Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.
William Shakespeare, Othello, Act III, scene iii.
When I started writing about defamation a couple of weeks ago, I quickly realized that it was much too complicated of a topic to stuff into one large blog post. It’s not just complicated but it is also confusing with technical issues that can make or break a case but are not easily understood.
One major element of a defamation case is determining if the defamation is "per se" or "per quod". The easiest case to prove is the defamation per se. The hardest, by contrast, is defamation per quod. Here’s the difference in pratical terms. The courts have decided that there is a certain set of words that is just so bad that just merely uttering the words aloud in front of someone other than the Unhappy Person (or printing them), that the reputation of the Unhappy Person must be damaged. Those words are known as "defamation per se." All other words are "defamation per quod." The application of the difference is in what the Unhappy Person must prove to be successful.
Burden of Proof
Let me back up here for a minute. In every lawsuit, the Unhappy Person bears the "burden of proof". When an Unhappy Person files a lawsuit, she essentially says to the court, "I’ve been wronged. MeanGirl did X to me. Because of MeanGirl doing X, I incurred damages. I deserve compensation." These are called the elements of a cause of action and the Unhappy Person has to prove each and every element by a "preponderance of the evidence." If you view the scales of justice, preponderance of the evidence is tipping the scales just slightly in one direction. In a civil case, for almost every element, Unhappy Person needs to prove each element just by the "greater weight of the evidence."
The "burden of proof" is different in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the State/City/County (Unhappy Bunch of People represented by one) must prove each and every element "beyond a reasonable doubt." (not beyond a shadow of doubt as many people think. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is a much tougher standard than beyond a "reasonable doubt". In other words, you can have unreasonable doubts and still find a person " guilty" whereas if the standard is "beyond a shadow of doubt" you would have to find the person not guilty.) Not to get off track here, but there is no standard called "beyond a shadow of doubt." That is purely a fictional creation.
Differences in Proof
Back to the difference between defamation per se and per quod. In a defamation per quod case, the Unhappy Person has to prove alot more elements.
| Defamation Per Se | Defamation Per Quod |
| MeanGirl made the statement | MeanGirl made the statement |
| To someone other than the Unhappy Person | To someone other than the Unhappy Person |
| The statement was false | |
| The statement was made with malice | |
| The statement defamed the Unhappy Person* | |
| The statement caused damage | |
| The amount of the damage |
The court usually determines that the statement is defamatory per se so that isn’t an element that you have to prove. In a defamation per quod case, the jury decides if the statement actually is defamatory. The Unhappy Person must prove it. Also and most importantly, in a defamation per quod case, the Unhappy Person must show what is called "special damages." In the law, special damages are pecuniary or monetary losses incurred as a result of the or because of the defamation. If there is no monetary or pecuniary loss stated specifically (i.e., Unhappy Person failed to sell 2500 books as a result of the defamatory statements made by MeanGirl reviewer), the Unhappy Person won’t even be allowed to proceed with the suit. The judge will dismiss it even if the statement was defamatory.
Emotional or physical harms are not considered to be "special damages" so if someone’s feelings are hurt, even to the extent that it causes sleepless nights or loss of weight or mental anguish, if there is no corresponding "pecuniary" loss, the Unhappy Person is out of luck. The Unhappy Person bears the "burden of proof" of showing the connection between the statement and the loss. For example, in the Lee case, she would have to show that any loss of profits were because of malicious and false statements made about her when the loss of profits could easily be attributable to her refusal to remove the copied material; her threats of lawsuits; her threats of negative statements made to the press; and so forth.
Defamation Per Se
Defamation per se is generally statements made in four broad categories. Statements made to a third party which impute one or more of the following are considered to be defamatory per se:
- criminal conduct (can’t be a traffic violation or a crime punishable by a fine but can be suggesting someone beats their wife, is a pedophile, driving while drunk, tried to kill someone, i.e., attempted murder)
- loathsome disease (HIV or other sexually transmitted disease)
- misconduct in one’s trade, profession or office, or (engaged in plagiarism, taking money as a bribe; sleeping with a client; or a single mistake that suggests a habitual course of conduct)
- sexual misconduct (some states define this as applying to women, i.e., a woman who is unchaste, but could be anyone engaging in adultery, even sleeping around or engaging in whorish behavior)
The Balance
In the suit of Ramsey v. Fox News Network, Inc., 351 F.Supp.2d 1145 (D. Colo. 2005), the family of Jon Benet Ramsey brought a defamation suit against Fox News for news reports that the Ramseys characterized as suggesting the Ramsey family could be responsible for the murder of the young girl. The court dismissed the suit on the basis that the statements made by Fox News were not defamation per se. The statements in question were primarily the comments made by reporter Carol McKinley:
Detectives say they have had good reason to suspect the Ramseys. The couple and JonBenét’s nine year old brother, Burke, were the only known people in the house the night she was killed. JonBenét had been strangled, bludgeoned and sexually assaulted, most likely from one of her mother’s paintbrushes. The longest ransom note most experts have ever seen-three pages-was left behind. Whomever killed her spent a long time in the family home, yet there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder.
In dismissing the case, the court quoted the piece from Othella and recognized that the reputation of a person is a precious and valuable entity; however, when weighed against the Constitutional protection of free speech and the importance of free speech concluded as follows:
These constitutional protections are not just for broadcast media. Indeed, free speech itself acts as a check on the media. For example, in our current technologically-advanced era anyone can get on the internet, become a self-proclaimed journalist or pundit and draw a worldwide audience. Webloggers can in a matter of hours point out key errors in reporting by mainstream media outlets. When people have the means and expertise to generally publish fair and perhaps insightful comments quickly and easily on matters of public concern, such as what a crime scene reveals or does not reveal, law enforcement and the rest of us may benefit. The robust protections guaranteed by the First Amendment thus remain as important and valuable as ever.
Plaintiffs may well have filed this case more for vindication than for money, and perhaps vindication is what they deserve. But they have a better chance for meaningful vindication in the court of public opinion through vigorous debate about the background and details of this heinous crime than by suing those whose reporting may arguably include some less than favorable inferences about them. Plaintiffs cannot have the public discourse playing field entirely to themselves.
Id. at 1154.
Next week I’ll address the media defendant, of and concerning a public matter, and malice.
It’s wwwwwaaaayyyyy too early for my brain to process most of that without some caffeine. Going to come back later after I forced myself into wakefulness.
But in case I forget to come back later, Jane… that kitten is just so pitiful.
Now, I actually understood this post and I read it with only 1/2 a cup of caffeine floating around in my veins. Woot!
I’m agreeing with Shiloh. That kitten steals the blog. *G*
Actually, another great post. Thanks so much for taking the time to spell this out.
The law’s pretty twisty, even when so articulately explained.
But anybody who’s mean to the kitten deserves time in the slam.
Nora
Whenever asked toquantify a preponderance of the evidence, one evidence prof would define it as “50% plus a camel hair”. Which seemed to perplex some students even more: a camel hair, what’s a camel hair have to do with anything?
And what is wrong with that kitten? Its head is HUGE and its face is squished. Is that all just fur, or is it a mutant kitten?
OMG, teh kitty!
:faints from cute:
:unable to read post:
So if you said to your boss, about a new candidate, “Don’t hire her, she slept with her last client at our old firm.” That’s per se if it’s untrue right? But what if you don’t know for sure she slept with her client, you just have a pretty good idea.
Another great post, Jane.
I thought this one was very clear. I especially liked the two columns. And that kitten is too cute for words.
Nora, you can’t torture a puppy and then get all softie over the a purry kitty!
You’re a mean girl.
I am a mean girl, but the crazy/sad eyes of the kitten have looked into my soul. It’s kind of creepy, actually.
Lorelie - Yes, I think that statement is defamatory per se under the idea that it imputes not only immoral conduct but also unethical conduct strictly prohibited by the code of professional conduct. The MeanGirl has to prove that it is true. Truth is an affirmative defense which must be pled and then proved by the person making the utterance.
I have to say the kitten caught my eye but your blog is what kept me reading (as it always does). Great information.
The kitten kinda looks like a furby to me. Remember those? Pretty kitty.
That was very informative, and I think I was awake enough to follow it (or too asleep to realize it was over my head!). That kitten may actually have startled me out of my sleep fog- terrifying!
Jane,
I’m a lurker but I wanted to say:
1. Thank you for all the information. I’ve been reading all the blogs regarding this subject and I think I even understand it. Thanks!
2 That kitten’s noggin is HUGE! Cute and creepy.
Sharron
Very interesting, thanks.
(from someone who doesn’t read law stuff)
Neat stuff. Lesson learned: Don’t call anyone “mean,” ever. Even if they really are. Too much work to prove. It’s easier just to be nice, and keep mean thoughts silent. See? It’s not so much about the nice — it’s about the lazy. I’m too lazy to be mean. Hey — does this mean laziness is a virtue?
(Anne: FURBYS? Ugh, NO, NO, NO. Bad enough my kids are into Pokemon now… )
[That was not supposed to be a winking smiley face. Nothing about Pokemon makes me want to wink. Maybe it makes my eye twitch, but that's something else entirely. Er. Carry on...]
Going to keep asking. Jane, are you a lawyer?
Going to keep asking. Jane, are you a lawyer? (P.S. nice try at moderating comments.)
Jane has already answered the question.
Now please, enough with the trolling. This question has been answered, and we are not going to respond to it anymore.
Would anyone care to feed the troll long enough to find the post where Jane affirmatively states \”I am at attorney-at-law\” or \”I am a lawyer.\” The troll is hungry and has a delicate digestive system that can only be satisfied by truffles and affirmative statements by Jane Litte that she is indeed an attorney.
The troll thanks you. Carry on.
Actually, Jane is a roofer. That’s why we like to discuss writerly topics on her blog and not yours. Now go back Underground, troll.
Question to Jane: So those lawsuits won by famous personalities against The Enquirer, for example–would that be per se or per quod?
I’ve been lurking around here for quite a while and I just have one question about this topic.
You put accusing someone of plagiarism under the whole per se section, so does that mean that if you accuse someone of plagiarism you have to have proof that they did plagiarize? And would they have a good lawsuit if you didn’t have proof?
Thanks for this series of articles. They’ve been amazingly informative.
*yawn*
Holy freakin’ #$*! What the heck is that animal in the picture? I want to see a DNA test of that thing. It out-bigeye’s my manga! Yeesh.
I thought that news report was just reporting what the detectives said. Can you get successfully sued for repeating someone else’s “defamation” as news? If A said B was a drug dealer, and then C said “A said B was a drug dealer.”?
Hi Ferfe
Hey Troll, actually, it’s not moderation - your comments get stuck in a spam filter. Mine do too when I post from a different email address and I had to request to be ‘unstuck’.
Okay now really–anybody who posts a picture like that just CAN’T be a mean girl.
Awwwwandisn’thimjustthecutestwittlething!
I want that kitten-how could you have a bad day with that face to greet you?
So is it defamation when ferfe and her cohorts were calling Jane just a secretary, janitor or a UPS worker? I haven’t gone back to their blog so I am not sure whether they took the post down. But I think the above comments are actually insults to Trolls. They aren’t even trying to be cute, clever or devious-just PATHETIC.
Nora-oh wise one-could you reiterate why it is not in someone’s professional interest to be a writer and publicly mock and insult others-or should the persons editor/keeper explain to them about turning off future readers.
You’re quite right, Jill. My own comments regularly get stuck in that filter. It’s annoying, but the thing does stop a ton of spam.
You know, when you guys accuse Ferfe of all the troll posts we laugh to kill ourselves. Jane’s banned Ferfe from posting. Every post of hers has been “spammed”. Funny, that. And Ferfe would never be a troll. It’s not her style.
Back to the lawyer question. Actually I would love to know too. If you can link to where Jane states that yes, she is a laywer, I would have a little bit more respect for the posts. Especially since you can take the time to look up cases, but not a post? You can get all kinds of advice from hacks these days online. Gotta be careful. ;-)
According to Robin’s link(27), Ferfe insinuated Jane is a demon as well. UPS worker…really?
Hmm, that kitty does look sorta demonic….
Unfortunately, the cached page didn’t pick up all 55 comments to the post (including the one where Ferfe publicly outs herself as the “troll” ). I think the final consensus was that Jane is a paralegal or a SAHM.
SAHM?? Satanic Administrator of Hell’s Minions? I KNEW it.
Yes, too bad, becuase I think you misunderstood Ferfe’s sarcasm. Hard to pick out even when you’re talking to her too, unless you know her. It’s all deadpan dry. But hey! You’re keeping up with the blog! I’ll pass it on.
Yes, Ann, who actually IS a lawyer, commented that a paralegal would be able to post what Jane has been offering as advice.
Too bad Ferfe is blocked, I’m sure she could answer all these herself. But *scratches head* she got blocked AFTER asking if Jane was an actual lawyer.
Any cop will tell you-there is no such thing as coincidence.
I believe I was the one–during the last discussion–who said I considered Ferfe a troll. I would be happy to say that I consider her a sock/troll at this point. If I popped up on her blog with snide remarks, or under a guise, I would consider myself the same. I thought that was the definition. Maybe I’m mistaken.
I do know that obsessing about another blogger to this extent, and interrupting a discussion again and again with the obsession strikes me as very odd behavior.
I geddit now. Ferfe over there is also misunderstanding Jane’s and Robin’s dry sarcasm.
Robin, I just found that cache page with the 55 posts, where Ferfe also called one of hers as a “Robin-of-a-1000 word post.” I also think I understand why she doesn’t like Jane; she blames Jane for the “co-ordinated”, three blog, five blogger extravaganza dedicated to cutting and pasting everything I’ve (she’d) ever posted on line.” Shoot, I just did that myself. My dry sarcasm is coming out too, darnit.
goddamn, that kitty is cute.
AWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
Nora, Congratulations on the Quill win.
I think the only reason Ferfe came over here was because she very much respects Monica, and she was horrified at what she was reading. I don’t believe Ferfe actually hijacked that particular thread. For the most part none of us read these blogs anymore. But someone said Monica was taking a beating.
The only question I brought up was if Jane was, indeed, a lawyer. That is all. No socks, no trolls. Just a question.
I, personally like to know that my professional advice is coming from an actual professional in the field.
And like I said, since Ferfe was banned when she asked if Jane was a lawyer…
Well, I’m not going to waste my time or energy on trollage and all that, and I’m just going to ignore all those posts.
The more important part is the really useful and interesting information on defamation, and I’d hate for the discussion of that information to get derailed by trollage or sock puppet-age. Thanks for the series of posts, Jane.
Let’s see if this gets through. Last time I checked, my IP’s were being blocked.
Why am I being accused of this? I asked Jane ONCE in response to her dissing me for NOT being a lawyer. She never answered. I interpret that to mean she is not a lawyer herself. End of.
That is not me hammering at Jane to man up and come clean. I am satisfied with the non-answer. I do not EVER post as someone else. Call me many things but sock puppet I am not.
And yes. I do thing Jane is a demon. Sue me.
Then again, so would a lawyer…
Occam’s razor is worth noting. As is the corollary that generally when a conspiracy theory is set forth, none is truly needed to actually explain events.
All of Ferfe’s posts except for the one where she suggests Monica was on crack (the one in the cached post) have gone through.
As for these columns, Jane is not dispensing any legal advice. I would assume that any attorney would know that.
Daggone it. I had this wonderful, witty post and when I tried to post it, it got eaten. Well, maybe it wasn’t all the wonderful and witty. But I’m going to try again. BTW, is the blog loading weird for others or is it just me?
Anybody that’s picking on that kitten… man, you’re being so mean! So what if it’s kinda weird looking… it’s so pitiful it’s cute. Picking on a kitty… so mean. Mean! :P
Also going to throw some lighter fluid on the troll fire.
Jane is just explaining legal terms. I don’t see why some people are getting so down on her about that.
Do I think she’s a lawyer? Yep. Am I considering what she says to be legal advice? Nope. If I need legal advice, I’m going to get legal advice by contacting an attorney in my state and preferably one who specializes in whatever problem I’m having.
And personally, it’s my opinion that if you are taking this as legal advice, you need to do the smart thing and get legal representation if you think this advice is something you need. Jane’s offering explanations… not advice. There’s a huge difference.
An example…. say you want to know what ear infections are. I can explain that to you. Spent years in pediatric nursing, so I can explain what it is… what causes them…what the signs and symptoms are. But that explanation is NOT medical advice and it isn’t treatment.
Jane’s explaining… not advising.
More, there could easily be people out there who if they knew deets about Jane’s professional life could try to manipulate things to appear as though Jane was offering them legal advice.
Jane could easily stand up and say, YES I AM A LAWYER but I’d wager some won’t be satisfied with just that statement. They’d want proof. Only way to give that proof is by giving her legal credentials and in my opinion, that would be a dumb ass thing to do on Jane’s part. I certainly am not going to give out my licensing information on the web. Almost as foolish as posting my social security number.
Jane doesn’t strike me as the dumb sort and it could be why she’s not addressing some of these very persistent questions. Even if she did answer, it would be back to square one again only instead of ARE YOU A LAWYER… it would be… PROVE YOU ARE A LAWYER AND MAYBE I’LL LISTEN TO YOU.
Jane doesn’t owe that information to any of us. She’s not offering legal advice. Don’t take it as such.
I can see very well why she is ignoring these questions. It seems to me that some people are poking at her just to poke and even if she presented proof, they’d still find something to poke at. In her shoes, I’d ignore them just for the hell of it. But I’ve always been told that I’m a difficult sort.
And again…I gotta say it…
I adore Gennita. Gennita, because my steadfast adoration, I’ll have you know I hit the bookstore today just find a book of yours. Haven’t read you before, but I got a feeling I’m going to love your books.
And people… quit picking on the kitty. He looks like he’s been picked on enough. ;)
Gennita - The suits against National Enquirer can be either but the Unhappy Person has to prove “malice” or “reckless disregard for the truth” if the statements were false.
Kendra - No, truth is always a defense so if someone did plagiarize and the statement that they did it would not be defamation. It could not be defamatory, by definition.
If you do not have proof, then it could be defamatory. There are alot of other factors to consider.
Gennita - calling someone a demon or a secretary, janitor, UPS worker is probably considered opinion.
Occam’s razor? It’s a simple yes or no question. And. I only asked because she made a big deal out of it to me and someone else. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with talking law on your website if you are in the business in some way or just love the subject. But if you are going to belittle people because they are NOT lawyers, then I think you need to present your own credentials to back that up.
.
I’m over the lawyer issue.
.
I object to being called a sock puppet. That’s all. Obviously you can go to my website and research the history elsewhere to see that I say what I think under my own name. Jane Litte? Is not even a real name as far as I can tell. So when you compare honesty, keep that in mind at least.
Robin - you have not seen me characterize what Jane has been posting under the label “legal advice”. Others have. I think she’s just talking law. How would you know what posts of mine have been killed off. Unless you are an admin for Dear Author you couldn’t know. And I am not faulting Jane for moderating my posts. I SHOULD be moderated. Quite a few people should be moderated. I am all for it. Just don’t say you are not when you ARE. Of this entire crew if you have at least been honest and straight on the issues. Don’t go bailing on me now. I may not like you very much but I respect you.
Okay. If you say so. Frankly, I think most of the stuff being said by you and others in those two recent blog posts you did on Jane came off as far worse than trolling anonymously, anyway.
OK, This isn’t intended to pour water on the EZ-Grow Troll Kit……but who IS Ferfe LeBat anyway? As best as I can tell, she wants to be an author?
Jane, even if you are a demon or a secretary or UPS worker, you are a SMART demon, etc. Thanks for the info. I hope despite hijacking and, er, trolls, you will continue the series.
Laura and everyone else - for the last time - I am not hiding who I am. Jane Litte may be a pseudonym. No one knows who Robin really is, but of everyone here, I am one of the few about whom you can easily find out anything you want. I am not even trying to hijack this thread. I was pounced FIRST and decided to defend myself. A mistake? Definitely.
Shiloh, yep, there you go. Oh yeah, let’s everybody post their professional credentials on line for all the world to see.
And, of course, everyone who blogs does so under their legal name.
Hint: Opinions, explanations and discussions of law and legal issues are not legal advice.
It seems as if the people who comment here enjoy or are interested in these discussions. It also seems if the discussions irritate someone, or someone’s irked by the person who opens the discussion, they’d be better off staying away.
Coming back to poke just makes the poker look foolish. Continued poking edges over into the pathetic.
Well, I am an admin for DA; in fact, I’ve had to take myself and others out of the spam filter numerous times. As for moderation, DA didn’t moderate at the time of the Brenna Lyons post (Lyons got caught in the spam filter — I have yet to understand the rhyme or reason of that thing, frankly, but all of her comments were released when someone finally checked the thing — we don’t always remember, and in fact, I hardly ever do except when my comment disappears or when someone complains that their comment has). But when the race posts started, the thread became so incendiary that Jane wanted to make sure that there would be no name calling, etc. And Jane warned everyone that she would start deleting posts not on topic, anyway, which I know she hates the thought of, and finally, couldn’t do to legitimate comments because of the importance of the topic and assuming people weren’t trying to blow the thread up. Which is why that one post of yours about crack didn’t go through. The rest did.
Last try and then I’m done. Let’s say I posted something about writing and Nora Roberts jumped me because what I said was just plain wrong or ill informed by saying “Are YOU a writer?” Let’s say I didn’t know that Nora was, in fact, a writer. It’s a natural reaction to ask, “Are you a writer?” Back. And she should be able to answer quite quickly “YES!” End of discussion. I would take Jane’s word for it if she answered, “YES. I am a lawyer.” I’m not asking where she went to college or even what state she practices in. She’s not working for the CIA (I don’t think.) It was a basic question in response to a taunt. Do you think that it was out of line? I’m not asking for her home address. And if I did she shouldn’t have a problem giving it after posting all of the Triskellion authors names and home addresses.
I thought we agreed not to talk to each other. I was happy with that. Let’s go back to it.
Derailing the thread again, but I have a question for people in the know about publishing. Do editors, and agents google writers before accepting them as clients? Also once they are clients do they keep tabs on them. I mean there seems to be a lot of authors shooting themselves in the foot by their online antics. I know in other fields people are losing their jobs for questionable online activity (teachers/police etc.)?
Jane hasn’t misrepresented herself at all, and as I said originally, if you read the blog regularly or closely, IMO it wouldn’t even be a question. But she certainly doesn’t owe anyone, IMO, personal information on arbitrary demand, especially when it doesn’t matter either way, when it comes anonymously, or when it comes in the aftermath of ad hominem blog posts.
But anyway, not everyone who blogs without their name, rank, and serial number does so because they are trying to hide something. Some of us would simply like to keep our blogging persona separate from our professional persona for privacy issues that have NOTHING to do with ethical violations or lack of honesty, etc. Just as many authors don’t write under their legal names or whole legal names or whatever. No one cries foul over that, regardless of how popular the author is or isn’t.
I wasn’t responding to you (as can be seen from the quote I referenced). Though it’s something everyone could stand to think about.
Did I somewhere indicate in my post I was speaking TO Ferfe and not merely ABOUT her? And expressing my opinion on behavior and so on?
Nope, just read my comment over again. Nothing addressed to her.
In fact, I believe I was addressing Shiloh, by name, and the commentaries at large. Still am.
Janet, I was trying for that dry sarcasm.
In case I should clarify, I agree with everything you just posted.
Michelle,
Can’t speak for editors, but yes, my agent googled me, checked my amazon rank, read reviews, pulled my sales numbers from Bookscan, etc. Whether she would have declined to represent me if I had a lot of negative publicity in terms of what I said and how I presented myself I can’t answer.
No, Michelle. I do not have a keeper. ;-) The position is open, but I am a tough client to contain. I will, however, call it a day. You have seen enough of how I “sound” in text to hopefully believe that I have not been using sock puppets to badger Jane about her legal credentials. That wasn’t me. I asked once. Just. Once. As to everything else, no one’s going to give a straight response so it’s a waste of everyone’s time to continue. Must be a lawyer thing.
Congratulations on being an Admin, Robin. I did not think you had your own website. I feel better knowing that you do for some weird reason.
As you were.
I’ve read the comments of several editors who have said publicly that that won’t take on an author who speaks badly of other authors, but I don’t know if that extends to speaking badly of readers, too.
I asked my editor just that question the other day, and the answer was yes — she and others do pay attention to blogs and message boards, and that there are writers she wouldn’t want to work with based on their online behavior.
I think the key there is “work with” — any editor/writer relationship is a professional one, and if someone proves themselves consistently unprofessional online, it’s not a huge leap to say that behavior might carry over into “real” life. Whether it’s true that the lack of professionalism will bleed over into the working relationship doesn’t matter as much as an editor fearing it might be true.
Janet,
There are a lot of authors here with more experience than me, but my guess would be that unless you can turn being ornery or scandalously rude into an asset - for example see Ann Coulter - your less-than-polite conduct would be a deterrent to representation/contracts. Negative image detracts from the bottom line. When readers find an author offensive, they tend to vote with their money.
That’s why a lot of us do maintain both professional and personal blogs.
Meljean - good point.
you can address me all ya want! :-)
I blogged about something along this vein a while back. Yes, editors and agents pay attention to this kind of thing.
Somebody that tends to take be a less than professional online is too likely to have a less than professional attitude. How many agents and editors want to have to deal with that?
Thanks for the replies. I admire the restraint it must take to remain civil at all times. I admire those of you who remain professional under fire. It makes me more likely to take a risk on an author that I haven’t read. Also I admit I am not personally able to separate talent from online behavior. If an author is a total twit online even if they have written a wonderful novel I won’t be spending a dime on it. Petty probably but it is my personal quirk.
Man… I miss the edit your post feature…
This should have said
Somebody that tends to take be a less than professional persona online is too likely to have a less than professional attitude. How many agents and editors want to have to deal with that?
Hmm, obviously wasn’t Nora’s editor. I can think plenty of authors that speak badly of other authors but refrain from dragging them into this.
Jane - Thanks for the response. That’s what I thought but I was curious enough to ask. I figured that the burden of proof would rest on the other person and this confirms it.
~Hmm, obviously wasn’t Nora’s editor. I can think plenty of authors that speak badly of other authors but refrain from dragging them into this.~
Sorry? I don’t know what you mean. I can’t find where I’ve spoken badly of another author or dragged anyone anywhere. Please show me an example of this.
And how COME no matter who says what about who, somebody just has to single me out?
Disregard, I should have clicked on the poster’s name first, and seen what blogs she linked to. All is clear now.
Trolling must be infectious, and this one didn’t deserve a response from me.
Must be more cautious with the cookies.
Quoting Nora from just a few posts above:
Selective memory?
Ferfelebat IS Cindy Cruciger
Good grief Nora. Anyone that disagrees with you is a troll? Pffft.
Heh! Because you’re Nora!
You know, you’re like E.F. Hutton.
Oy, I’m old
~I think the key there is “work with” — any editor/writer relationship is a professional one, and if someone proves themselves consistently unprofessional online, it’s not a huge leap to say that behavior might carry over into “real” life. Whether it’s true that the lack of professionalism will bleed over into the working relationship doesn’t matter as much as an editor fearing it might be true.~
This nutshells it very well. On-line behavior, with the universe of blogs and sites, can influence an editor’s opinion, and certainly a reader’s.
People disagree, people have opinions. It’s how they’re expressed that carries the most weight.
Jane, you ignorant slut, I thought you wanted the gold bikini because you were a pole dancer? You never told me you were a lawyer! You and me, we’re through. That bikini cost me a fortune dammit!
Nora, people with talent are always the target of those without talent who are jealous. The successful are often belittled by the wannabees. Its not all tea and crumpets being the queen.
Regarding author’s behavior online. I do know that their behavior online makes a difference to me. I just ordered one of Shiloh Walker’s books (”Coming in Last”~I changed my mind on which book Shiloh! ;) ) because I was impressed with how she handled herself in the last law post (the 500 comment one!).
I’m only one person, but I’m sure there are more people like me out there. So, I do think that an author’s behavior online can make a difference.