The way these idiots are ripping into Anne is much the way people like Ed Champion are ripping into Millenia Black for speaking out and for suing her publisher. It’s outrageous. And when Monica Jackson jumped in (one of the few to openly speak up in defense of MB) they started attacking her too. These people really need more fearless souls to put them in their place.

Poor Anne and Millenia.

She wasn’t saying that the publisher was screwing her,cheating her or any other such MAJOR accusation. She simply said that sometimes she feels like the publisher simply treats her like a number. It was discouraging to her and I can see how it would be.

Readers are interested in this industry. Some readers, like me, feel that the midlist industry is all about formula’s. Rarely do I find an author willing AND ALLOWED to take a chance and be truly creative.

I see Stuart’s comments as another indication that there are some major problems with the industry today. As a reader, I know there are. Most of my fav authors, with the exclusion of Ms. Roberts, are only putting out 1 book a year. And many like Katherine Sutcliffe are simply disappearing from the scene altogether. My autobuy list has dwindled to almost nothing. I buy approximately 50% less books today than I did 5 years ago.

Oh, for major bestselling authors who truly have power at this point, this would not be a problem. But authors that are still on that level for which ms. Stuart represents, and she actually feels this way, how do the midlist or new authors feel?

Do I think she is going to be “dressed down” for making those comments. I doubt it. Because the industry is truly about the numbers. As long as she is selling, I doubt seriously if anything will be done.

I am more concerned with the comments from the fringe of the industry, fellow authors, agents etc. It smacks of “don’t let on how the industry operates” “don’t reveal the problems the industry has”. That bothers me because as a reader, how is it ever going to get better if someone is always trying to shut up those that are willing to talk about its problems openly and in good form.

I don’t think anyone should tell author’s to ’shut up and write’ because they are people too and have the same rights as the rest of us to blog, or comment, or state their opinions. On the other hand, I think everyone should behave like a professional with respect to their livelihood. That includes Authors.

what makes it tough is that by being a writer, you’re putting ‘yourself’ and your work out there on the line. I think that makes author’s vulnerable and people should be tactful and thoughtful when and if they comment on the writing. No one except my colleagues (all 45,000) has access to my work but I’d feel pretty bad if any Tom, Dick, or Harry starting slinging crap at me based on it.

My approach to authors has to take advantage of their e-mail address they always give in their books and write to them if I want to comment to them. I’ve been suprised by the few times I’ve done it and the fact that they usually reply.

If only we could all keep that in mind…

I wish more authors saw themselves as primarily *writers*.

Robin – Would you explain more of what you mean by this?

All I mean, Alison, is that I think there’s a substantive difference between someone who sees themselves as writing books and someone who thinks of themselves as a writer. The first is something you do, but the second is something you are. Anyone, IMO, can author something (I’m not commenting on quality here, just the act of placing one’s name on work one has done), but when someone thinks of themselves as a writer, when writing is literally part of their sense of personal identity, I think the work is informed from somewhere deeper, somewhere more personal and personally authentic. Of course, this doesn’t guarantee that any writer is a *good* writer, but I think it does communicate a certain passion that comes from the place where one feels *compelled* to write. It doesn’t have to be all flowery or sentimental; IMO a writer can still see their work in a business-oriented or professional light. But I tend to enjoy books that have a strong voice, and IMO that voice comes from a strong sense of identification with the act of writing even more than the actual piece being produced. I know I’m rambling a little, but I’m tired and have a cold (and I have to leave for Mexico in less than 48 hours, so I’m crazed with getting ready to go), so hopefully there is at least one coherent sentence here.

[quote comment="6677"]As far as “stupid” readers go–those people I ignore publicly. Why would I waste my breath talking about people who aren’t even in my audience? [/quote]

And then there’s this:

I don’t expect my readers to be brilliant. They are, however, not stupid.

And I can’t help wondering if it somehow messes up the rules of the universe if the roles get reversed and a smart person decides not to read the books either. Whatever.

And how does one figure out just how smart people are if one ignores them on principle. Another puzzle for the ages. Oh, well.

My attitude isn’t about arrogance. It’s about respect. I can either treat people like idiots and write to them like babies, or I can treat them like reasonably intelligent people and risk occasionally confusing an intelligent person as a result–particularly an intelligent person who’s used to being treated like a baby most of the time, anyway.

Hmmm, seems to me it might not be enough to treat people with this “respect” within one’s books. One might also consider doing it elsewhere in other communication. Just to keep from confusing anyone and everyone.

And we would both be right *g*.

I ADORE Anne Stuart. And have only read one book by her. I think Nora Roberts is beyond fab and have never read a book by her. I think Lydia Joyce needs to have her internet connection taken away from her and I liked her first book.

All those opinions were formed from things I have read by each of those authors online. Does that mean I would never read Joyce again? No not really, or at least not yet. I have all her books. Of course I haven’t paid for the last two. And I would never buy her again new.

In the case of Stuart… isn’t this pretty normal for her? I don’t think she has done something new or different with this interview. And omg I was so in shock when I saw who was on that blog. LOL I think I posted something long the lines of ‘one of these things does not belong’ *g*.

Hypocrisy in Action

And her peers, as well. Although, Ms. Joyce doesn’t seem to consider her fellow romance authors her “peers”, now does she? Maybe the air’s thinner up in that tower.

Perhaps more of us should shut up and write. Gotta keep that sugary crap flowing, you know.

Robin – Would you explain more of what you mean by this?

Yes, there are some people who are “too stupidâ€Â? to understand my books. But they don’t bring up a particular plot point they don’t like. They complain that none of it makes sense and that there are so many big, confusing words that the books are IMPOSSIBLE to understand. These people just aren’t my readers. I’m destined to piss them off just by having “big wordsâ€Â? in a book.

Insulting readers left and right. Way to go.

My attitude was complete confusion, not defensiveness. It was a couple of weeks before I thought about other stories in which one person or another runs away, and I realized what pattern she was applying to my book. *shrugs* Still, doesn’t make it make one lick more sense in the context of the story. And what sins other writers may or may not have committed aren’t going to make me bastardize a story that works at it is, though it would have been better if I had anticipated that kind of projection.

FWIW, this is the kind of statement that sets my teeth on edge as a reader. Because what it says *to me* is that you realize you need to make allowances for readers who just don’t get your incredibly perfect vision for your book. And really, I understand this sentiment — when someone interprets something I write differently than I meant it, I often think that person is just dead wrong. Such is the nature of being an author and having a strong vision. I love that you have such a strong vision of your work and a passionate belief in its integrity, and I wish more authors saw themselves as primarily *writers*. But in the same way that you perhaps feel that I or others have misinterpreted your tone in responding to Cheryl’s review, I would submit that what you are arguing about with her review ultimately boils down to a question of interpretation, not projection (except in so far as *all* interpretation entails some element of projection). You see what you wrote clearly and in one way; you don’t understand how someone could see it differently. I think all readers can share this sensibility. When, for example, I see readers express their disdain for Rachel’s behavior toward Gabriel in the second half of Sharon Shinn’s Archangel, I think, “you fools — don’t you see that she was a slave, that she lost everything, that it’s so much more realistic to have her be scared and brittle?” So that book has a certain truth for me, and a very different truth to other readers, who, I’m sure, feel just as strongly that their vision of the characters is absolutely clear and indisputable. Yes any of us may be able to understand that others can see something differently, but we may not be able to wrap our own minds around how they arrived as such and such a conclusion.

I’ve read everything you wrote about this here and one your website in that one post Jane linked to from here, and for the most part, unless Cheryl had suggested that you bring in those animatronic monkeys you surely stashed off page to settle the problems like any rational animatronic monkeys would, I really think you’re addressing a legitimate difference of opinion. I understand that you are asserting that the way you’ve drawn the characters makes it impossible for her to see it that way, and maybe 99 out of 100 readers agree with you. Maybe you’re “right” — for whatever that’s worth when it comes to people liking and buying your books. But it’s fiction, and it’s a story, and the pieces can come together slightly different for different readers, IMO, without it being a clear case of projection. Frankly, there isn’t enough in Cheryl’s review for me to see the importation so clearly; in fact, she sees the characters constructed in such a way as to support her point. If she had said something like “real people act this way,” then I’d be on board with the pure projection assertion. But again, even if you think she’s dead wrong, to say it must be projection does, IMO, create the perception of a subordinated position for that reader, even if that perception is ultimately an “illusion” based on your intentions in making the points you did.

…in typical romances, there IS NO REAL RISK. It’s all an illusion. Really, the hero is a good, sweet guy, and he wouldn’t actually sleep around or lock someone up or whatever. Faux ho! Fake rake! It’s all tissue paper costumes and tin foil swords!

But guess what? If you go in with those kind of expectations, you’re going to be disappointed in my books EVERY SINGLE TIME. I don’t write that way. I refuse to.

…and just because it IS a romance and it will end happily doesn’t mean such an ending is foreordained no matter what path they choose. It’s about not selling the reader short.

I think unless you pull a Joss Whedon or don’t end with a HEA, there wouldn’t be much risk either with your books; it’s still an illusion. There have been very few romance novels where I wonder as I’m reading how the author is going to pull off a HEA and make it feel right. (And it’s different from wanting to throw the book against a wall because whatever’s keeping the h/h apart seems so artificial or manipulative of the reader’s/my emotions.)

If a HEA is required of the genre (and it seems to me that it is, or the book wouldn’t be considered a romance novel), then the reader knows that no matter what happens there will still be a happy ending. All that’s left is how one gets there – and to wrap up an extremely dark character with a HEA I would think wouldn’t really ring true. Also, how dark or risky can a story or character (who’s not evil) get if there has to be a HEA (that fits the story)?

But then I’ve only read “The Music of the Night”. Maybe the other ones end without a HEA or with more ambiguity.

Yes, if this were a typical romance, Alcy could argue with Dumitru, because in typical romances, there IS NO REAL RISK. It’s all an illusion. Really, the hero is a good, sweet guy, and he wouldn’t actually sleep around or lock someone up or whatever. Faux ho! Fake rake! It’s all tissue paper costumes and tin foil swords!

But guess what? If you go in with those kind of expectations, you’re going to be disappointed in my books EVERY SINGLE TIME. I don’t write that way. I refuse to.

What I hear you say or understand you to say is that when a reader is disappointed with what you say, its because our expectations are so limited in scope and that we require/desire only rote responses from the characters in the books we read. Most of your post reads to me that you are not only smarter than everyone, but also a better writer than most everyone because your stuff is challenging and dark and wonderful and whatever. And those who don’t like your books just don’t like challenging and dark and wonderful books. It is possible, with my diminished nighttime brain power and my tired eyes, that I do not get your post.

And I have to say, since when are smart people discriminated against? I didn’t realize that smart people were being disenfrachised. Speaking of voting, go vote tomorrow people.

There is ALWAYS a chance of being misunderstood, but I’d rather be misunderstood by a reader than beat a reader over the head with everything. If the book doesn’t work for a few people for that reason, then, oh, well. Every choice has consequences, and maybe they’ll like the next one better, and I won’t alienate my other readers by being so HEAVY-HANDED about everything.

Again, it’s a taste issue. I can’t stand heavy-handed books. To me, that’s a far worse problem than confusing a few readers. So it’s not a choice that I’m going to change in the future.

What do I mean about reading things into a book? Lessee…someone has already declared that he will lock you up for the rest of your natural life rather than let you (and your money) leave, and so when you find out that he’s planning on stealing more of your money, you…yell at him? Because that will make him NOT lock you up?

Yes, if this were a typical romance, Alcy could argue with Dumitru, because in typical romances, there IS NO REAL RISK. It’s all an illusion. Really, the hero is a good, sweet guy, and he wouldn’t actually sleep around or lock someone up or whatever. Faux ho! Fake rake! It’s all tissue paper costumes and tin foil swords!

But guess what? If you go in with those kind of expectations, you’re going to be disappointed in my books EVERY SINGLE TIME. I don’t write that way. I refuse to.

In my books, there is a real risk. Alcy COULD have been locked up for a year or longer. Sarah MIGHT have ended up at a half-starved whore on the streets of Venice–or, hell, she could have drowned in a canal. Victoria COULD have ended up a cripple or could have just turned back to her old life, leaving Byron and everything at Raeburn behind her. Very, very nasty things can–and often enough do–happen to my characters. It isn’t some sort of pretence of risk. It’s not a GAME–there’s no bluff to call. The characters are gambling with their futures, and just because it IS a romance and it will end happily doesn’t mean such an ending is foreordained no matter what path they choose. It’s about not selling the reader short.

Yes, there are some people who are “too stupid” to understand my books. But they don’t bring up a particular plot point they don’t like. They complain that none of it makes sense and that there are so many big, confusing words that the books are IMPOSSIBLE to understand. These people just aren’t my readers. I’m destined to piss them off just by having “big words” in a book.

At some point, EVERY writer must decide who her audience is, whether she’s deciding that she doesn’t care about people who are anal about history or she doesn’t care about people who like a fairly basic vocabulary. I could stand around and simper about how “my books are for everyone,” but if I did that, I’d be a liar. No one’s books are for everyone, and there’s not an author alive who truly believes that they are.

My books aren’t for people who don’t like dark romances. They aren’t for people who can’t believe in love. They aren’t for people who demand that their heroines always be nice. They aren’t for a great number of people. If honesty about the writing process and writing choices are a problem for you, you can find someone who will lie through her teeth and smile and hand out peppermints with pictures of her book cover on them in a desperate hope that you’ll like them, as if life were a popularity contest. I’m not like that. I don’t do the sugary crap. It turns my stomach. I respect my readers too much to treat them like that.

As far as “stupid” readers go–those people I ignore publicly. Why would I waste my breath talking about people who aren’t even in my audience? Why would I want to, when what I really want is to snatch my book out of their hands and forbid them from ever coming within 100 yards of another one?

If I address something publicly, it’s because I respect a person’s opinion enough talk about it. I am frank about things actually I mess up or don’t portray clearly–I loathe the epilogue to MUSIC OF THE NIGHT, and I am horribly frustrated that I left out something really important from the book in the edits. (Amusingly enough, there is a big logistical “error” in one of my books that I’m waiting for someone to catch, but no one’s mentioned it anywhere. I knew it didn’t work physically when I wrote it, but it worked too well for the story to remove, and so I said to hell with physics and left it in.) I hardly think I’m flawless. But readers can be mistaken sometimes, too…believe it or not.

Was I unrealistic because I didn’t not pound in the realities of Alcy’s situation, assuming that readers would take my book as I had written it, without hauling in the baggage of their past experiences in the genre? Maybe. But I cannot change the way I approach my books because of fear that a few readers—yes, a few of *my* readers, my target audience–might misunderstand part of my book part of the time. That would turn my books into everything *I* hate as a reader–constant repetition, unceasing over-explanation, and overall, a condescending, wearisome tone.

Even the readers who misunderstand ONE element in ONE particular book would find such a change frustrating because just because the reader didn’t “get” ONE element doesn’t mean that she didn’t get ten others without them being beaten into the ground, and each person who misunderstands something will likely misunderstand something different.

I don’t expect my readers to be brilliant. They are, however, not stupid. My attitude isn’t about arrogance. It’s about respect. I can either treat people like idiots and write to them like babies, or I can treat them like reasonably intelligent people and risk occasionally confusing an intelligent person as a result–particularly an intelligent person who’s used to being treated like a baby most of the time, anyway.

Yeah, I’m smart, and I got sick to death of hiding it along time ago. I refuse to do it anymore because it shouldn’t be something to be ashamed of or hated for, and I hope that my standing up will help others who have faced discrimination, too. (I guess I’m still too much of a hypocrite to post my IQ range, but I can still hope that the day will come when it won’t be any different than dress or shoe size.) There is nothing in the world wrong with being smart any more than there’s something wrong with having blue eyes or brown skin, and it is NOT “showing offâ€Â? to refrain from talking down to people any more than it is showing off for a tall person not to stoop. I’m 5′6″, too, and 128lbs! So frigging what? My height doesn’t make you any taller or shorter, nor does my intelligence make you any smarter or dumber. If I were 6′ tall, a 5′8″ woman would still be pretty tall, even if I were still taller. If I were 5′ tall, a 5′4″ woman would still be pretty short, even if I were still shorter. Same for weight. Same for intelligence. But this has almost nothing to do with my writing. I write ROMANCE, not self-absorbed navel-gazing “literaryâ€Â? fiction designed to glorify my own ego. I write for other people—a large audience of other people. Not for all other people, true, but I still write for *most* romance readers, even throwing in my not-nice heroines and my dark romances.

I’m not trying to write books that trick people. Sure, you have to be “this tall to ride,” but that’s only because teacup-and-saucer rides just aren’t that exciting to many readers after a while–including me, and I’m not going to write books I wouldn’t want to read! There are difficulties, of course. If you’re used to mostly teacup-and-saucer rides, there might be some things on a roller coaster that don’t seem to make much sense at first (why isn’t it going around and around?), and since I’m trying to build a roller coaster, which is harder to do, there might also be a jagged turn here or there that isn’t done as smoothly as it should be when a teacup-and-saucer ride done with the same level of skill would be seamless. Any exclusionary steps I might take aren’t as a result of my hating “short” people but because, overall, I want to give a more exciting ride, even if it does leave a few people out. And I’m just not pretending that teacups-and-saucers will cut it for everyone.

The bottom line is that I talk about certain reviewers and about certain reviewers’ problems with my books because I assume that they’re intelligent, level-headed, generally sensible people. I talk because I respect them enough to do so. You’ll know if I think you’re an idiot–because I just won’t speak about anything you say.

And, BTW, even though I wouldn’t do what Krissie did, I still like her immensely for it. I can’t help but find someone honest incredibly refreshing.

First, maybe I’m missing something, but given the tongue-in-cheek tone of Stuart’s comments, I just didn’t seem them as being as negative as some other have here. Her comments seemed more ironic – like when I tell people not to get in line behind me at a check-out counter but it’s almost a guarantee that someone in front of me will need a price-check or something!

Second, about an author giving clarification on a point. I’ve actually emailed more than one author for clarification. There have been points that I thought were poorly made – the author was too aware of the backstory and didn’t share enough. And after reading their justifications or explanations, I still think the writing was weak in those instances.

But there were also points where I must have been skimming, or just “boneheaded” myself! When the author pointed out sections I’d obviously missed that made a character’s choices make sense, well, I just had to say “doh! how did I miss that?!”

So I don’t mind a bit of clarification – however, while I’m allowed to call myself a “bonehead”, I’d really prefer the author doesn’t – at least, not in public!