Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

What Goes on on the Internet, Stays on the Internet?

Sorry authors, this ain’t Las Vegas. If you’ve picked up the most recent edition of RT’s magazine, there is a little piece about authors behaving badly on the internet. Told in broad, but descriptive terms, the article poses three examples:

  • A Bestselling Author asking for bank statements of an ebook publisher
  • A “fanged” author referring to the stupidity of readers
  • A popular author angry about the commentary over grammatical errors in books

Guess the reading world is smaller than we suppose or the internet has longer arms than we suppose. One or the other.

Jane Litte is the founder of Dear Author, a lawyer, and a lover of pencil skirts. She spends her downtime reading romances and writing about them. Her TBR pile is much larger than the one shown in the picture and not as pretty. You can reach Jane by email at jane @ dearauthor dot com

59 Comments

  1. Tara Marie
    Jul 08, 2006 @ 06:39:44

    LOL–I saw this last night while flipping through RT, and was going to blog about the very same thing. You beat me to it.

  2. Nicole
    Jul 08, 2006 @ 07:38:19

    I had to laugh when I saw that, too.

  3. Jane
    Jul 08, 2006 @ 08:05:42

    I don’t get RT but a friend of mine does and she called me with it!

  4. Cece
    Jul 08, 2006 @ 08:10:01

    I saw it too and though, “Oh my!”

  5. Keishon
    Jul 08, 2006 @ 09:16:58

    Oh, kewl. You never know who’s reading these days….

  6. raine
    Jul 08, 2006 @ 11:03:59

    I think I would’ve been surprised if all this HADN’T gotten around.

  7. Rene Lyons
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 06:20:51

    Which is why I keep my blog netural and I make a great effort to always be nice and respectful to both readers and fellow authors…without kissing butt! lol You wouldn’t walk into your office and tell your boss off, no matter how nasty he/she is being. The same with authors. Readers buy our books. They can make or break an author on a whim.

    I think people tend to believe that one can say anything on the Internet and it will be magically wiped clean in ‘real life’. Oh no! How untrue is that?

  8. Karen Scott
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 07:28:23

    Who wrote the piece Jane? I’d love to read it.

    The recent spate of bad behaviour involving authors was bound to be picked up by the outside world sooner or later. Oh the shame. *g*

  9. Karen Scott
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 07:50:18

    Who wrote the piece Jane?

  10. Devon
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 08:50:39

    Ok, so I know about the first two examples, but who got upset about the discussion of grammatical errors in books? Weird. Oh forget it, I just scrolled up, now I know. Sorry I missed that one. I’m a grammar error hater. So there. Small world, huh? Neat.

  11. MaryJanice
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 10:11:53

    Now, ladies, play fair and directly quote the article or don’t quote it at all. Nobody said I had fangs, and nobody said I was the only one. That being said, I wish they’d printed our names, darnit! D’you know expensive ad space is in Romantic Times?????

  12. Jane
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 13:05:29

    [quote comment="2031"]Now, ladies, play fair and directly quote the article or don’t quote it at all. Nobody said I had fangs, and nobody said I was the only one. That being said, I wish they’d printed our names, darnit! D’you know expensive ad space is in Romantic Times?????[/quote]

    I didn’t want to quote directly as I think that would be a copyright violation. But the portion that pertains to you certainly includes the word “fang”. And I don’t know why a) you can’t buy an ad with all the money you constantly brag about having or b) why you need an ad with all the money you constantly brag about having.

  13. Mari
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 17:07:26

    What is bad is I recognized every author implied in those questions.

  14. MaryJanice
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 18:44:48

    Really? Except for me, I had no idea who the other “fanged” authors were (yes, the article quoted others referring to reader stupidity), or who the first and third one was. Maybe the other ones in question will pop over here and reveal themselves! That’d be nifty.

  15. Jane
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 19:51:42

    [quote comment="2027"]Who wrote the piece Jane? I’d love to read it.

    The recent spate of bad behaviour involving authors was bound to be picked up by the outside world sooner or later. Oh the shame. *g*[/quote]

    I don’t know. My friend who called me about it said it was “Flavia.” (I think).

  16. kate r
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 20:22:59

    [quote comment="2038"][quote comment="2027"]Who wrote the piece Jane? I’d love to read it.

    I don’t know. My friend who called me about it said it was “Flavia.” (I think).[/quote]

    As long as the person who wrote the article doesn’t hide behind a pseudonym or anonymous, I’ll read it. I’ve decided that paying attention to anonymous often means unnecessary spikes in blood pressure.

  17. Robin
    Jul 09, 2006 @ 20:42:06

    Because of my personal, uh, connection(?) to one of those incidents, I actually picked up a copy of RT magazine at Borders today to check out the article. It’s in the “fan forum” section by Flavia Knightsbridge (this is my first time reading this mag, so I have no idea who this person is), following an amusing little commentary on Julia Quinn’s “guerilla marketing” and consisting of VERY LITTLE actual information beyond what Jane provided initially. Quoting under fair use, here’s the bit that pertains to the “fanged” authors:

    “What other bestselling authors showed their fangs, implying that readers are stupid and don’t understand the sarcasm on a controversial romance blog?”

    I don’t need to point out that she’s referring to the ARC discussion from the Smart Bitches, do I?

  18. lurker1
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 10:02:26

    Ahhhh. Enough to warm the cockles of an old warrior’s heart. Hi Robin. Loved your recent encounter. I’ll have to look for this magazine. My own first encounters include (but are not limited to): Nora Roberts, Adele Ashworth, Suzanne Brockmann’s fan club, Celeste Bradley, Laura Kinsale, Lisa Kleypas, an author, another author, anonymous author….

  19. Chelle
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 10:12:57

    [quote comment="2033"]And I don’t know why a) you can’t buy an ad with all the money you constantly brag about having or b) why you need an ad with all the money you constantly brag about having.[/quote]
    She didn’t say that she couldn’t afford it; she just said that it’s expensive.

    Jeesh, lay off already with the MJD stabbing. We get that y’all don’t like her. It’s blatantly obvious.

    This whole deal has gotten so blown out of proportion. It just smacks of catty, middle-schoolish jealousy (green much, people?), and all because an author spoke her mind. That’s her opinion? BFD! Like it or lump it.

    You don’t even know her, so how can you attack her character? All you know about MJD is that’s she’s an author, and an opinionated one. If you’re going to judge her, judge her on the body of her work. Read her books or boycott her books, agree with her or disagree with her, join her fan club or ignore her, but get OVER it already.

    What a wicked double standard we weave. If an author takes the crap that so many online blogs dish out, she’s a wimp. If she responds in (un)kind, she’s a money-grubbing bitch with a bad attitude. WTF? You can’t win.

    You’re just perpetuating the controversy. And it is not becoming of you.

    *eye roll*

  20. Karen Scott
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 11:10:30

    Actually Chelle, I think you’ll find that MJD takes pride in giving her tuppence worth, and then taking it in the rear, because if she didn’t, she wouldn’t stalk the blogs of us ‘catty’ folk. Her post was totally tongue-in-cheek, and so as it happens was Jane’s.

    All this controversy is helping the woman sell books, so I’m sure she could do without you trying to defend her.

  21. Chelle
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 11:21:04

    Just saying, I felt a bit like it was All vs. MJD. And I’m a sucker for an underdog, especially one whose work I enjoy.

    She’s pretty good about reheating and dishing out what she’s served. I have confidence in her abilities to kick verbal ass, even if her delivery isn’t as sweet/witchy/”insert favorite descriptive word here” as some folk would like. I’m still highly pissed over the “write, bitches, write” comment I saw somewhere. And the name-calling. How very droll. albeit in a sad sort of way.

    Does this make ME a stupid reader who doesn’t understand sarcasm? Hmmm…

    *goes off to ponder that and other weighty issues*

  22. Jay
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 12:45:33

    I’m just amused that RT is posting blind items. Silly me for thinking that was a Page Six move and that the RT people would have better things to write about.

  23. lurker1
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 12:53:09

    Jay, please clarify. What you say sounds like insider stuff and some of us aren’t. What’s a “blind item?” A “page six move?” And what “what better things to write about?” Thanks.

  24. Jane
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 13:12:47

    [quote comment="2101"]Jay, please clarify. What you say sounds like insider stuff and some of us aren’t. What’s a “blind item?” A “page six move?” And what “what better things to write about?” Thanks.[/quote]

    A blind item is a piece that is written but doesn’t name names. Ted of ET is famous for his “blind items” usually containing salacious, but true gossip about bollywood.

    I think Jay is referring to the fact that the article didn’t name names and that it is gossipy.

    [quote comment="2096"]Just saying, I felt a bit like it was All vs. MJD. And I’m a sucker for an underdog, especially one whose work I enjoy.[/quote]

    Chelle, I am not going to other blogs bashing MJD. I am merely responding to her response here. She must enjoy the controversy because she responds to everyone’s posting of the article (albeit with the same cut and paste response). I think its also interesting to note she doesn’t disclaim the piece in any way. I doubt this little blog will have any affect on MJD’s downfall, if she has one. Her downfall will be engineered by herself, either through her failure to develop her characters furtheror by enough fans getting tired of her act.

  25. kate r
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 13:53:52

    The idea of blind items is straight out of a Julia Quinn regency. All of those “Lord L_______ and Lady M________ seen cavorting at a certain disreputable pub” sort of notes.

    Chelle? I like how you stand up for MJD. Who she is aside, it’s just decent to say something when you perceive bashing going on.

  26. Jane
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 13:58:09

    [quote comment="2105"]The idea of blind items is straight out of a Julia Quinn regency. All of those “Lord L_______ and Lady M________ seen cavorting at a certain disreputable pub” sort of notes.[/quote]

    You can’t credit Quinn with that. Heyer did it long before Quinn and I think that maybe Jane Austin did it before Heyer.

  27. Robin
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 14:08:16

    RE: the question about Page Six — that’s a direct reference to the New York Post’s gossip column.

    Kate: your post reminded me of Walter Miller’s “A Canticle for Liebowitz,” which takes place in a post-apocalypse America where the mundane contents of an engineer’s briefcase serve as the oracle around which the new church is formed. I now have this image of a post-apocalyptic world in which Julia Quinn novels serve as the window into life before the meltdown.

  28. kate r
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 14:11:59

    Can’t go any farther back than good old Jane! (Can anyone recall which of her novels might have a page six bit in it? Maybe Northanger Abbey? The bad dad [General Tilney?]might have been the type to spread gossip.)

  29. kate r
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 14:13:10

    Robin!
    “Bagels for Sarah”

  30. Chelle
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 14:15:17

    [quote comment="2105"]Chelle? I like how you stand up for MJD. Who she is aside, it’s just decent to say something when you perceive bashing going on.[/quote]
    Thanks. Do unto others and all that.

    [quote comment="2103"]Chelle, I am not going to other blogs bashing MJD…. I doubt this little blog will have any affect on MJD’s downfall, if she has one. Her downfall will be engineered by herself, either through her failure to develop her characters furtheror by enough fans getting tired of her act.[/quote]
    That’s very big of you. It’s unfortunate that poor behavior like spewing venom all over your blog, your friends’ blogs and all of THEIR friends’ blogs occurs, but it does. (Your means anyone, not you in particular here)

    Whilst I’d agree that MJD’s work is no War & Peace (God forbid!), I do find it entertaining. I read it when I’m looking for something light and fun. I don’t expect Betsy and Company to be anyone but themselves, and I think that’s the draw for people. I know what to expect. I know the score. I don’t start reading an author and then get pissed when the characters don’t go where I want them to go. They’re not mine.

    Being an escapist, I read to get away, to be amused, to laugh, to unwind, to step into someone else’s shoes. So, they’re Manolo heels in the Undeads, they’re battered boots in the In Deaths, and they’re button-up toe-pinchers in the Julia Quinns. I can deal.

    My favorite MJD’s are actually the Alaska books. Friggin’ hilarious!

    Thanks for the conversation, y’all. Even if we disagree, it was refreshing to remain (mostly) civil.

  31. kate r
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 14:18:44

    and (hogging the comments) I know about page six because the guy got in so much trouble for blackmailing millionaires and/or getting people to pay for good print. Now that is a wonderful novel-y sort of a scandal!

    Heh. And the most coverage of the scandal comes from — big surprise here — the NY Daily News. Wonderful

  32. lurker1
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 15:07:36

    Many thanks for the answers. I don’t read much gossip, but I’d love to read the original blog/posts/threads that started all this. Could someone please direct me?

    BTW, the convention of using the first letter of names in a scandal sheet/column goes back to at least the 18th Century and was used by actual purvayors of gossip. It could arguably be said that this is a form of the “unnamed source” convention so popular in my neck of the woods, which could arguably go back to the Greeks.

    And Robin, you’re oh so right. Using Julia Quinn as an historical reference/authority is pretty darn funny.

  33. kate r, again?
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 15:22:41

    but Lurker, that’s not exactly the point of Canticle. I mean, hell, they use primary sources for their research in that story.

    I know enough about research to know you can’t trust nobody–not the historians or their sources. If the source is humans, it’s flawed.

  34. Jane
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 15:24:32

    At the risk of incurring Chelle’s wrath by linking to blogs that feature MJD’s less than stellar moments (but perhaps cleverly done to generate obscene amounts of controversy), let’s see if I can’t help you out with some links:

    first, you can see some of the links here if you click on the “toggle similar” link right under the title. Other links would be:

    MJD
    the May 16 article
    LLG
    AA

    Both the MJD and LLG incidents took place at AAR whose messages scroll off the page, but if you email me, I can send you the stuff in all its glory since I saved them on my harddrive.

  35. Zeek
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 15:27:35

    I *think* P & P had the “page six” effect (I could be wrong on that one) and I know Harriet Beecher Stowe did it in Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

    I never understood why because I thought too it was used to protect actual names and considering these were works of fiction, why use it? Perhaps there was another reason …

    As far as MJD, someone needs to resurrect Chris Farley to have him yell “Would you kindly shut your big YAPPER!” in her face.

  36. lurker1
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 15:29:30

    Oh goodie. Consider yourself e-mailed. (and thank you)

  37. Jay
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 15:52:41

    [quote comment="2101"] And what “what better things to write about?”[/quote]

    As all the other questions have been answered, my answer for this would be, oh, anything else. I don’t exactly think of RT as the go-to place for hot romance gossip.

  38. Chelle
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 15:53:56

    [quote comment="2118"]At the risk of incurring Chelle’s wrath… [/quote]
    I shall hold back my wrath until at which time I see fit to unleash the great and terrible apocalypse that is my righteous and all-consuming anger.

    Damn, that sounded impressive and terrifying. Wow. Go me.

    Fear Chelle!!! Fear her magnificence!!!

    *dissolving into fits of wheezing giggles*

    Seriously, folks, it’s not the posting of her comments that chaps my ass. It’s all of the commentary, the name-calling, the casting aspersions, the thinly-and-not-so-thinly veiled references to publicity stunts.

    On other news, I’m just pissed that every friggin’ author I read anymore releases in HC first. THAT is flame-worthy, to be sure.

  39. lurker1
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 16:01:08

    kate r, I didn’t read the book Robin referenced, but assumed it’s theme was similar to the Coke bottle in the God’s Must Be Crazy and the new Bible was engineering notes.

    Certainly, any human endeavor is subject to subjective as well as factual analysis, but there’s a bit of space between Julia Quinn and E. Gibbons. If historical accuracy and representation is the name of the game, Ms. Quinn seems to be a sweet lady, but I think even she admits to writing history “light”.

  40. kate r
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 17:02:07

    absolutely. I wouldn’t use romance as a method of finding info (not even good old Heyer.) Escapism! Rules! But that’s a given.

    What chaps my ass (borrowing from Chelle) is digging up an old history book, spending almost $20 for it on ebay actually — and reading accounts that are obviously exaggerated and yet are solemnly presented as facts by trained historians. Pfah. Witnesses schmitnesses–I don’t trust any of them. Newspapers were big into selling newspapers or presenting a particular political view back then, not writing an unvarnished truth. Journalism as a scholar’s gig wasn’t around for a long time.

    Kate, who gave up on the middle man and has been reading the Newspapers of Record (the NYT) from 1880s and wowwee, talk about attempts to pump up emotion. It makes Anderson Cooper look like a computer.

  41. kate r. who will shut up soon
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 17:32:11

    and lurker, have you ever read Josephine Tey’s daughter of time? That’s a fun mystery that presents a re-examined history . . don’t know if it’s based on any factual documents, but it’s still fun.

  42. Robin
    Jul 11, 2006 @ 20:58:38

    Re my reference to Miller’s book, both Kate and Lurker1 are correct. Miller is definitely skeptical of authoritative sources (although I think he’s really picking on organized religion more than history). But I did have kind of a bad moment at the idea that Julia Quinn books would ever become the standard for historical knowledge, inside or outside Romance.

  43. lurker1
    Jul 12, 2006 @ 12:20:52

    Oh my! Just finished reading all the background stuff on this topic and I’ve just a few observations:

    1) Mary Janice Davidson et al do do some mighty fine name calling. I never did get to the bottom of whatever the actual discussion was about since it was impossible in such a short time to make my way through the chaf to the wheat. My judgement? None. Trash talk ain’t debate. All parties are probably guilty as charged (and I’d hate to sit on a jury tasked with determining who said what when). The opponents here seemed equally matched though, so I’m not having a visceral reaction as I did when Nora Roberts and the Adwulf (addwolfe? something wolf) gang took out after poor Sandy from New Berg.

    2) It’s hilarious that Adele Ashworth is still flashing the “journalist” card since according to her own biography at her own space, she only majored in journalism, and between college and romance writing, she was an airline attendant. But alas, even if she were a crack reporter for the Salt Lake Desert News, that doesn’t translate into much more than being able to get the facts down by deadline in a format an average 4th grader can comprehend. Regardless, the argument itself is the same church different pew thing–and I’ve sat in several pews with several authors.

    The last time I visited AAR this was precisely, exactly the “discussion” I had with Kleypas and fans (one erudite fan protested that readers had an obligation to read what the author intended not what they wrote. Ah. Right. “Dr Spock, we need to do that mind connection thing again!”) I’ve only read two of Ms. Ashworth’s books and they both had such abysmal plot problems, I wouldn’t try any more. (and before you ask: Winter Garden and My Darling Caroline) And Robin. You are to be commended for staying on discussion throughout and for making excellent rebuttals to some incredibly specious reasoning and downright snarky observations.

    3) Dara Joy. God bless her heart. This has been going on for how long? It’s a pity, but this particular train wreck derailed a promising career. I thoroughly enjoyed a few of her books (although I had to hide them behind a plain brown wrapper since the smart alecks I work with wanted to know if she were a stripper.)

    Many thanks, Jane, for helping me out on this. It’s an awful thing to have to confess to being fascinated by something that’s the romance equivalent to WWF. Sort of like sneaking a peek at People Magazine at the beauty parlor.

  44. lurker1
    Jul 12, 2006 @ 15:21:13

    kate r, never read Tay’s book, but I’ll look it up. History can be a fluid fascination. I’m getting to an age where I can actually claim to have a first-hand, witness account of some events which are now “historical”. I’ve read many an analysis of some of these events and they do not necessarily fit my memory of these occasions. Your point, I think. All of which reminds me of a bit of the play Roshomon–three witnesses, three versions of “truth” and the reality somehwere betwixt and between.

  45. kate r.
    Jul 12, 2006 @ 16:10:24

    Tey’s book is more a matter of “the winners write the records” rather than how unreliable witnesses are. (and, according to Rashomon, how unwilling they are to cast themselves as bad guys.)

    It’s about Alan Grant, a detective who’s laid up and decides to do some research about Richard III — who has a terrible image, mostly thanks to Shakespeare, a servant of the usurping Tudors.

    I think Tey was a big proponent of redeeming Richard.

  46. Jane
    Jul 12, 2006 @ 16:14:06

    Oh, oh, I can add something here. While not entirely on topic or near as erudite, Joan Wolf wrote a wonderful regency denouncing the villification of Richard III in Fool’s Masquerade. I loved that book. Note to self: write love letter to Joan Wolf.

  47. Chelle
    Jul 12, 2006 @ 16:27:28

    [quote comment="2141"]Trash talk ain’t debate. [/quote]
    Thank you for the succinct and completely true statement. I appreciate that.

    [quote comment="2141"]The opponents here seemed equally matched though, so I’m not having a visceral reaction as I did when Nora Roberts and the Adwulf (addwolfe? something wolf) gang took out after poor Sandy from New Berg. [/quote]
    Nora did what? See, now I’ve met her and think she’s a doll. But it can sometimes be a feeding frenzy over at adwoff.com, not by her but by Others. You don’t really want to be an opinionated conservative over there.

    They’re always looking for new “chum”, IYKWIM.

  48. lurker1
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 07:37:23

    I hate to burst any bubbles or rehash a period in that Robert’s woman’s life that she’s now repentant for, but Nora showed up on a regular basis to challenge anyone who said anything negative about her books. She led the attack on this poor fan—who, BTW, was previously Robert’s head cheerleader. Nora and her gang of cutthroats also attacked a very good friend of mine because she thought one of her books was too violent. She also showed up to sort of answer my critique of the first of those Eve and whatshisname books. She was relatively polite, only getting in one, sly dig, but then I’ve never been known as a wilting violet.

    The incident I referred to happened about five years ago. I printed the whole thing since I knew public memory is very short, but I’ve just checked and I apparently finally tossed it in the last clean-sweep of my files. Suffice it to say that although there’s no reason for you to trust my testimony, my view of Nora “Queen of the Universe” Roberts (her words, except maybe it was Queen of the World) is the antithese of “sweet”.

  49. Nora Roberts
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 09:54:34

    I do regret the incident from several years ago. I regretted it enough at the time to apologize publically on the message board where it began, to copy that apology onto the ADWOFF board, and I apologized privately to the owner of the initial board. While I felt provoked–particulary as the reader sent me several vicious and raging e-mails–my behavior was unquestionably poor. However, if an incident from long ago is to be brought up, perhaps it would be fair to also have noted that I apologized.

    I don’t remember attacking anyone else, or what those circumstances might be.

    In this case, however, whatever the circumstances, I regret, very much, I didn’t show more restraint, and more class. I certainly learned a valuable lesson from it–never to post when in full temper. Never.

    Oh, and if I ever called myself queen of anything, it would’ve been in jest.

  50. Chelle
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 10:27:36

    See…sweet! Albeit red-haired and blessed with the temperment that goes along with said hair color. Seriously, no matter what you think of Nora, her books, or her characters, you’ve gotta a respect a woman who consistently churns out quality, entertaining fiction that bounces from achingly poignant to gut-bustingly hilarious in the flicker of an eyelash.

    [quote comment="2154"]Nora and her gang of cutthroats…[/quote]
    What’s this? A bad POTC reference? Ayyyyye, me mateys, therrrre be pirrrrrrrrrrrrrates in dem dere waters!

    Seriously, this just proves my point. We’re human. We all lose it on occasion. We all reach that place where sense is overpowered by _____ (pick one: temper, PMS, general snarkiness, etc.). We all have life experiences, i.e. certain things that push our buttons, chap our collective asses and fire our passions. Even best-selling authors. Have you situations in your life that you wish came with a “re-do” or “delete” function? Of course.

    IMHO, that doesn’t make anyone a horrid person. It just means that we don’t have exquisite control all of the time.

    In the words of someone much better with them than I am:
    If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

    In the end, we all resemble each other in that respect, dislike it as we may.

  51. kate r
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 10:37:33

    Yet another life adjustment to figure out thanks to the internet and message boards: There has to be a statute of limitations on dredging up stupid remarks made in the heat of the moment.

    Maybe someone can be elected the Grand Czar of apologies. You list your apology with the person (or a whole bureau perhaps) and if it’s accepted as sincere regret, no one may bring up your asinine behavior again.

    It’s happened here–that a person apologized sincerely and there’s no response. It’s worse than a sneeze with no “gesunheit” and almost as bad as when a stranger trips and falls and no passersby stop. That’s why I posted this. (The bit at the end of the longish post)

  52. kate r
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 10:40:27

    gesundheit, I mean.
    and I’m beginning to feel like a Chelle fangirl because once again, she said it better (and at the same time). arrr, ya Bitch.

  53. Chelle
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 10:59:59

    [quote comment="2161"]…and I’m beginning to feel like a Chelle fangirl because once again, she said it better …[/quote]
    Awww, now you’re gonna get yer own “sweet” label.

    Were you channeling POTC as well? Do you not worship the deliciousness that is Depp? Do you not want to lick his…um, I’m digressing. Rein it back in, girl.

    Perfect control has been achieved. Moving on.

    Perhaps we need a Congressional Committee to oversee the statute of limitations on how fricking long you can hold something against someone, apology or no.

    The Apology Police?

    The Grand Czar of Genuine Remorse (borrowing from kate there and giving credit where credit is due) or perhaps the Goddess of Abject Regret?

    OK, that last one was over the top, but that’s what I’d want to be called.

    Apologies should always be sincere. They should always be heartfelt. And they should always be met with a response, whether it be “EFF U, YA BITCH!!!” (which is just plain trashy & ungracious…and my mama would box my ears for that), “Thanks. I’ll never trust/talk to/read you again, but thanks for attempting to make it right.”, or “You know, that was cool of you to regret what you did. I forgive you and won’t bring it up again”.

    Because true forgiveness moves on and treats you like it never happened.

  54. lurker1
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 11:17:51

    Well darn! I’m going to have to eat some more words (one of the reasons I have such a time staying out of those “women’s sizes”). Everyone I’ve met who knows NR personally has said she’s (you’re) a nice lady. OK. So now I’ll stop rolling my eyes and accept that PMS and/or red hair were at work. And, BTW, I’m impressed that there was a public apology (which I missed).

    One of the problems with being a public figure–even in the limited environs of the romance world–is that you’re not allowed the same leeway in terms of free expression be it merely misspoken or purposeful. Ask poor George W or Bill Schaefer. And this is not directly related, but sort of the same thing. This reminds me of Pat Oliphant’s absolute rule about never meeting any politician because he’d once met Barry Goldwater and liked him so much personally, he could never again use him as a subject.

    Anyway, it was nice that you took the time to set the record straight. I’ve always admired that sort of forthrightness and acceptance of responsibility. Consequently, I shall also apologize for bringing up an incident long past and obviously deeply regretted.

  55. Karen Scott
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 12:07:29

    Ask poor George W or Bill Schaefer.

    Poor George W? Sorry, I just spat my coffee out just reading that bit.

  56. lurker1
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 12:15:28

    Karen Scott, you don’t like George Washington? I knew the Brits had long memories, but sheesh!

  57. Nora Roberts
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 12:25:08

    Thanks, and accepted.

  58. Jane
    Jul 13, 2006 @ 14:21:52

    Sob. I go away for a day and I miss the biggest romance author of all time posting on the blog. Not that I think she’ll be back, but how cool for dearauthor. (I’ll be posting a letter to Ms. Roberts this weekend for Angels Fall though, in case anyone *cough* Roberts *cough* might still be reading this thread). And maybe I am just a raving liberal lunie at heart, but I have always respected Roberts after last year’s RWA kerfluffle and this whole deal only increases my respect for her more.

    It’s a bit ironic because about 8 years ago, I just could not get into Robert’s writing. I didn’t understand what all the hoopla was about but I started reading JD Robb, then slowly the backlist of single titles and now I am buying her in hardcover. At Costco and at a deeply discounted price, but I buy her in hardcover which is not something I can say about alot of other authors.

    As for threads and apologies, I know what you are saying Kate R and I really don’t know how to handle those things. I think it is classy for someone to apologize and not classy to acknowledge the apology. As the blog owner, I don’t know if I should delete the original posts that led to the apology and then the apology or what. I hate the idea of deletion.

    I did close the comments on some posts and so that is what I am going to do here.

  59. Raines Secret Garden » BEATING THE BLOG BUSHES
    Jun 23, 2010 @ 19:01:54

    […] DEAR AUTHOR turned up with quite a surprise! LA NORA came to call!! After a blog post based on a few lines in Romantic Times, which had picked up on several blog posts, which were based on certain message boards, which were…well, you get the idea. :razz: […]

%d bloggers like this: