Wherein A Bestselling Author (Jennifer Crusie) Responds

12 Comments

1. Rosie
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 09:59:29

   Readers stick up for each other all the time. I can’t help but be glad JC is sticking up for her friend. You sure can tell she’s more than a little irked about the Miss Snark article though…can’t you?

   I noticed Ms. Crusie’s comments are to be reviewed by her before they are published. I wonder if she will publish any of them. I commented yesterday and so far nothing is up. God knows what sort of reaction she is getting.

   I have wondered if my lack of reaction to all of this is because I like Anne Stuart and Jennifer Crusie and don’t know who Miss Snark is, or if I think it is way more reaction than the situation calls for. Me thinks it’s much ado.

   Reply

2. Jane
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 10:03:27

   I struggled with the same thing. Am I biased because I like Stuart’s books or her attitude? or because I like Crusie’s books and attitude? Would I be reacting differently if it were someone else, say some author who’s been featured as an author behaving badly? I would hope not, but you never know. We all have bias that affect our view.

   Reply

3. Robin
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 10:38:24

   I’m just glad that another author — and someone with a hefty readership and blog audience — finally took on Miss Snark’s actual comments. I don’t always agree with Crusie’s perspective on Romance (after all, she regularly disses literary studies), but in this case, at least she’s pushed right to the heart of the irony in Snark’s anonymity v. Stuart’s willingness to stand behind her name. And I’m glad I’m not the only one to wonder from Snark’s comments if she’s really an agent or not. It will be interesting to see how Snark responds to this latest salvo.

   Reply

4. Robin
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 10:39:18

   duh — my cold has obviously made it impossible for me to use tags — Jane, anyone, help before I condemn the whole thread to block quotes. Sorry.

   Reply

5. Jane
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 10:39:50

   I have never even thought to question whether she was an agent. I guess I am pretty gullible. I think in my googling I saw someone accuse her of wanting to write a book as well.

   Reply

6. Robin
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 11:12:39

   Maybe I’m just the suspicious sort, but it just seems weird to me that an agent would 1) represent the relationship between an author and a publisher as that of employee to employer (when it’s nearly the opposite if you’re going to insist on that terminology, which isn’t really accurate to begin with); 2) lash out at an author when she’s ostensibly hired to represent authors — not that she has to be super-supportive, but as Crusie says, why not shape her comments as advice and not diatribe, especially when she’s supposedly in the business of representing the interests of authors; and 3) have so little balance in her view of Stuart’s comments, especially given her purported interest in authors. Of course she very well could be an agent, but as Crusie says, who really knows, given her anonymous persona. I agreed with Crusie that her stance in the Stuart saga seems very, very pro-publisher.

   Reply

7. Michelle
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 11:51:07

   I think Miss Snark is just trying to use this as a excuse to bring herself to attention. As many have said its pretty hypocritical of her to hide her identity. I take what she says with a grain of salt.

   Reply

8. Janine
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 12:40:39

   I’m glad Ms. Crusie spoke out. Whether or not it was a good idea for Anne Stuart to say what she said, I don’t like the idea of authors being muzzled. Don’t we have enough censorship in the world?

   Reply

9. sallahdog
   Nov 16, 2006 @ 14:58:17

   I think the thing that stood out the most for me in Crusies blog was how she said that it doesnt matter what a jerk you are, if you are selling books and making the publisher money, they will keep you. Being the nicest person in the world isnt going to keep you on their roster if your not producing..

   I think this is very true… Long ago I was a peon in a field where I rubbed elbows (ok, so I just got the coffee) with movie type people… Let me tell you, butts were kissed of many a jerk, as long as they were making money…Often someone in the arts fields is simply looked on as a maverick, or as eccentric for behaviour that would get them booted from most conservative corporations…

   Reply

10. Alison Kent
    Nov 16, 2006 @ 15:46:06

    I’ve never read Snark and never will because of her anonymity. I read about a dozen other agent blogs, but won’t read hers.

    Reply

11. Maili
    Nov 16, 2006 @ 16:56:04

    I think Miss Snark is just trying to use this as a excuse to bring herself to attention.

    How so? She’s no different from anyone who decides to publicise their reaction to a new flaming sheep rolling by, really. :)

    Seriously, how do we tell the difference when a person is making a response or doing it for attention?

    Reply

12. Bev (BB)
    Nov 16, 2006 @ 21:33:29

    [quote comment="7896"]Seriously, how do we tell the difference when a person is making a response or doing it for attention?[/quote]

    Time.

    Or rather consistency over time is the only reliable measurement that I can see as to whether someone actually means what they’re saying or are simply riding the attention wave by spouting off an opinon of the moment.

    Reply