Spoiler alert*****
In any case, Bernie is hired by a well-known author to steal private letters he wrote that are going to be published. Once he steals them, the author writes a new version of the letters and replaces them. When Bernie, who can’t distinguish one set of letters from the other, asks him what the point was of that, the author replies, (again I hope memory serves and I am not doing a disservice to Mr. Block or misrepresentating of his work), that the private letters were not meant for public viewing, and therefore the publication of them felt like a violation, however the replacement letters were a work of fiction.

I believe that publishing another person’s private correspondence, in whatever modality it is initially sent, is a violation. People are going to do it anyway. That doesn’t make it right, and I think it reflects more poorly on the poster than the letter writer, whatever is in the original letter. This is my problem with You-tube as well. I think it’s a violation for people to put videos of others on the web, but they do it anyway. It’s this kind of behavior that keeps tabloids in business, but now it’s not just the rich and famous who are victims of it.

As for what’s “reasonable” in any of this, I don’t think we’re ever going to agree. I can buy that Crusie didn’t think it was at all a big deal to post the letter, but I don’t find either implicit or explicit in anything she originally posted that she intended or was at all interested in protecting Y, at least initially (the next day she changed the name to Y). In other words, if she intended that, it didn’t come across to me at all in the tone or content of her post. It doesn’t make sense to me that given everything Crusie and Rich were saying about how “abusive” Y’s letter was that they were trying to protect her from knowing her letter was the subject of that post. Generally speaking, I do think it’s a lot easier to publicly mock someone who isn’t there to respond, defend themselves, or protest the revelation of their private correspondence. And a handful of angry sentences an easy caricature makes. One of the ironic things about this, though, to me, at least, is that one’s name IS public information, and in that correspondence, it’s the one legally recognized piece of public information posted.

Which is also why Y is far more likely to stumble across this post, which names Rich.

But isn’t the upshot the same: extending protection to Rich but not to Y? Very possibly I am misunderstanding your point. The intended nature of the protection is a bit different — protecting Rich From Y rather than protecting Rich’s anonymity more generally (and Rich made it easy to figure out it was her, as did Crusie, if you know Rich’s books). I don’t know; here’s the original comment: But a pal of mine–no, really a pal of mine, not me–just got a letter that had us both in stitches. The letter is below with my pal’s name Xed out in case the letter writer is doing an internet search for her although given the content of the letter, I doubt it

I wonder, though, if Y had come upon the discussion, how things would have gone, had she dared to enter the fray. And some wonder why people make anonymous submissions online, lol.

I didn’t read it that way. Had the letter-writer googled her own name, which was hardly unique, she may not have found that particular blog post. But if she had googled by that author’s name, she would have been able to connect the dots.

One of the most interesting issues, IMO, was whether or not the letter writer was trying to interfere with Rich’s creative process, as some asserted. Since neither Rich nor Crusie seemed to take the letter very seriously, that conversation didn’t really go too far (and interestingly, the reader didn’t demand anything, she wrote “Please do not put your name on anything with the word, “Quilt” ever again.” ). It was tough all the way around, because the letter was introduced as being laughable, so later talk about how it was “abusive,” etc. was not part of the original context presented by either author.

Was the original reason the writer was upset ever really discussed? The book could be excerpted and the way it characterized whatever the reader was upset about could have been analyzed without even once having to post the original email that was sent.

Focusing on the book would have been constructive and promoted the book. Eh, who knows it all seems overly personalized and not professional.

I do not think you were seeing things.

Well, the sender’s first name was included originally, and Crusie did not remove it until the next day, at which point she changed all references to the woman’s name to “Y”.

As for the question of discussion, in the original blog post, titled “You Have Not Got A Clue,” after posting the note from Y, here’s what Crusie posted:

Gotta love Y, who speaks for quilters and Americans everywhere against the godless upstate New York liberal commie blue-state romance novelists. I particularly love the “Thanks, Y” signature.

But even more, you gotta love my pal, who sent back this:

Dear Reader!

Thanks so much for writing! I am sorry, but because of all the fan mail I get, I can’t respond to every letter individually. But please know I do read them all, and I’m so glad you loved my books!

Best,
X

Is there any wonder I adore X?

IIRC, I was actually the first one to weigh in with a comment about readers and authors (although I was not the first to protest; someone else weighed in with a comment that she “wasn’t going to feel superior to Y” ). Crusie then went back and forth to debating with me and joining the ‘making sport’ to use RfP’s Austen reference. Had there been no objections, how much discussion does anyone really think there would have been? Perhaps a lot, but it wasn’t going in that direction before some of us said we were uncomfortable. To me, the post was problematic at every level: posting a private note with the sender’s first name (and Crusie even says she’s Xing out RICH’S name in case the reader is searching the Internet for her — overtly protecting Rich but not the reader who sent the private missive); doing so with the stated intention of showing why she “adore[s]” Rich with no invitation for discussion of anything (which she talked about in her second post the next day, to her credit); Rich initially commented only with “chortle” and “tee hee,” eventually making, as Meriam said, contradictory statements, from “I love Y” to “This woman was not my reader. She didn’t even buy the book” (she got if from the library), to she “deserved to be taken down a notch,” to “The fact that the swinging fists of crazy were about the book is really just clouding the issue,” to an adamant, repeated refrain that she would do the exact same thing again. Rich, in fact, argued that the issue wasn’t even about the reader – author relationship.

And I can safely say that protests to the whole deal were not the “popular” response. I really do give people credit for not trying to flame us, but none of us were frantically ranting, either. We were accused of over-reacting (and “over-extrapolating,” a Rich put it), and I understand that part of what Rich was trying to do in responding was to defuse some of the tension around the issue, trying to get me and Jane and several others to see that this was really just about a “crazy” letter, etc. And the thing is, I *know* why people found this funny — from the start I understood the appeal of the post to people. And I don’t think anyone who mocked is a horrible person. I just refused to play along, not out of ignorance to the humor people found, but to a) the violation of reader Y’s privacy (and to me, if someone reads your book, they are your reader), and b) the idea that hammering her was okay because “she started it” (a defense Rich even used) and her letter was “abusive.” But none of that “abusive letter” talk was part of the original invitation to share Crusie’s adoration for Rich. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Crusie wanted to show off Rich’s cleverness. And hey, it was clever, no doubt about that. What I don’t agree with is the contention that Rich’s note to the reader was “nicer,” though (unless the standard is similar to whether it’s less painful and cleaner to be shot with a rifle or a semi-automatic), because a) this WAS a reader, b) who wrote a private letter, c) designated publicly as “crazy” d) and therefore erasable (e.g. “This woman was not my reader” ). Someone even said “You cannot hurt this woman,” assuming she was inured to criticism based on the handful of sentences in her own note. It was suggested several times that she wasn’t smart enough or aware enough to even understand she had been insulted by Rich’s response. Of course, with no more than a handful of sentences to represent Y, her letter was, as someone put it “ripe for the picking.” Sometimes I do think you need to vent — publicly, even. But as I asked before, if I had overheard a group of authors ranting against or mocking another author, and I blogged their whole conversation, with their first names, would there still be such broad support for a) posting it, or b) mocking it publicly?

If the aim *is* discussion, then how can the public posting and mocking of private reader email, foster that in any authentic way? And if that isn’t the aim, then is it simply making sport of our neighbors by publicly revealing their letters to us and laughing at them?

But I don’t see a problem with posting the text of an email when only the sender and receiver know the identity. The text itself illustrates, or can, a topic worth discussing. And the following discussion on how it can, is, or might be handled. Good fodder, imo.

I think this is the crux of the matter to me. I love chatting with readers, love interacting, but I am sometimes surprised by how much some reveal. Usually it’s through a happy sharing but sometimes pain inspires peoples reactions and it matters to me how I handle that sometimes inadvertent trust. I was raised with the creed, “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” I take very little personally, thank goodness, and rarely get mad over anything, but when I do, that question, “Should I?” usually stops me in my tracks because, for me, the answer is rarely yes.

It doesn’t mean I swallow every insult. It just means that not everyone has the power to insult me.