I’m not an AA fan. I loved Winter Garden, read and didn’t care for her next few, and haven’t read any of her novels in several years. So, I’m definitely not a fangirl coming to her rescue. I remember reading the champagne flute post on AAR. I thought it was silly to even post about such a detail. Then AA responded and the stuff hit the fan.

In general, it’s a bad idea for authors to respond to critisism on message boards. Unless they are completely obsequious and claim mea culpa, they can’t win. Any attempts to defend or explain almost always result in being accused of defensiveness, disrespect of the reader, etc. I’m amazed at how personally people take this stuff. Knowing AA had been around the block, I was surprised she kept posting and posting in the AAR thread. I would have expected her to see that there was nothing she could do to salvage the situation — the only damage control was to bow out of the thread. Given that, I was even more surprised to see her post here.

That’s one of my main points — unless they are prepared to basically say they made a mistake, it was careless, they will try not to do this in the future, and thank the posters for bringing it to their attention, an author should not jump into reader threads critical of their books — unless, of course, they like to brawl. :)

My other main point was this Dear Author entry. I’m sure the author of it thinks it’s witty and clever — but it didn’t work for me. It strikes me as junior high mean girl writing. I outgrew that about 25 years ago. Today, as a grown woman, I respect people who can be strong and assertive and confrontational, all the while keeping it above the belt. That’s impressive and constructive. This piece was neither.

We're only getting the author's take on how “characters *of a different time and place* live a life.” It's one person's interpretation, based on how they view that period, what facts or research they believe to be important enough to include in the story.

Absolutely. It’s always an interpretation and translation, and as Anon76 said, the author has a difficult balancing act between what she sees through her characters and what the reader will see. As, I suppose do ALL authors, and I think we could make some interesting observations about realism in contemporary Romance, as well.

This is why I don't necessarily think that not valuing all levels of accuracy=don't give a shit about the readers/genre. Those authors are writing their stories for a particular type of reader, one that may value the h/h in pretty dresses and Hyde Park pageantry over period-appropriate dyes for clothing. Their focus is different, but it has a place in the genre. It doesn't mark the degradation of it.

Oh, I totally agree that the genre has room for all sorts of books, and just because one author’s vision of historical Romance is not another’s (or particular readers), it doesn’t mean the genre has jumped into the proverbial hand basket to hell. And if you thought that was the point I was making, then I wasn’t clear. I can’t list all the books I’ve read and loved that don’t replicate a perfect historical vision, starting with the great Windflower (let’s have a go at pirates as the perfect democracy, for example, and then move on to Rand Morgan as a revision of Prospero).

I think the essence of my frustration and objection to Ashworth’s most recent and past appearances on the AAR board are connected to what you referred to as “her fans” or what I’d call “her readers.” Isn’t that kind of a strange concept when you think about it? Who are an author’s readers? Is it an exclusive club that one must join? Does the author get to decide or the reader? And if an author decides you’re not her reader, does that give her permission to publicly post your private email? Does it give her permission to say to you, “Since you think you know the English language so well, please, write a book yourself. It’s not as easy to do as you may think”? Or to accuse you have having “an agenda” or of not reading the genre the right way?

Of course any author is entitled to those views, and she can even express them, but if she does so publicly on a reader board, several times over, I’m going to register my reaction that I think they’re really insulting. And as much as I understand the fan-centric culture in Romance, to me, reading a book makes me that book’s reader. Period. In fact, if I’ve ever articulated something along the lines of “I’m not the reader for this book,” I realize now that I don’t really believe that. A book may not speak to me, but if I read it, I believe I’m that book’s reader. Because in the most literal sense I am.

Now an author may not perceive me as “her reader,” which seems quite natural and logical to me. I wouldn’t expect anything less or more of an author to be thrilled by and to embrace those readers who love and understand her books as she hopes they will (and privately curse, rail against, and perhaps even mock those readers who don’t appreciate her genius). Although again, I think there’s more than a few steps between embracing those readers who get your work and suggesting that those who don’t aren’t reading the genre correctly or appreciating it properly.

But essentially, this is really about differing paradigms — about my paradigm and Ashworth’s. About your paradigm and mine. About the belief each of us obviously holds that the other is not recognizing what is so clear to each of us. Obviously this is a hot button for me — this sense I’ve been getting from authors (and readers) that if you don’t read the genre a certain way you’re not a “real” fan of the genre (and obviously it’s not just this latest scuffle that informs my feelings on the subject). And hey, I readily admit that that frustrates me as someone who spends a lot of money on books, a lot of time reading, and a lot of thought writing reviews and commentary. For nothing more than the love of reading, of books, of thinking and talking about books and reading.

That doesn’t mean I think authors should just suck it up or “shut up and write” or stay silent in public forums. It doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t criticize or disagree with me or with Jane. Hell, Jane and I disagree readily enough on various topics and approaches to things. Had we been in the same room during the great HEA debate, there may have been some violence involved, lol. But jeez, when I’ve bought one book or three of an author’s books in a row, it stings just a tad to feel that I have to read them a certain way or face her public wrath.

It's just that for me, the more I feel transported into a different world, in which the characters function as part of that world, the more likely I am to suspend disbelief. That doesn't mean I'm looking for a textbook, just that for me characters should emerge from the setting of a book, not be pasted onto it.

I agree completely. I'm more drawn to these types of historicals than the wallpapers. But a story can win me over despite the tacked-on sense of history. Not right now, though. I'm burned out on the sameness of the historicals, and am currently reading outside the sub-genre.

All I know is that for me, reading historical Romance is a chance to see characters *of a different time and place* live a life I'm getting a window into through the book. And while it's obviously not all about history, I think history plays a significant role as a conversation an author of historical Romance participates in to some degree.

We're only getting the author's take on how “characters *of a different time and place* live a life.” It's one person's interpretation, based on how they view that period, what facts or research they believe to be important enough to include in the story. This is why I don't necessarily think that not valuing all levels of accuracy=don't give a shit about the readers/genre. Those authors are writing their stories for a particular type of reader, one that may value the h/h in pretty dresses and Hyde Park pageantry over period-appropriate dyes for clothing. Their focus is different, but it has a place in the genre. It doesn’t mark the degradation of it.

I can't even say I'm sorry for making Ashworth feel bad because that would be hypocritical. I know that when you make light of someone that feelings are bound to be hurt, just as I know when I write a negative, scathing review that someone's feelings may be hurt. It is not my intention to directly cause hurt feelings but I realize that a byproduct is hurt feelings. I don't know if I am explaining this very well. I don't think about the author when I write my reviews or my LOP because I think if I did, I would be contributing nothing – in essence I would be Harriet Klausner.

I enjoy mockery, satire, and dark humor. It's fun, entertaining, and feels almost righteous when directed at someone or -thing that really deserves it. In this case, I just felt that your target didn't deserve the mockery. I dunno know, maybe if you'd stuck to the theme of the “Long Goodbye,” I would've been more receptive. But your focus was obviously on the “taking readers to task” angle of Ashworth's comments. And I didn't have a problem with those comments because I believe I understood where she was coming from.

Ashworth's voice and style jangle my nerves, so I'm not her audience. To the extent that she takes too much license with history, perhaps sticklers for accuracy aren't her audience either. If that's her writing POV, it's logical to me that she would say that some ask for too much. Even as I partly disagreed with her, I still thought her points reasonable. Plus, the tone of her posts made clear that she really does give a damn about her fans and her research-’whatever the accuracy in her books! So taken as a whole, yeah, I felt your rhetoric didn't match the actual situation.

And because it was the mockery that missed, it felt like a sledgehammer taken to a situation that really didn't call for it, making the attack come off as more personal than it would've otherwise. It's like with insult comedians: Sometimes, the humor's really on and it works; other times, the jokes aren't funny, they're just mean.

And this?

I oftentimes forget that DA and its writers are held to a higher standard of blogging because of the large audience. I need to accept that and work to meet that high standard – whatever that may be.

Well played;). DA has earned a level of credibility and respect from both readers and industry insiders. It’s up to you and your fellow writers how you use what you’ve earned.

Do you want to know the sad truth?

Let me start out by saying, I am not speaking for all authors, everywhere. I can only speak for, oh, let’s say for example, me. But I think I may be average, (which is pretty scary, from this end).

Authors google themselves.

It’s not really in an attempt to feed our ravenous egos. It’s really just a general attempt to keep track of our career, coupled with curiosity to know what people are saying about the latest book, and if anyone but our mother is reading it,

coupled by ego.

But you can set up Google alert to mail you, whenever your name is mentioned. And then, if you want, you can go and look. And if the reviews have lots of stars, and the news is all glowy and wonderful, then we dance around the office, and show the kids, until they say, ‘Jeez, Mom. Stop it. This is creepy.’

And if the news is bad? We get what we deserve for looking, I suppose.

If we were actually demi-deities, if we saw something we didn’t like, we would immediately shake it off, and move on. But we aren’t gods. We’re (and by this, I mean I) are often those day-dreamy, sort of geeky introverts from Jr. High. Only now, we have publishing contracts.

And although, from reader to author, it looks like we should be secure and ‘professional’ when we are the topic of conversation, there is a certain level of freak-out in knowing that people we don’t know from Adam, are talking about us at all.

I’m never going to say that readers, fans and bloggers shouldn’t be allowed to talk. Although I have listened in on discussions (about other authors, thank God, and not acusing this site of any such thing) that included insults to dyed hair, and a critique of the Photoshopping on back cover photos. Stuff that did not involve the books at all. Stuff that was gossip, pure and simple.

Really, you can, and will, say whatever you like. People are curious. And people talk. That’s the way of the world. And I’m not going to swear that I never gossip, and am too mature to listen to it. That would be a total lie.

It’s just that you may think you’re talking in private. But the person you’re talking about is often standing right in front of you, listening to every word. Unless you ban all authors from your blogs, we will be sitting at our desks every day, reading for entertainment and to keep abreast of the industry (since you usually get the important news before we do). And we read the reviews and comments to see what you are saying about our friends, about our enemies, and about us.

And while, as bloggers, you may feel like fan writers, there are some blogs that end up being more like the varsity cheerleading squad. It’s great to have them on your side, but hell on earth if they don’t like you.

I’m really hoping I’ll always go for the ‘drink heavily and whine in private to friends’ route. But knowing that a negative discussion might blind-side me someday, I can also sympathize where the mildly defensive rant, or the full on, train-wreck, psycho meltdown, comes from.

Nowadays, it is true than any publicity is good publicity. When I go to Borders, the shelves are glutted with new Romances and aside from a very small and select list of authors that I buy because of previous good books, I find it difficult to wade through book after book to choose one I will pay money for. Developing emotional relationships with consumers is a great marketing strategy (read Anne Elizabeth Moore’s “Unmarketable” for a fascinating examination of that marketing trend) but in the end I am a poorish college student with eight dollars in my pocket and seven hundred near-indistinguishable books in front of me. A book that sparks any sense of recognition in me, even if it’s negative recognition, warrants a closer look. I’ve bought numerous books based off negative word-of-mouth publicity and enjoyed them and gone on to buy many more books from those same authors. When a book is vigourously debated on the AAR boards, or sets off a flurry among the blogs, I’m generally left curious about what all the fuss was about and willing to spend my money on the book in question.
I will add a caveat to this wonderful-for-authors phenomenon. The free publicity generated among networks of romance-fans who are willing to buy books, romance-fans who lurk at AAR and read two or three blogs on a regular basis, is something that no publisher can buy and no advertiser can replicate. We not only buy books ourselves, but we also encourage our not-quite-so devoted friends to read and buy! new and out-of-the-way romances themselves. But nothing leaves me, as a reader and a book-buying person of reasonable intelligence, colder than being scolded by an author online. I have been at the fringes of numerous author scolds, and I’m always surprised when some interesting and out-of-the-way (and free publicity-generating!) conversation I’m having online with other readers attracts an angry and defensive author. It is rather like suddenly facing the wrath of some demi-deity who has come to smite you from on high! (I like the word smite. Is the past tense smote? I wonder…) One example stands out clearly for me. There was an enormously silly flameout on the AAR boards between two authors of dubious emotional stability. In the course of the brouhaha (yet another word I write with fondness) one of the authors belittled all of the readers who voiced expectations for historical accuracy in romance novels. Her tone was sneering and her words were written to make me feel stupid. I don’t know her from Adam. I certainly cannot hold her accountable to any reasonable standards of courtesy. All I can do is never, ever again pay money for any of her books (and you can bet your bottom dollar I don’t) and never, ever recommend her books to friends. A small drop in the bucket I’m sure, as she repeatedly reminded all of the people present on the board that she was Ms. Hot Stuff and sold large amounts of all her books and was on all sorts of fancy lists, but it soothed my wounded pride.

That’s the way your average reader (not a big name blogger or an industry insider or another author) experiences all of this silliness.

BTW, the florid rhetoric, the melodramatic monologues, and the ironic invocation of Godwin’s Law (aka Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies) has provided enormous free entertainment for an apartment full of college girls taking their finals. As we’re probably younger than the majority of y’all and thus are looking up to you to set an example and all that, all I can say is, “For shame!”

And sometimes that whole “channeling” thing gets you in trouble. You get so immersed in your character’s head that you “see” things the way they do.

A simple “for instance”. If you write about a woman in say, 14th century England, and she’s lived a life without the frills, perhaps on a farm or something, well she has a different take on the world. Now, at this point in time, many new dye techniques were in use (many introduced by travels to other lands). So, for this woman, to travel to court and see all the new colors and fabrics would be a wondrous thing.

Do these colors and fabrics match what we have today? No way. But to her they are as vibrant as the colors of the rainbow.

For a writer, the trick is in trying to bridge the gap between our modern sensibilities, and the historic ones. To bury the reader so far into your world that these things are easily accepted.

And boy howdy! That’s tough. LOL.

Go too far and you look as if you are slapping the canvas with modern paint. Not far enough and the reader isn’t engrossed in the time period.

A tricky tight-rope, but one I will forever try to walk because I adore the genre. (You can probably guess that it is also my favorite genre to read. Wink.)

I'll be interested in next week's post on accuracy in historicals.

Actually, Seressia, next week’s column will be on reader expectations in general, although it will dovetail with some of the issues in this discussion. I’m sure, though, either Jane or I or both or someone will write a column on historical accuracy sooner rather than later.

I've learned one very important thing when it comes to historical research. You can chase for truth forever, and still not be 100% certain that what you are about to write is correct.

Absolutely. As a literary and cultural historian, I really do understand this, and I think in some ways it creates dual expectations in me as a reader. On the one hand, I know how hard it is to represent history in a way that’s “accurate” (since so much IS a matter of interpretation and POV). But OTOH, I expect that authors who choose to write historical fiction — Romance or otherwise — do so because they love history and have immersed themselves in the period that theoretically gives birth to their characters and story. Part of which means doing some of the heavy lifting of historical research, IMO.

However, because so much in history IS about who’s saying it and why, no author is going to get it 100% “right” — it’s impossible. But, I think that a book can reflect an engagement with the history, a place in the conversation of history, so to speak. Which may mean a kind of holistic view drawn from multiple (not EVERY, mind you) sources that shows that the author has engaged herself in the dialogue around a certain place and time. And I think that comes through in the writing, the characterization, and the plotting, as well as the setting details. Not that it always succeeds for the reader, but I think it can create that sense of “atmosphere” people are talking about.

I don’t know if this is an example of what I mean or not, in Ashworth’s Duke’s Indiscretion, the heroine is an opera singer with a grand passion for that art. The book is dedicated to Ashworth’s grandmother, an opera singer and “my favorite vocal instructor.” And that dedication made great sense to me after reading the book, because all the details around the opera house, the music, the singing were rendered with such passion and care. Those were the passages in the book that I really enjoyed reading, because they stood out to me and took me to that place being described. I have no idea if they were “accurate,” but they sure did engage me, in part because at those points the book felt so engaged to me.

The relationship between history and Romance is obviously extremely complicated, not only because of the history itself, but also because of the author’s vision, the book itself, and the readers’ reactions. All I know is that for me, reading historical Romance is a chance to see characters *of a different time and place* live a life I’m getting a window into through the book. And while it’s obviously not all about history, I think history plays a significant role as a conversation an author of historical Romance participates in to some degree. The exact degree is up to the author, and god knows I’ve enjoyed a number of books that are quite lite on the history, because they’re roaring good reads, and more often than not, they capture some sense of history, either because the authors has been super-lucky in channeling, super-skilled in crafting, and/or familiar enough with the history to render some essence that feels authentic to the reader.

That champagne flutes are important to some readers is clear, and I think we all have those things that we do or don’t notice. When I get really frustrated is when I — the amateur in many of these instances — can pick out obvious and persistent mistakes, horrible accents, REALLY obvious anachronisms, or stereotypes masquerading as historical types. But since I’m pretty picky about copyediting and the like, I can understand how another reader might be picky about cosmetics or titles or psychological terms, or introductions, or whatever. If an author is truly happy with and confident in what she writes, then I’d hope that would eclipse any reader who isn’t, for whatever reason.

As for suggestions, I’m not sure I have any tangible ones to offer, but rather some thoughts in general on blog and bbs interactions. While I completly agree with you on the negative result of following the “if you don’t have something nice to say don’t say anything at all” precept and certainly agree with you that romance authors (like any other author) are not in any way above criticism, I also think there’s been a shift to the other end of the spectrum on many message boards and blogs to something just as unproductive.

To me, offering criticism with this kind of hefty dose of sarcasm (that sometimes crosses over to cutting invective) all while hiding behind the mask of writing something that’s supposed to be “witty” or “clever” is just as pointless as blowing sunshine up someone’s skirt, but is in fact worse in many ways, because with it comes the kind of fallout that is very hurtful, yes, to those being mocked, but also to the genre as a whole, I think, in that any message that might be gained and perhaps employed to the betterment of the genre gets lost.

Now, maybe Jane just wanted to vent and slice and dice, with no eye toward offering true criticism (which by nature, I think, is usually offered in hopes of pointing the way to improvement in some area). But if the idea is to truly criticize, I have to ask what’s to be gained by slathering on the sarcasm/slicing and dicing so thickly? Who “learns” anything from it, and what does the genre gain from it? Will it “teach” authors to behave better or write better – or simply cause them to flee en masse from interaction on blogs and message boards? In my opinion the kinds of sarcastic posts that have been bothering me lately most often serve simply as a chance for the writers of them to vent frustration (which is better served, I think, by doing as one of the posters in this thread suggested Ashworth should have done…log off, vent to a friend and have a few glasses of wine), or to feel clever by having been so “witty”.

My suggestion is to criticize and call to task, certainly, but in a more constructive rather than such a sarcastic, cutting, aimed-to-be-hurtful-to-an-individual-regardless-of-claiming-it’s-not-meant-to-be-taken-like-that-at-all way. Something might actually gained/learned/improved by putting on the brakes a little in this regard. Otherwise, it’s just another forum for blasting and venting for the sole sake of lashing out to get it off your chest.

But that’s just my opinion. This isn’t my blog and Jane and Jayne have every right to fill it with any kind of posts they like. I’ve found many of the posts here in the past to be interesting and thought-provoking, reviews and commentary alike. This one really crossed the line for me (and for at least several of the other blog readers, if the comments section is any indication). But that’s our problem, not Jane/Jaynes’.

And now I’ll shut up. I wasn’t intending to post in the comments further, but I wanted to do you the courtesy of addressing your question. Hopefully I’ve accomplished that to some degree, anyway.

On the other hand, it is my opinion that putting romance writers above criticism and/or playing by the “say something nice or remain silent” are surefire ways of stifling conversation about romance as a genre–I would appreciate suggestions on how to express that opinion without silencing those who disagree with me.

I certainly hope it's the third choice, because either of the first two effectively stifle any meaningful discussion of the genre, IMO.

Although this was phrased as a hypothetical question (I hope, anyway…for if it was not, you would have effectively silenced anyone who did for whatever reason espouse choice one or two by the way you wrote your reply), I’m going to reply anyway and confirm that, yes, choice three was what I meant. There are ways to express the kind of criticism Jane felt compelled to offer in her blog that are far more effective, IMO. As it stands, if there are any other blog readers out there like me (and I certainly hope I’m not the only one, but it wouldn’t be the first time, I suppose), then whatever message Jane may have hoped to make was (mostly) lost in the distraction of the sarcasm heaped upon it and what – I’m sorry you won’t agree with me on this Robin, but it’s the way I feel – I see as the quite personal go-for-the-juglar tone of the post as a whole.

That’s all I was trying to say. I’m not primed for, nor do I wish to engage in a lengthy discussion about why I feel as I do. I can be proved right or wrong a thousand ways to Sunday, I’m sure, depending on who was doing the proving. And this is so simply because what I am feeling is the result of my own personal interpretation of what I read at this blog. Just as each book picked up by a reader is interpreted individually, BTW.

We’re fortunate in that there are many, many blogs out there, and as someone said in defense of Jane, no one is forcing me or anyone else to read this one. A point well taken, I will add, and perhaps best taken now, by me.

You see, everyone has their own viewpoint, even the historians we look to from past centuries to provide us with said “facts”. Often, they too relied on previous accountings from yet another historian. The farther back in time you go, the more murky the whole thing gets.

I liken it to that children’s game where you sit in a circle and the first person whispers a sentence or two to the next person in line. And so on and so on. By the time the game reaches its end, the original message could be entirely altered.

The only difference is, when recounting history, those breaks in the actual communication of events lead to shoot off branches, members of whom swear that they have the right of it and no one else.

I’ll chase certain facts for a long time, mostly dates of battles and what not. But I’ll only go so far when it comes to certain details of clothing and other things. You see, one historian will say that by 1330, this garment was never worn, while another will say it was still in use, though fading in 1350. So you study some more, and find more people on either side of the fence. Hence you split the difference as 1340 or so.

This in no way means I’ve been lazy about it, but dang. Even when researching battles, one opponents accounts rarely if ever coincides with the others.

As an author, all you can do is try with all your heart to hit the right stride, and not take personally if someone else’s take on history differs from yours. Don’t turn it into a battle of the circle, where some hear one thing, and some another. Smile and say, thanks.

This is the problem with research. I went hunting, and on a quick search, I could find primary sources back to the 1880's or so. But they were theatrical make-up. I would assume that they didn't have something better in 1800 and then switch to bunnies.

In the Ashworth book, the cosmetics were being used by the heroine, a lady who was leading a double life as a famous opera singer. So it WAS a theatrical context.

But in general I agree with you that it’s terribly difficult to get all the details correct because of the fallibility of sources and the perpetuation of errors through secondary sources. I think we could still argue about the champagne flute for days and days — was it used during the Victorian period popularly, even though it was in existence (what I’ve read is mixed, with some sources saying that the coupe was in popular use because of Victoria’s preference, etc.). Which I think it why when readers start to question details it’s a signal that — for whatever reason — the world building in the novel isn’t working for them. And that’s where I think we get into the importance of *authenticity* rather than *accuracy,* which, of course, is subjective. What one reader will find boring and unengaging, another will be in raptures about. And thank goodness, since it allows for more diversity in the genre and the market. Ultimately, though, some of us weren’t put off by the admission that an author wouldn’t look up the use of a champagne flute; it was more the ‘what do we read for’ comments. Which I and other have already pointed out, so I won’t repeat them.

But Jane took Ashworth to task for flaws she perceived in Ashworth's attitude toward historical accuracy and hypocrisy in saying she would never post again at AAR and then did.

Actually, what Jane took Ashworth to task for, in addition to the thrice uttered threats to leave AAR, was her reaction to readers who are critical of her books. In this case it was the history. Last time it was the grammar and copyediting. The time before that it was the virgin widow construct. It was for comments like this one, which she made to a reader on her website (in a now defunct blog-type page), after an incident on the AAR Reviews Board over her last book, when the reader said that the criticism directed at the grammar/copyediting in the book was “ridiculous”:

Ashworth: “Oh, [reader], thank you so, so much! In
defense of AAR, I still think it’s an excellent
website for readers and reader opinions. BUT… yeah,
I got raked over the coals by a few readers last week,
and I’m still reeling. Sorta. I think there are just
some readers who *enjoy* dissecting a book to *prove*
whatever point is on their agenda. :::sigh:::

But what’s most important to authors and publishers is
the readership, like you, who love our stories,
heroes, romances. I really appreciate your kind words;
you’ve boosted my desire to get Colin’s story done! ”

A comment that echoes those she has made several times on a reader board, to readers, about readers who aren’t really “important.” I realize that those readers who agree with Ashworth won’t find her words offensive. And those who haven’t heard the same comments three times might also not think it’s so bad.

As to Jane’s tone, I am a wuss when it comes to sarcasm, but I can’t help but find a certain irony in the way some comments (I’m speaking in general here) express outrage over the post’s sarcasm in tones that not only match but EXCEED the sarcasm they’re supposedly so horrified about. Let alone the fact that these posts bring out those who claim they otherwise never comment or only lurk or whatever, but who are obviously still READING these posts they claim such offense to.

But still those comments stand here along with yours. And Jane has taken the heat for the choice she made to write the piece the way she wanted. She hasn’t engaged in the “throw the rock then hide the hand” type of posting. She hasn’t gotten angry at her critics. She hasn’t threatened any commenters or told them their views were unimportant, illegitimate, or mean. I don’t understand the logic of your characterizations of her being disingenuous or hypocritical, but in any case, your comments still stand, and Jane has taken responsibility for what she wrote. IMO that’s the antithesis of what she was complaining about, and even if I wouldn’t have written the post the same way, I respect the way Jane has responded in its aftermath. No handwringing, no going after the hecklers, no ‘I didn’t mean to . . .,’ no apologies merely for the sake of apologizing, and IMO no defensiveness (an explanation isn’t necessarily a defense). That you don’t see it that way is a view you’re obviously entitled to and entitled to express. At this point, I doubt there’s anything the critics of this post would be satisfied with, even if Jane did come out with a completely disingenuous apology. And most importantly, perhaps, Jane didn’t launch any attack on the *person* of Ashworth — which is more than I can say for some of her detractors.

Any blog that can be read without secret handshakes or by invitation only is clearly meant to be read by a wide readership. Doesn’t mean it’ll GET it, though.

My point earlier was that I don’t see why Jane should be held responsible (i.e., to a higher standard) simply because more people read her blog than say, my friend Art’s. It would seem, in fact, that quite a few people like Jane’s style (whether they always agree with everything she says or not). Witness the generally positive attention DA garners around the blogosphere.

As for this:

(snip) I thought the post was poor form, just as I would feel it would be petty and negative if someone was to say the same thing this post says out loud at a gathering of romance-reading friends.

Petty? Hmmm… Negative? Does that means that (romance) authors’ behaviour should be exempt from criticism? or that good manners should trump expression of personal views?

Or, perhaps, it is the manner in which such criticism was expressed that you find objectionable (poor form)?

I certainly hope it’s the third choice, because either of the first two effectively stifle any meaningful discussion of the genre, IMO.

I didn’t say she should. I just said I thought the post was poor form, just as I would feel it would be petty and negative if someone was to say the same thing this post says out loud at a gathering of romance-reading friends. I still feel that way.

And let’s face it, a blog like this one may be “personal”, but it is clearly put out there to be read by others. If Jane didn’t want others to read what she wrote, she could write her thoughts and frustrations down in an old-fashioned paper journal and no one would ever be the wiser to them.

As far as “what's good for the author should be good for the blogger' goes… I have to go back to writers being held to professional standards whereas bloggers are readers expressing their opinions. It's no use crying that such attitude is not fair-the world rarely is fair after one leaves childhood behind, isn't it?

I never said anything about fair or not fair. I simply pointed out that I found Jane’s “explanation” disingenuous, when some of the blog’s other readers called her on the tone and content of her post about Ashworth. I still think it is. Of course there’s a difference between a published author and a blogger. I should hope so. But Jane took Ashworth to task for flaws she perceived in Ashworth’s attitude toward historical accuracy and hypocrisy in saying she would never post again at AAR and then did. I found Jane’s “explanations”, when she was confronted about this post’s biting tone and labeling of Ashworth as an “author behaving badly” to be in turn hypocritical. That’s my opinion, which a blog clearly solicits, if the blog has a place for its “readers to comment”. This one clearly does.

I’ll go with ‘probably.’

This is the problem with research. I went hunting, and on a quick search, I could find primary sources back to the 1880′s or so. But they were theatrical make-up. I would assume that they didn’t have something better in 1800 and then switch to bunnies.

But…

The other sources I found, on a quick search, were in fiction. I can’t trust them.

Mostly, before I even worried about it, I’d ask myself, “Who is s/he, when is s/he, why is s/he wearing make-up? Because I think there wasn’t much make-up in use, in my period, except for actors and whores. And people weren’t using white lead anymore, but was that a powder or a cream?

So, in checking one detail, I could easily spend two days or more. Not saying that there aren’t details I’d do this for. But there are some details I might go with the common wisdom on, sure that I ‘knew’, only to find out later that the common wisdom was wrong.

Personally, I’d rather head off to see a costume historian, to talk about the history of closures. I’m going to use that detail more than once, so it’s worth some extra time.

I was a reference librarian. After several years of ‘looking things up’ for a living, I am a lot less confident in proving things 100%.

“It's interesting that even though this factoid about “hello” is wrong (wiki will do for this reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello), you still went ahead and changed the text of your book in the next edition. Did you do this because you were just sick of people contacting you with the (incorrect) telephone story or because the telephone story was a detail that it didn't even occur to you to check, seeing as “everyone” knew it was true?”

I did it because, after I was told, I went and checked it in three separate places, not all of which were online. I didn’t count wikipedia as a resource because it’s not always trustworthy. I also did a concordance on several 18th century novels and I didn’t find “hello” in one of them.
So readers alerted me to the fact, then I went and checked it for myself and what I found satisfied me that they were right.
I always try to go on “common usage” and what was normal at the time, not on strange and wonderful aberrations that are done by people determined to prove you wrong. I’m not an academic here, just someone trying to capture the essence of the time.
Even the wiki reference confirms what I discovered. It says references were found back to 1849 – and my book was set in 1752. But I never use wikipedia as a primary research tool, though I might check it for factoids along the way and then confirm it by finding it somewhere else, preferably offline.
And yes, “Hallooo” was a term that was well known at the time, but it was bellowed across the hunting field, not used as a form of greeting in the ballroom! That was where the telephone term was taken from.
I love words!