks, people!!!) I asked readers to share their perspectives on what types of promotion by new-to-them authors has worked for them, as readers.

What motivates you to give a new author a try?

How does often that translate into the discovery of a new “waiting to check out new releases asap” author?

So far, most of the responses to the original post were from authorsand while it’s true that writers are readers first, it’s my opinion that being published (e or print) colors their view of what truly works.

As emily veinglory said (at some point in the past over at ERECsite, I’m paraphrasing here), there’s many a new author who was completely unaware of even the existence of promotional materials (bookmarks, character cards, what have you), let alone the need to have any, until after they joined a professional writers’ organization. And once they did, they were told that these things a) are essential and b) work.

But do they? For Jane Ordinary Reader, do they really work?

So, I’m going to ask againeveryone, regular posters and lurkers who are readers:

Please post, either in this thread or in the original one, telling us what has worked for you. (If you are shy, you can always tell me privately at azteclady1 @ gmail.com)