Stupid move on their part. RWA’s tactics bodes of censorship.

My TBR shelf and nook are full of recs from Dear Author AND other book review sites. At least I know I can get an honest review of a book here and monitor feedback from the readers and authors.

Even bad reviews don’t put me off buying a book if I find the plot somewhat interesting. I’ll buy it and decide for myself if it was a stinker or not. Keep, donate, sell, or delete. I decide.

I haven’t noticed any anti-author campaigns going on much less pro-author.

One last thing just in the interest of water safety. Did you have a life jacket on in the canoe? They do tend to get in the way. ;) Kayaks are a challenge… Will I get chachblocked now? Do I really give a rats ass?

Bend Over RWA. I’m taking my toys and going home…but I’ll always come back to DA.

Absolutely ridiculous. Review sites like this one should be applauded, not excluded.

So far as I can tell, Dear Author is not excluded from anything.

Review sites should not be geered towards cheerleading any and all products for sale, regardless of quality.

I agree books are subject to criticism. Book reviews–written for the public–are also subject to criticism. Not all review/ers are created equal, just as all books are not created equal.

An honest review site with constructive criticism is not anti-author because it is pro-reader.

This is absolutely true. Being pro-reader does not mean one is anti-author. Being anti-author means one is anti-author, regardless of clever labeling.

There are many, MANY sites out there that review not just books but clothing, food, and other household products that constantly churn out bland or inappropriately positive reviews of substandard product, and those are the blogs that should recieve some serious critisism — for serving the public, the consumers, poorly and unfaithfully.

Review sites should not be geered towards cheerleading any and all products for sale, regardless of quality.

This is the thing: An honest review site with constructive criticism is not anti-author because it is pro-reader. Users will trust and act on positive reviews at that kind of site, because they know the author writes negative ones. What is a positive review worth to an author, on a site that only says glowing things about every single book? Why would a reader trust this site? That’s like if all newspaper movie critics said every movie coming out was perfect and 4! stars! Why would you even read the articles or care what movies they suggested to you? Movies can really benefit from positive press, because negative press widely exists. You need one to make the other have significance. That’s what the RWA is not getting… Dear Author IS supportive.

I’d say the books industry revolves around books–the writing of them, the selling of them, the reading of them. So to my mind, that means it revolves around writers and readers.

One can’t get very far without the other.

The letter you reproduced, though, cites the phrase, “supporting the organization” as a requirement for membership. In my view, “support” involves more than “praise,” with which the letter seems to equate it. “Support” may require individuals to speak out against practices they feel will ultimately be detrimental to the organizations or groups to which they belong. In that sense, criticism can also be a means of support. It is regrettable, and sometimes self-destructive, when such organizations fail to recognize this.

Multiple elements in DA convince me that not only is DA a “pro reader” site, it is actively “anti-author.” Unless, of course, DA really likes the author. I don't judge DA and its contributors for being anti-author; they have the right to be anti-author if they choose.

I’ve never noticed that DA is anti-author. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. But then, I’m just a reader and as a reader I appreciate warnings about badly written books or books posing as romance.

Just because you (generic) are published, doesn’t necessarily mean you (generic) are a good writer. With all the romances out there, I appreciate a heads up. With examples. Oh lord – with examples!!

Is it that the ‘published’ part is more important and because a person is published they are above the bad writing and the ridiculous story lines? With the number of romances that are released, a reader needs all the help she can get. I’ve never seen a review here that ripped the author. Only the book.

On the opposite side of the coin, without DA I would never have discovered The Madness of Lord Ian MacKenzie, or Flowers From the Storm or Lord of Scoundrels, to name a few. Because I wasn’t into romance when many of them were published. And I appreciate more than I can say being pointed in their direction.

I also appreciate being warned about the dross, and I would think anybody would feel this way, be they reader or reader/writer.

JMHO.

Even if Twitter is a social network, it’s still not a professional thread. Does this mean that RWA is watching what everyone says on Twitter and if the wrong thing is said by an author does that mean they can be banned also?

My best friend and I trash books we’ve read in private conversations. Can we be kicked out for not supporting the genre?

I love it when karma comes back and slaps a person in their face. I'm actually loving the “change” RWA seems to be instituting by getting rid of those bad seeds who make living off of the industry and its contributors.

Don't think you do? What would you do without authors and the books we publish? Absolutely nothing. Your site revolves around us and the industry. Not the other way around even though you tend to think so.

Hey, is that you Jamaica?

Just kidding, of course it’s not Jamaica Layne, she wouldn’t stoop so low as to pretend to be someone else would she? Erm.. never mind.

Anyway, you sound rather bitter my darling, what did Jane do to you? It’s ok, you can tell me. I promise I wont tell a soul.

I am reopening the comments threads. I would ask (because I won't be around to monitor these comments) that everyone try their best to not insult each other. Feel free to insult me, if you like, but try not to insult each other.

Persecution complex much?

You’re going to be fine, Jane. Really. I want to tell you something I really love about DA. It’s the least I can do since I’ve said plenty about what I don’t like.

I like that you read. I like that you offer good, “meaty” reviews sometimes. It’s always a pleasure to read one of your more enthusiastic or even temperate reviews.

I admire your effort with DA. In fact, exploring DA is probably a lot like reading a good book — not a great book, but a good one that isn’t quite what you want it to be but it has its moments.

I’m not sure if the RWA “rejection letter” bugged you more than you’re saying it did and you posted it at DA seeking validation from sycophants and readers alike. If so…Don’t sweat the small stuff. Many people care about and respect the work you do. If you are comfortable with your own performance and give DA your best, at the end of the day you answer to you more than anyone.

Have a great holiday.

@A:

I'm not the originator of this thread. LOL…I would never post my private correspondences on a blog.

Of course not. Who would? But you're getting pretty close to being as obnoxious as Rosie O'Donnell. Maybe worse because you're anonymous.

Who am I? None of your business. But then, I'm not a public figure.

Bonnie, how do I say this? I don’t care if you think I’m obnoxious. I don’t care if my anonymity offends you. Your approval is not my goal.

Even if your approval was my goal, however, this thread is not about me; it concerns RWA’s intent not to retain Jane’s membership which, according to Jane, Jane did not intend to renew, but for reasons unknown felt compelled to share RWA’s letter with DA.

Edited by Jane because I requested the commenters not insult each other. A I think I’ve warned you numerous times. I’m now placing you in moderation and will be editing future comments.

@A: Did you see my reply to you at #221?

I did read your response, Janine. I appreciate your response, and I empathize with several points you made.

It doesn’t alter my opinion, however. The DNF reviews alone strike me as “odd” and lacking in professionalism, and it does not help that some of those reviews are worded in a fashion clearly meant to mock the author and/or the author’s work.

Imagine if I told you, “I’m responding to your post, but I did not bother to read your entire post because I found your form of expression stupid/boring/unpalatable/unreadable/lacking in whatever way.”

Would you honestly credit anything I had to say about your comments after that?

My less-than-rosy view of DA does not stem exclusively from the DNF reviews and the rude/mocking reviews; they were simply the first thing alerting me that maybe the site wasn’t quite so “wonderful” as a colleague insisted it was.

I observed at least two of the “fail” threads, and I was appalled by the ensuing circus of “Let’s Rip the Author/Book/Editor/Publisher to SHREDS because So-and-So dislikes the book.”

It’s interesting to note that this site does seem to attract an element that really enjoys doing exactly that.

In short, the DNF reviews are not the ONLY thing I view as “not all good” in the Land of the Ja(y)nes; it was merely the first “warning.”

I was also recently touched when an author commented that she learned a lot from a DNF review I did of her book. So obviously, these reviews have value to some, even if not to everyone.

You could have easily attained this same degree of influence via private correspondence which (in my opinion) is the more professional thing to do. RWA offered Jane Litte that much courtesy and professionalism. It’s sad to imagine that, given the excessive criticism RWA has received at this site, the site’s own webmistress isn’t capable of maintaining a comparable standard of professionalism with personal matters. And it is a personal matter. Jane Litte’s membership in RWA has nothing to do with her aspirations as a pro-reader book reviewer.

Again, this isn’t about “right” or “wrong.” It’s about what one perceives as credible and professional. Clearly DA does have a readership who is fine with this. I’m just going to assume that a person like myself is not DA’s target audience.

Multiple elements in DA convince me that not only is DA a “pro reader” site, it is actively “anti-author.” Unless, of course, DA really likes the author. I don’t judge DA and its contributors for being anti-author; they have the right to be anti-author if they choose. But I’m not going to pretend I don’t see it and pretend I don’t understand why an organization like RWA may have decided Jane isn’t qualified for membership.

With all that said, I believe the Ja(y)nes have a purpose and they do their best to live up to it. I think in some ways they do a great job and in others, they could do better. I don’t view that as a problem. DA isn’t a popularity contest to the best of my knowledge.

The fact you know that makes me want to ply you with alcohol and weasel your secret stories out of you.

LOL! As someone who hung out with a tipsy Katiebabs in the bar in DC, I can attest that she is tons of fun to try and weasel secret stories out of! =)

And wouldn’t be like… Arboreality rather than beastiality? Bestiality implies animal kingdom, no?