I also feel the author shouldn’t criticize her fans for being upset. I wouldn’t say I was a big fan, like I said I had read a few of her earlier books, and if i had actually bought the book (vs library where I got my copy) I would probably want my money back–partly because the romance genre is about happy endings–and this book definitely didn’t feel happy at the end. =)

Her comment (below) I think is wrong. I don’t think it’s a small group of people disgruntled. I think it’s a lot of them, just not everyone goes online to post opinions. It’s probably the majority of them and again, she could’ve pulled it off if the book had sold the new relationships, but the book didn’t do that for me at least.

“I know that there's been noise about DARK OF NIGHT, but from what I understand -’ without soiling myself too completely in the ugliness -’ that noise has been from just a relatively small group of disgruntled people -’ who seem to have more of a beef with me than with the book. ”

I am not angry like dome, but like I said, I am disappointed both by the choices made and to be honest, by the overall book calibre compared to some of her earlier works.

As somebody, who only slogged through all the suspense to see where the Sophia/Decker relationship was going (after listening to Hot Target with my husband on a road trip) and only for that relationship originally, I’d have to say I didn’t have any inkling until the book immediately preceeding DoN that she was not going to explore that relationship, as difficult as it would have been.

She’s saying they would never have worked and that she couldn’t believe that anybody thought they would have a healthy relationship, but the whole point for me in reading these books was to see how she, the author, could get these two so very damaged people together after setting up a 4 or 5 book arc. It’s a testament to her writing that she got me interested enough in them as a couple that I read forward first and then went back and read the earlier TSI books, when I detest romantic suspense and make a practice of staying far, far away. She made me care about the other couples along the way, some more than others.

I totally agree that an author shouldn’t write a book if it doesn’t feel right, if the coupling, even if previously planned, didn’t work or if she planned it differently from the start, or should try to write a book her readers seem to demand, but I also think an author is selling a commodity, even if it’s a work of art, and I cannot help but cringe when I see her dismiss and insult her readers wholesale like that. And I think it’s worse because the readers she insults are not the casual folks or ‘literary’ critics, but long-time fans who only were disappointed *because* they cared so much. If people didn’t give a flip, there would have been no discussion months in advance.

The whole post strikes me as a very bad PR move, even though I’m sure she felt vindicated after writing it.

Besides the homophobia comment, the opening comment was also pretty ugly as far as I’m concerned:

“I know that there’s been noise about DARK OF NIGHT, but from what I understand — without soiling myself too completely in the ugliness — that noise has been from just a relatively small group of disgruntled people — who seem to have more of a beef with me than with the book. ” (from the Barnes and Nobel Q&A linked above).

As you said, if it really was such a small number, why not just ignore them. I’m afraid this falls under ‘authors behaving badly’ in my book.

I still want to see if she managed to pull it off, but I can’t get past chapter 2 and I wish I hadn’t read her comment because now I have that negative reaction about her when trying to read the book, but I still want to know if her craft could carry me through the disappointment, which seems a contradiction, but I still care about the characters.

Is this a tempest in a teapot, should people get a life and get over it, since this is only a fictional story? Possibly, but a writer cannot court readers on the one hand, wanting them to connect and then complain when they do. Well, she can, but in my opinion she ought not to, because she’s creating ill-will, possibly only with the ‘few’ disgruntled readers, but possibly with others who did not dislike DoN as well.

Seattle is a very polite city and I think we were all startled at her reply to the girl you're talking about, but on balance, I think it was a wise response. I hope it did the job Gabaldon intended it to do, which was to snap this girl out of what sounded like a very unhealthy obsession. Gabaldon is (was) a university professsor by vocation and she is well used to taking control of a classroom of misbehaving undergraduates and telling them some home truths.

Sorry about the late response, but I just saw this.

Having had to wrangle my own share of undergraduate classes myself, one of my first lessons was how much more power you have as a professor than you do as a student. However, due to the kinds of insecurities everyone has, but in particular, I think, academics who aren’t used to holding broad-based authority and respectability, that balance can sometimes seem flipped, and the professor can feel at the mercy of his or her students. And ignore the incredibly high levels of sensitivity many of these undergraduates possess, even as their affect shows something else entirely. And I say that as someone who is quite blunt in a teaching situation, because I think clarity is really important in an academic setting, where students are measuring their expectations against mine.

Obviously, I wasn’t at the reading, so my reaction is based on the hearsay rendition of Gabaldon’s comments. But based on that rendition, I’m still somewhat appalled by the way those “home truths” were dispensed. Not only because the story will eventually circulate into forums like this one (and who knows how all the rest of the attendees reacted, since you won’t see everyone’s response on their face), but also because I don’t think humiliating someone is the best way to get them to listen to you. And it sounds like that’s what she was doing, inadvertently or not. Of course, in the re-telling,we miss the tone and the exact wording, and all that subtle coding one’s body delivers in concert with the words themselves, but still . . . it feels unnecessarily and inefficiently extreme.

At this point, I think the person who really needs to internalize the message that the detracting views of the book don’t matter in the large scheme of things is Brockmann herself, because her comments suggest to me just the opposite. And I can’t be the only reader who bristles at the ‘well, look at all the people who LOVE the book!’ defense (oh, that’s such a trigger for me, lol).

Beyond the homophobia comment, which I suspect she didn’t intend to use as a blunt instrument against every reader who disliked DON (again, I thin she’s over-reading based on saturation in the world of her own BB and whatever people have told her), there are just a lot of backhanded slaps in that comment (and in a lot of the comments to questioners, IMO). Look, I’m the first person to suggest that an author should be in charge of her own work and process and apologize to no one about that. But if you’re the author who’s worked like crazy to engage a dedicated and large fan base, then you’ve got to be aware that you can’t keep all those readers in line on every book. And that the passionate fan-feelings can so easily become passionate disappointment. So what do you do in the face of that? It’s a tough call, especially when you share a somewhat enmeshed connection with your fan base. But if I were in charge of spinning Brockmann’s public statements at this point, I’d be advocating a respectful distance and neutral self-assertion of her rights as author. For example: ‘I’m so sorry you didn’t like DON. I wrote the best book I could and I am proud of it. I always appreciate the dedication of my readers, and I hope the next book works better for you, should you choose to read it.’ How about just, ‘I understand you’re disappointment and I’m sorry.’

Re. the triangulation issue among Sophia, Dave, and Decker, I have to say that as a complete outsider to this relationship, reading Jane’s review and the comments about “superDave” make me wonder how powerful the triangulation was for readers. For example, the triangulation in the Stephanie Plum books between Ranger and Morelli has yielded really strong fan bases for both guys. Did that happen with Brockmann, and if not, why not? And I’m NOT suggesting that Brockmann did or didn’t do anything intentionally here, or that she’s wrong in how she handled thing, just wondering how effectively the tension between Dave and Decker vis a vis Sophia played out, since for more than a few “disgruntled” readers it seems like Dave was never a serious contender for Sophia. Is it possible that the triangulation was not as well defined as Brockmann seems to think it was, at least for a certain cohort of readers?

I don’t see any reason for Brockmann not to stand behind and actively defend the choices she made, but from the outside looking in, I don’t see the value or effectiveness of dismissing readers who saw it differently as a way to do that. Just speaking personally, an author telling me I didn’t understand what she was doing is fast-tracking my dropping of her books from my TBR, because that’s one of those things where the author is literally intruding on my reading experience and my right to independent interpretation, and that’s definitely a line crosser for me. And I just think it’s unnecessary, since, as I said above, the author has the majority of power between herself and her readers, even when it doesn’t feel that way to the author.

But her arguments do see a bit inconsistent. Like if the internet romance community is so small to be dismissed, why is she on BN doing a chat? And if the readers that dislike the book are motivated by hate toward her and gays, why even respond to them?

I hope that she doesn’t believe that everyone who dislikes her books are a) homophobes or b) out to get her. That totally contradicts her statement that a book can just not work for a reader.

This is pretty bad:

And I know that the people who disapprove of me and DARK OF NIGHT (and probably Jules Cassidy, too. Let’s be honest about what this is about, at least for some of these disproportionately angry folks) are a small portion of the online romance reading population. (Talk about limited!)

I would like to believe that she’s merely misinformed about the people who dislike the book because seriously Dark of Night had little to do with Jules and Robin, the homosexual couple in the Troubleshooter series. She did say that she never reads blogs or message boards and that is getting her information from other people.

But as a reader with absolutely no investment in the series, I’ve been reading her responses with an increasing feeling of horror. And here’s my question that would never be answered on that board: if a fan goes out of her way to talk up, publicize, purchase, recommend, review, and otherwise rave over an author’s books, spending hours upon hours in said activities, even on the author’s own messageboard, does that count as cyberstalking?

I really do get that when you pour all this energy into writing a book that even the most confident of authors can feel besieged by negative commentary. But when will authors understand that they have the lion’s share of the power in the relationship between themselves and readers, and that taking a hammer to a reader just comes across as unnecessary and often cruel overkill.

From comments left at AAR, it seems Brockmann has changed her board and that some posters have been banned. That’s kind of interesting.

1) the internet can be a real pitfall in navigating author-reader interaction

2) sometimes authors really should take a step back and wonder if this kind of response, as true as it may be to their feelings at the time, is a professional way to present themselves to all their readers.

Maybe the number of people who dislike DoN is really as small as Brockmann implies (I tend to doubt that, I’m still stuck at chapter 2), but such comments may turn off readers who liked DoN because they are in such bad taste.

I was very taken aback by this posting and I cannot believe that her publisher will be happy when they see it.

Kind of sad.

However, I think SB’s comments tonight on the B & N board crossed the line. http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/bn/board/message?board.id=CenterStage&thread.id=4383&view=by_date_ascending&page=11. She is implying in the middle of her first post on page 11 that the people who posted their anger at her did so because they’re homophobic. I have no idea if they are or not, but to deflect the anger at her writing decisions into that the angry people are prejudiced is beyond the pale. It does a disservice to the real problems that result from prejudice and homophobia to accuse people of that as a deflection of criticism. I agree with Jane that SB is in a tough position answering those questions, but accusing those that asked the questions of homophobia is not an appropriate response. At all.

I think mocking her readers and offering a book to the first person who “posts a YouTube video of a weeping reading sobbing “Leave Suz alone!!!”" is over the line. Even if some of the posters aren’t being as respectful as they should is that really an excuse for Suz to sink to the same level?

Even the fans who love the book are asking if it is really a HEA for Decker & Tracy, so the ending of DON wasn’t as obvious as she may have thought it was.

But more importantly, we obviously have to agree to disagree, here and in the other debates about this topic. I hope that can be done in a respectful manner, but I do think it’s obvious that we’re never going to agree on this issue.

I know we address our letters to the authors here, but that’s a construct. We don’t really mean for authors to read them.

I don’t want to be a Brockmann apologist, but I feel like she’s in a tough position. She probably loves her book and seeing people not happy with the way that she wrote it out might be difficult for her to respond to. (Again, I’m speculating here. Have no insider knowledge).

I realize I am considered on the wrong “side” of the whole triangle, but her answer to Alyssa21 in particular seems condescending and dismissive.

Obviously she isn’t as talented at foreshadowing as she seems to think if so many readers still expected a Sophia & Decker HEA after so many books.

I foolishly thought she would take the opportunity with the B&N Q&A to explain why she marketed Sophia & Decker as a romantic couple and try to win back some of the fans she lost. Instead we get “I framed it to fit the boundaries of the romance genre” She could simply have left them off the poll altogether.

I am amazed (and not in a good way) at some of her responses.

I figured it was partly rescuer’s syndrome, partly idealization, partly guilt, partly attraction, and partly her needing to redeem how damaged she was by making the terrible beginning to their “relationship” a positive outcome. Having since reread the books, they don’t interact, they don’t really know much about each other – their circle / avoid / repeat pattern came across more as obsession than anything. Seriously, she says she loves Deck, but what exactly she loves about him, and on what evidence, I could never figure out.

Decker I actually found quite intriguing – we’re rarely in his head, and when we are, we don’t learn a lot about him. If I compare him to Nash, who is more generally supposed in the series to have issues, I actually think Decker is worse. Nash has made an attempt at moving on, and has committed himself to Tess. Yes, he’s holding off on the marriage, but I believe that’s mostly due to fear re the AlphabetAgencyOfDoom, and lingering issues with trust and asking for help. Which is understandable.
Decker now – he’s completely shut down and his self image? Eeep. I really want to know his backstory – why is he so incredibly hard on himself, and why is he such a boyscout? Why does he need that perfection so intensely? We never see him at all outside of crises, and don’t see his ‘life’ at all. Family? Friends? Hobbies? Big blank. At least Nash dates! He comes across as pretty self involved and damaged and I was looking forward to seeing why exactly he is the way he is. I was never sure he would go the distance with Sophia – too much baggage, and not enough willingness to reach out on either party. We’ve seen fantasy romances fail before – see Wes / Lana. I thought they were going to get a happy ending at one point, but no. Did that bother anyone? We had a couple of books worth of set up for that non event if I recall rightly.

Gina and Eden are mentioned upthread by someone as heroines whose trauma is “written off”. I disagree; at this point anyway, as future events could prove me wrong.
Although Gina is shown as suffering major trauma, her life history is otherwise normal, she has a loving family, an education and she also has several years of therapy to boot. I could accept her HEA, she’s gotten to a point where I can accept it.
In contrast, Eden has a unpleasant childhood, no education, sweet FA in the way of family support, (anyone else want to slap her brother? Egads!) a deeply traumatic adolescence and is quite understandably very effed up. I thought Brockman did a good job of showing just how effed up, using the sex scenes she gets into with Izzy to demonstrate that though physically he’s pushing all the right buttons, and his actions ought to be reassuring, she’s mentally and emotionally unable to handle or even understand the concept of a relationship based on anything other than ego stroke / sex / mutual back scratching / what’s in it for me. Hence her complete inability to be honest with him. Will they end up as a couple? I think it likely, but damn, does she have some healing to do.

Leigh – I feel the difference between Eden / Izzy and Decker / Sophia is that although some of Izzy’s actions are a shade less ethical than they could be, he’s not that broken up about it – he accepts his less-than-perfect nature in way that Decker is just not set up to do. Eden also is shown as being somewhat less morally constrained than Sophia, and although she has mondo major issues, her attitude to their sexual involvement is more of a “I don’t want to be beholden, and I have nothing else, and sex is a good a payment as any,” than the “Oh god I don’t want to DIE,” attitude as evinced by Sophia. Same deal with Robin / Adam, they (and the readers) react the way they are set up emotionally to react.
Different dynamic and really neat examples of how on the surface similar incidents can affect different people in such very different ways. Basically, it’s good characterisation.

The comments about the nature of a romance were utterly fascinating – I had no idea that the genre was considered to be so stratified and rule-bound, outside of categories.

For me, it ceases to be a romance when it stops being primarily about the evolution and growth of a character in relation to other characters in a emotional and or sexual manner. So a novel can have a love story without being a romance.

I’d still call J.D Robb romances – they’re about Eve’s emotional growth and her deepening relationship with Roarke, even after they’re married.
I’d call the Bridges of Madison County a romance – even though she doesn’t get her HEA with him.
I’d call Lois McMaster Bujold’s Chalion series romances – the heroes / heroines grow and change in relation to their partners.
I still see Brockman as romance, because although there is a strong suspense / action plot in her books, the primary focus is still about the characters relationships. You could use other vehicles for the action / suspense bits, and you’d still have a viable emotional journey there. IMO, anyway.

I personally don’t feel that a romance has to take place over one novel. I don’t feel that the successful depiction of one romantic relationship means that it’s not OK to show a previous or a future successful romantic relationship. I can believe in people falling into, and out of love thanks, and also believe that the new love is not necessarily less than the first. I can deal with some chars having HFN’s, as you know, even in more conventional romances not all characters have to be solidly in love and happy. Or even survive to the end.

One of the things that I like about Brockman is that she shows her characters making mistakes, screwing things up and dealing with consequences. And I like that things are not always tied up in a neat little bow at the end of one novel, waiting for the next little self-contained episode. Life ain’t like that and it adds to the suspension of disbelief for me to have her handle it that way. I don’t feel betrayed by it, and I don’t mind that, there’s emotional backstory for Decker / Sophia with no payoff, because there’s backstory there for Dave / Sophia too. It just wasn’t presented as romantic.

I dunno, I’m just not bothered by the weight of expectations as some commenters have been – I gather the feeling is that they’ve been bait & switched? I can kinda understand that – there’s only one series where that’s hit me – the Anita Blake series. I gave up reading after she intro’d the Micah character as the primary romantic relationship. I felt as many do about this, betrayed by the author. The difference is, I gave up after I’d read the next couple of books involving him, and because the 180 the character and series focus had made had no emotional or logical continuity, and the author had completely failed to ‘sell’ the change in romantic leads to me.
Ultimately, it depends on how well the author writes it. LKH failed, Brockman may or may not succeed, but I will be reserving judgement till I actually read it.