Now you can infer that Lisle means the buyer is uneducated and uninterested from that, if you like, but it’s *your* inference.

Of course that’s an inference. But here’s the thing, Chris: Lisle’s statement was an inference, too. As was yours.

That’s been my whole point; Lisle’s statement was itself interpretive and conclusory. It wasn’t suggestive (“perhaps Corporate Buyers . . . “), it wasn’t speculative (“I wonder if Corporate Buyers . . . “), it wasn’t qualified (“In my personal experience . . .”). It may be a conclusion drawn from Lisle’s experience, and she is absolutely entitled to her opinion. But the fact remains that it was an opinion presented in the guise of a fact (and yes I’m aware that’s an inference). The entire post, in fact, is stated as a foregone conclusion, which Lisle obviously believes to be the case. But just because she believes it doesn’t make it a) true for everyone, and b) expressed in a way that makes her universally understood.

I wouldn’t think that Holly would have to baldly state the obvious fact that no one, no single human being on Earth could *possibly* read every single book published in a year, even in one genre, unless they were a) a prodigious speed-reader, and b) had nothing else to do with their time.

But why would a corporate buyer have to read every single book in order to look at said books as more than cans of tuna. I haven’t read every book in a bookstore, but I certainly don’t look at books as the equivalent of canned tuna. She made a judgment call there. Again, a chain of inferences, beginning with Lisle’s.

but if it’s the experience of enough midlist authors that a clear and obvious trend shows up, and if a number of professional editors have stated to those authors that this is what happened, and why, then I’m willing to their word for it, until someone can show me some evidence that disproves it.

The key is that you “have to take [her] word for it” — but not everyone does. In the same way that not everyone, including you or Lisle, have to agree with the way I read her piece. I just don’t appreciate being referred to (however indirectly) as sloppy or stupid in my reading skills, or willfully misrepresentative in my inferences.

can you seriously be saying that you believe that Ms. Little writing about Lisle in a blog post under the heading “Authors Behaving Badly" is somehow not calling Holly’s behavior into question?

To be honest, I didn’t even notice that, as it was printed in such small font. I read Jane’s reaction to Lisle’s rant as one aimed entirely at her rhetoric and her points. All I can do is speak for myself and say that I didn’t consider the issue one of behavior until Lisle came over here and started calling those of us who read her piece a certain way “sloppy readers” — and yes, I absolutely think that was directed at me or anyone else who read Lisle’s blog post in a differing way. We were considered either under the influence of the Ja(y)nes or we just couldn’t read right. If Lisle didn’t intend THAT to cause offense, her sense of reality is irreconcilably different than mine.

I won’t suggest that Jane’s post wasn’t provocative and strongly worded itself. I won’t suggest that Lisle should have been thrilled to read it or that she shouldn’t have responded in whatever way felt comfortable to her. I’ve been spoken of badly and in ways I think are completely unfair on the Internet, and I’ve had more than one scuffle with an author who didn’t like what I had to say about her work. We all can react defensively when we feel we aren’t being understood, and I’m willing to cut an author a good deal of slack in those circumstances. One of my favorite authors has come off, IMO, as oversensitive and defensive on occasion, and while I wince a little when I see it, I figure the upside of that oversensivity is a wonderfully written, empathetic book. I’ve responded defensively in certain situations, as well.

But I’m not here complaining about how I’m losing the goodwill of readers because of the opinion of one blog commentator. Lisle certainly has the right to be a complete raving bitch if she wants, and she can feel justified six ways to Saturday while she rants on and on. My point is fundamentally that for me, if anyone alienates me from Lisle’s fiction, it is going to be Lisle herself if she keeps on, not the Ja(y)nes. All Jane’s original post did was get me over to Lisle’s site and pique my interest in Talyn. Ironic, huh?

I totally prematurely ejaculated my “good will toward men" in the month of November instead of saving it up for “this time of year."

Oh man, I think I like this lady more and more already.

So no matter how the Ja(y)nes act, Holly is supposed to be polite, patient and be completely perfect? That totally goes against everything I was ever taught by my parents, and it goes against everything that this time of year stands for.

:::blink,blink:::
*hand clap* You almost had me. I was thisclose to feeling guilty about my upbringing but common sense reared it’s ugly head yet again.

Are you saying that one is only supposed to be nice and kind if one has something to gain?

One doesn’t have to be nice at all, but I think Karen was saying that Lisle had more to lose in this exchange.

About those emoticons…can we have ones with bloodshed and straightjackets? And maybe one that moons?

it is so sad…

As for the holidays – I was right cheerful for three Mondays and two weeks in November. You just missed it. I totally prematurely ejaculated my “good will toward men” in the month of November instead of saving it up for “this time of year.” It will part of my New Year resolution – save up good cheer for December.

why should Lisle be the only one in this brouhaha who’s expected to be polite and patient.

Erm, cuz she has books to sell, and the Ja(y)nes don’t?

Just sayin.[/quote]

Okay, without being rude, that post doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying that one is only supposed to be nice and kind if one has something to gain? Because that is what it sounds like. So no matter how the Ja(y)nes act, Holly is supposed to be polite, patient and be completely perfect? That totally goes against everything I was ever taught by my parents, and it goes against everything that this time of year stands for.

why should Lisle be the only one in this brouhaha who’s expected to be polite and patient.

Erm, cuz she has books to sell, and the Ja(y)nes don’t?

Just sayin.[/quote]

Word.

why should Lisle be the only one in this brouhaha who’s expected to be polite and patient.

Erm, cuz she has books to sell, and the Ja(y)nes don’t?

Just sayin.

Given the number of people who have “misinterpreted” Holly’s initial post, clearly there’s something in the way it was written that did not come across the way she intended.

In any online debate/arguement/whathaveyou, intent is extremely hard to communicate. What you mean really doesn’t matter if you communicate it poorly. So regardless of whether she meant corporate buying policies or not, using emotionally charged language like “villain” and “kill” and “slaughter” made people believe that she was on the attack. She made the good vs. evil analogy with her white vs. black hats thing. When one starts throwing around absolutes, people tend to take sides.

But it is her opinion and she is entitled to that opinion.

The thing that gets me about this whole issue is not the fact that she appears to be throwing a fit over people misunderstanding her. It’s understandable. Who likes to be misunderstood? No, it’s the way she’s handled it.

If she’s truly been misunderstood, why is it not acceptable to simply *say* that, and let it go. “You’ve misunderstood what I intended. Here’s my explanation.” She’s gone steps beyond that and said that those who didn’t get the gist of her rant are sloppy readers and implied that they are too stupid to understand. She also believes, apparently, that those who misread her post in the same way (which seems to be quite a few of us) are all being encouraged to do so by Jane and this website. Her loyal fans continue to pound on this point, as if none of us have the ability to think or rationalize for ourselves, but must be led by the nose.

I have to say, I was in a chain bookstore. I saw Ms. Lisle’s book, which admittedly sounds like it would be my thing, and I didn’t buy it, specifically because of this whole battle. Not because of her opinion on the corporate buying policies of chains, but because she has so little respect for her potential audience.

If anyone’s damaging Ms. Lisle’s career over this, it’s her, in my opinion. And her more ardent fans. I mean, come on. The Al Qaeda of the blog world?

Being a fellow “sloppy reader” I figured I was the only one who “thought” (Oh my, I can’t think for myself either right?) the whole counter arguement being spun up here was resting on my fine woolly features.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Where’s the manger?

the hyperbole and half-truth was cheered

Oh that is good, you would think we (the ignorant readers) did not follow the links and actually read anything. Next time just stick your tongue out Chris it saves space.[/quote]

No, TeddyPig, I’m think Chris had it dead on. He’s absolutely right.

I only felt it necessary to respond because she was asking for action to be takend in her emails. I complied with a retraction of the one “fact” I believe I did get in error. But, I did not issue an apology or retraction of the remainder of my comments because I believe them to be true even today.

Anyone is free to disagree and that is the purpose of the comments section. we have never deleted a comment, unless it is spam, and we would never do that. If a commenter wants to use perjoratives, ad hominem attacks or anything, even that is permissible because discourse without disagreement often leads to a deadening of the intellect.

I truly believe that every reader of this blog is intelligent enough and independent enough to form their own opinions. To suggest that the readers are sheep, bound only by my opinion, is not only insulting to the readers but also untrue.

the hyperbole and half-truth was cheered

Oh that is good, you would think we (the ignorant readers) did not follow the links and actually read anything. Next time just stick your tongue out Chris it saves space.

What about when she refers to the Corporate Buyer as uneducated about and uninterested in the books he/she is ordering (“looks at the books as no different than Cans of Tuna, Brand A”)?

but Lisle never said the Corporate Buyer was uneducated about and uninterested in the books he/she was ordering — what she said was:

who almost certainly hasn’t read the book, hasn’t talked to a single reader about the book, and looks at the book as no different than Cans of Tuna, Brand A,

Now you can infer that Lisle means the buyer is uneducated and uninterested from that, if you like, but it’s *your* inference. I wouldn’t think that Holly would have to baldly state the obvious fact that no one, no single human being on Earth could *possibly* read every single book published in a year, even in one genre, unless they were a) a prodigious speed-reader, and b) had nothing else to do with their time.

Certainly the corporate buyers for the largest bookstore chains in the country can’t, not and still have time to discharge any of the duties of his or her position. As far as I know, the closest any chain buyer has come to such a feat was when Stephen Pagels was the buyer for SF/Fantasy at B. Dalton, and he was soon replaced by someone who ordered by the numbers.

As to your second point:

What about when she indicates that only a “miracle” will “force corporate bean counters to take notice” of a midlster’s book? Or how “co[u]nless indies have handsold the books in mad numbers, Midlist Writer’s editor will look at the Midlist Writer Death Spiral” and if said writer is “unlucky,” then “Midlist writer will then have to go out into the world to find a new publisher, and every potential new publisher will look at Midlist Writers last numbers and say, “No, thanks.”

Holly is only stating what happened in her career and the careers of a fair number of other midlist writers of her acquaintance, as well as what she was told by her editors at the time. Maybe “it’s not the indisputable truth in any empirical sense”, as you state later on, but if it’s the experience of enough midlist authors that a clear and obvious trend shows up, and if a number of professional editors have stated to those authors that this is what happened, and why, then I’m willing to their word for it, until someone can show me some evidence that disproves it.

You ask:

Why wouldn’t she want to impress said readers with a polite and patient explanation of her (in her mind) *real* point and thus open up a discussion here about said point?

to which I can only reply, why should Lisle be the only one in this brouhaha who’s expected to be polite and patient. Ms. Little’s opening salvo here was at least as over the top as anything Ms. Lisle posted, but here the hyperbole and half-truth was cheered. Do you always respond to what you see as harsh treatment by being polite and patient? If so, you’re an exception, especially on the internet, where blatant rudeness is more the rule than the exception.

And as to the fabulously ridiculous statement

her “behavior” was never in question until she started tossing out accusations

can you seriously be saying that you believe that Ms. Little writing about Lisle in a blog post under the heading “Authors Behaving Badly” is somehow not calling Holly’s behavior into question?

To make matters worse, when Lisle responds on her blog to the content of Little’s post, the readers of this blog pile on here as though Holly’s comments were directed at *them*, not at DA. Is it *really* possible that Lisle is the first author to feel justified in defending their position when accused by the high and mighty Ja(y)nes of “behaving badly”?