Now you can infer that Lisle means the buyer is uneducated and uninterested from that, if you like, but it’s *your* inference.

Of course that’s an inference. But here’s the thing, Chris: Lisle’s statement was an inference, too. As was yours.

That’s been my whole point; Lisle’s statement was itself interpretive and conclusory. It wasn’t suggestive (”perhaps Corporate Buyers . . . “), it wasn’t speculative (”I wonder if Corporate Buyers . . . “), it wasn’t qualified (”In my personal experience . . .”). It may be a conclusion drawn from Lisle’s experience, and she is absolutely entitled to her opinion. But the fact remains that it was an opinion presented in the guise of a fact (and yes I’m aware that’s an inference). The entire post, in fact, is stated as a foregone conclusion, which Lisle obviously believes to be the case. But just because she believes it doesn’t make it a) true for everyone, and b) expressed in a way that makes her universally understood.

I wouldn’t think that Holly would have to baldly state the obvious fact that no one, no single human being on Earth could *possibly* read every single book published in a year, even in one genre, unless they were a) a prodigious speed-reader, and b) had nothing else to do with their time.

But why would a corporate buyer have to read every single book in order to look at said books as more than cans of tuna. I haven’t read every book in a bookstore, but I certainly don’t look at books as the equivalent of canned tuna. She made a judgment call there. Again, a chain of inferences, beginning with Lisle’s.

but if it’s the experience of enough midlist authors that a clear and obvious trend shows up, and if a number of professional editors have stated to those authors that this is what happened, and why, then I’m willing to their word for it, until someone can show me some evidence that disproves it.

The key is that you “have to take [her] word for it” — but not everyone does. In the same way that not everyone, including you or Lisle, have to agree with the way I read her piece. I just don’t appreciate being referred to (however indirectly) as sloppy or stupid in my reading skills, or willfully misrepresentative in my inferences.

can you seriously be saying that you believe that Ms. Little writing about Lisle in a blog post under the heading “Authors Behaving Badlyâ€Â? is somehow not calling Holly’s behavior into question?

To be honest, I didn’t even notice that, as it was printed in such small font. I read Jane’s reaction to Lisle’s rant as one aimed entirely at her rhetoric and her points. All I can do is speak for myself and say that I didn’t consider the issue one of behavior until Lisle came over here and started calling those of us who read her piece a certain way “sloppy readers” — and yes, I absolutely think that was directed at me or anyone else who read Lisle’s blog post in a differing way. We were considered either under the influence of the Ja(y)nes or we just couldn’t read right. If Lisle didn’t intend THAT to cause offense, her sense of reality is irreconcilably different than mine.

I won’t suggest that Jane’s post wasn’t provocative and strongly worded itself. I won’t suggest that Lisle should have been thrilled to read it or that she shouldn’t have responded in whatever way felt comfortable to her. I’ve been spoken of badly and in ways I think are completely unfair on the Internet, and I’ve had more than one scuffle with an author who didn’t like what I had to say about her work. We all can react defensively when we feel we aren’t being understood, and I’m willing to cut an author a good deal of slack in those circumstances. One of my favorite authors has come off, IMO, as oversensitive and defensive on occasion, and while I wince a little when I see it, I figure the upside of that oversensivity is a wonderfully written, empathetic book. I’ve responded defensively in certain situations, as well.

But I’m not here complaining about how I’m losing the goodwill of readers because of the opinion of one blog commentator. Lisle certainly has the right to be a complete raving bitch if she wants, and she can feel justified six ways to Saturday while she rants on and on. My point is fundamentally that for me, if anyone alienates me from Lisle’s fiction, it is going to be Lisle herself if she keeps on, not the Ja(y)nes. All Jane’s original post did was get me over to Lisle’s site and pique my interest in Talyn. Ironic, huh?

I totally prematurely ejaculated my “good will toward menâ€Â? in the month of November instead of saving it up for “this time of year.â€Â?

Oh man, I think I like this lady more and more already.

So no matter how the Ja(y)nes act, Holly is supposed to be polite, patient and be completely perfect? That totally goes against everything I was ever taught by my parents, and it goes against everything that this time of year stands for.

:::blink,blink:::
*hand clap* You almost had me. I was thisclose to feeling guilty about my upbringing but common sense reared it’s ugly head yet again.

Are you saying that one is only supposed to be nice and kind if one has something to gain?

One doesn’t have to be nice at all, but I think Karen was saying that Lisle had more to lose in this exchange.

About those emoticons…can we have ones with bloodshed and straightjackets? And maybe one that moons?

it is so sad…

As for the holidays – I was right cheerful for three Mondays and two weeks in November. You just missed it. I totally prematurely ejaculated my “good will toward men” in the month of November instead of saving it up for “this time of year.” It will part of my New Year resolution – save up good cheer for December.