I’m not an AA fan. I loved Winter Garden, read and didn’t care for her next few, and haven’t read any of her novels in several years. So, I’m definitely not a fangirl coming to her rescue. I remember reading the champagne flute post on AAR. I thought it was silly to even post about such a detail. Then AA responded and the stuff hit the fan.

In general, it’s a bad idea for authors to respond to critisism on message boards. Unless they are completely obsequious and claim mea culpa, they can’t win. Any attempts to defend or explain almost always result in being accused of defensiveness, disrespect of the reader, etc. I’m amazed at how personally people take this stuff. Knowing AA had been around the block, I was surprised she kept posting and posting in the AAR thread. I would have expected her to see that there was nothing she could do to salvage the situation — the only damage control was to bow out of the thread. Given that, I was even more surprised to see her post here.

That’s one of my main points — unless they are prepared to basically say they made a mistake, it was careless, they will try not to do this in the future, and thank the posters for bringing it to their attention, an author should not jump into reader threads critical of their books — unless, of course, they like to brawl. :)

My other main point was this Dear Author entry. I’m sure the author of it thinks it’s witty and clever — but it didn’t work for me. It strikes me as junior high mean girl writing. I outgrew that about 25 years ago. Today, as a grown woman, I respect people who can be strong and assertive and confrontational, all the while keeping it above the belt. That’s impressive and constructive. This piece was neither.

We’re only getting the author’s take on how “characters *of a different time and place* live a life.” It’s one person’s interpretation, based on how they view that period, what facts or research they believe to be important enough to include in the story.

Absolutely. It’s always an interpretation and translation, and as Anon76 said, the author has a difficult balancing act between what she sees through her characters and what the reader will see. As, I suppose do ALL authors, and I think we could make some interesting observations about realism in contemporary Romance, as well.

This is why I don’t necessarily think that not valuing all levels of accuracy=don’t give a shit about the readers/genre. Those authors are writing their stories for a particular type of reader, one that may value the h/h in pretty dresses and Hyde Park pageantry over period-appropriate dyes for clothing. Their focus is different, but it has a place in the genre. It doesn’t mark the degradation of it.

Oh, I totally agree that the genre has room for all sorts of books, and just because one author’s vision of historical Romance is not another’s (or particular readers), it doesn’t mean the genre has jumped into the proverbial hand basket to hell. And if you thought that was the point I was making, then I wasn’t clear. I can’t list all the books I’ve read and loved that don’t replicate a perfect historical vision, starting with the great Windflower (let’s have a go at pirates as the perfect democracy, for example, and then move on to Rand Morgan as a revision of Prospero).

I think the essence of my frustration and objection to Ashworth’s most recent and past appearances on the AAR board are connected to what you referred to as “her fans” or what I’d call “her readers.” Isn’t that kind of a strange concept when you think about it? Who are an author’s readers? Is it an exclusive club that one must join? Does the author get to decide or the reader? And if an author decides you’re not her reader, does that give her permission to publicly post your private email? Does it give her permission to say to you, “Since you think you know the English language so well, please, write a book yourself. It’s not as easy to do as you may think”? Or to accuse you have having “an agenda” or of not reading the genre the right way?

Of course any author is entitled to those views, and she can even express them, but if she does so publicly on a reader board, several times over, I’m going to register my reaction that I think they’re really insulting. And as much as I understand the fan-centric culture in Romance, to me, reading a book makes me that book’s reader. Period. In fact, if I’ve ever articulated something along the lines of “I’m not the reader for this book,” I realize now that I don’t really believe that. A book may not speak to me, but if I read it, I believe I’m that book’s reader. Because in the most literal sense I am.

Now an author may not perceive me as “her reader,” which seems quite natural and logical to me. I wouldn’t expect anything less or more of an author to be thrilled by and to embrace those readers who love and understand her books as she hopes they will (and privately curse, rail against, and perhaps even mock those readers who don’t appreciate her genius). Although again, I think there’s more than a few steps between embracing those readers who get your work and suggesting that those who don’t aren’t reading the genre correctly or appreciating it properly.

But essentially, this is really about differing paradigms — about my paradigm and Ashworth’s. About your paradigm and mine. About the belief each of us obviously holds that the other is not recognizing what is so clear to each of us. Obviously this is a hot button for me — this sense I’ve been getting from authors (and readers) that if you don’t read the genre a certain way you’re not a “real” fan of the genre (and obviously it’s not just this latest scuffle that informs my feelings on the subject). And hey, I readily admit that that frustrates me as someone who spends a lot of money on books, a lot of time reading, and a lot of thought writing reviews and commentary. For nothing more than the love of reading, of books, of thinking and talking about books and reading.

That doesn’t mean I think authors should just suck it up or “shut up and write” or stay silent in public forums. It doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t criticize or disagree with me or with Jane. Hell, Jane and I disagree readily enough on various topics and approaches to things. Had we been in the same room during the great HEA debate, there may have been some violence involved, lol. But jeez, when I’ve bought one book or three of an author’s books in a row, it stings just a tad to feel that I have to read them a certain way or face her public wrath.

It’s just that for me, the more I feel transported into a different world, in which the characters function as part of that world, the more likely I am to suspend disbelief. That doesn’t mean I’m looking for a textbook, just that for me characters should emerge from the setting of a book, not be pasted onto it.

I agree completely. I’m more drawn to these types of historicals than the wallpapers. But a story can win me over despite the tacked-on sense of history. Not right now, though. I’m burned out on the sameness of the historicals, and am currently reading outside the sub-genre.

All I know is that for me, reading historical Romance is a chance to see characters *of a different time and place* live a life I’m getting a window into through the book. And while it’s obviously not all about history, I think history plays a significant role as a conversation an author of historical Romance participates in to some degree.

We’re only getting the author’s take on how “characters *of a different time and place* live a life.” It’s one person’s interpretation, based on how they view that period, what facts or research they believe to be important enough to include in the story. This is why I don’t necessarily think that not valuing all levels of accuracy=don’t give a shit about the readers/genre. Those authors are writing their stories for a particular type of reader, one that may value the h/h in pretty dresses and Hyde Park pageantry over period-appropriate dyes for clothing. Their focus is different, but it has a place in the genre. It doesn’t mark the degradation of it.

I can’t even say I’m sorry for making Ashworth feel bad because that would be hypocritical. I know that when you make light of someone that feelings are bound to be hurt, just as I know when I write a negative, scathing review that someone’s feelings may be hurt. It is not my intention to directly cause hurt feelings but I realize that a byproduct is hurt feelings. I don’t know if I am explaining this very well. I don’t think about the author when I write my reviews or my LOP because I think if I did, I would be contributing nothing – in essence I would be Harriet Klausner.

I enjoy mockery, satire, and dark humor. It’s fun, entertaining, and feels almost righteous when directed at someone or –thing that really deserves it. In this case, I just felt that your target didn’t deserve the mockery. I dunno know, maybe if you’d stuck to the theme of the “Long Goodbye,” I would’ve been more receptive. But your focus was obviously on the “taking readers to task” angle of Ashworth’s comments. And I didn’t have a problem with those comments because I believe I understood where she was coming from.

Ashworth’s voice and style jangle my nerves, so I’m not her audience. To the extent that she takes too much license with history, perhaps sticklers for accuracy aren’t her audience either. If that’s her writing POV, it’s logical to me that she would say that some ask for too much. Even as I partly disagreed with her, I still thought her points reasonable. Plus, the tone of her posts made clear that she really does give a damn about her fans and her research—whatever the accuracy in her books! So taken as a whole, yeah, I felt your rhetoric didn’t match the actual situation.

And because it was the mockery that missed, it felt like a sledgehammer taken to a situation that really didn’t call for it, making the attack come off as more personal than it would’ve otherwise. It’s like with insult comedians: Sometimes, the humor’s really on and it works; other times, the jokes aren’t funny, they’re just mean.

And this?

I oftentimes forget that DA and its writers are held to a higher standard of blogging because of the large audience. I need to accept that and work to meet that high standard – whatever that may be.

Well played;). DA has earned a level of credibility and respect from both readers and industry insiders. It’s up to you and your fellow writers how you use what you’ve earned.

Do you want to know the sad truth?

Let me start out by saying, I am not speaking for all authors, everywhere. I can only speak for, oh, let’s say for example, me. But I think I may be average, (which is pretty scary, from this end).

Authors google themselves.

It’s not really in an attempt to feed our ravenous egos. It’s really just a general attempt to keep track of our career, coupled with curiosity to know what people are saying about the latest book, and if anyone but our mother is reading it,

coupled by ego.

But you can set up Google alert to mail you, whenever your name is mentioned. And then, if you want, you can go and look. And if the reviews have lots of stars, and the news is all glowy and wonderful, then we dance around the office, and show the kids, until they say, ‘Jeez, Mom. Stop it. This is creepy.’

And if the news is bad? We get what we deserve for looking, I suppose.

If we were actually demi-deities, if we saw something we didn’t like, we would immediately shake it off, and move on. But we aren’t gods. We’re (and by this, I mean I) are often those day-dreamy, sort of geeky introverts from Jr. High. Only now, we have publishing contracts.

And although, from reader to author, it looks like we should be secure and ‘professional’ when we are the topic of conversation, there is a certain level of freak-out in knowing that people we don’t know from Adam, are talking about us at all.

I’m never going to say that readers, fans and bloggers shouldn’t be allowed to talk. Although I have listened in on discussions (about other authors, thank God, and not acusing this site of any such thing) that included insults to dyed hair, and a critique of the Photoshopping on back cover photos. Stuff that did not involve the books at all. Stuff that was gossip, pure and simple.

Really, you can, and will, say whatever you like. People are curious. And people talk. That’s the way of the world. And I’m not going to swear that I never gossip, and am too mature to listen to it. That would be a total lie.

It’s just that you may think you’re talking in private. But the person you’re talking about is often standing right in front of you, listening to every word. Unless you ban all authors from your blogs, we will be sitting at our desks every day, reading for entertainment and to keep abreast of the industry (since you usually get the important news before we do). And we read the reviews and comments to see what you are saying about our friends, about our enemies, and about us.

And while, as bloggers, you may feel like fan writers, there are some blogs that end up being more like the varsity cheerleading squad. It’s great to have them on your side, but hell on earth if they don’t like you.

I’m really hoping I’ll always go for the ‘drink heavily and whine in private to friends’ route. But knowing that a negative discussion might blind-side me someday, I can also sympathize where the mildly defensive rant, or the full on, train-wreck, psycho meltdown, comes from.

Nowadays, it is true than any publicity is good publicity. When I go to Borders, the shelves are glutted with new Romances and aside from a very small and select list of authors that I buy because of previous good books, I find it difficult to wade through book after book to choose one I will pay money for. Developing emotional relationships with consumers is a great marketing strategy (read Anne Elizabeth Moore’s “Unmarketable” for a fascinating examination of that marketing trend) but in the end I am a poorish college student with eight dollars in my pocket and seven hundred near-indistinguishable books in front of me. A book that sparks any sense of recognition in me, even if it’s negative recognition, warrants a closer look. I’ve bought numerous books based off negative word-of-mouth publicity and enjoyed them and gone on to buy many more books from those same authors. When a book is vigourously debated on the AAR boards, or sets off a flurry among the blogs, I’m generally left curious about what all the fuss was about and willing to spend my money on the book in question.
I will add a caveat to this wonderful-for-authors phenomenon. The free publicity generated among networks of romance-fans who are willing to buy books, romance-fans who lurk at AAR and read two or three blogs on a regular basis, is something that no publisher can buy and no advertiser can replicate. We not only buy books ourselves, but we also encourage our not-quite-so devoted friends to read and buy! new and out-of-the-way romances themselves. But nothing leaves me, as a reader and a book-buying person of reasonable intelligence, colder than being scolded by an author online. I have been at the fringes of numerous author scolds, and I’m always surprised when some interesting and out-of-the-way (and free publicity-generating!) conversation I’m having online with other readers attracts an angry and defensive author. It is rather like suddenly facing the wrath of some demi-deity who has come to smite you from on high! (I like the word smite. Is the past tense smote? I wonder…) One example stands out clearly for me. There was an enormously silly flameout on the AAR boards between two authors of dubious emotional stability. In the course of the brouhaha (yet another word I write with fondness) one of the authors belittled all of the readers who voiced expectations for historical accuracy in romance novels. Her tone was sneering and her words were written to make me feel stupid. I don’t know her from Adam. I certainly cannot hold her accountable to any reasonable standards of courtesy. All I can do is never, ever again pay money for any of her books (and you can bet your bottom dollar I don’t) and never, ever recommend her books to friends. A small drop in the bucket I’m sure, as she repeatedly reminded all of the people present on the board that she was Ms. Hot Stuff and sold large amounts of all her books and was on all sorts of fancy lists, but it soothed my wounded pride.

That’s the way your average reader (not a big name blogger or an industry insider or another author) experiences all of this silliness.

BTW, the florid rhetoric, the melodramatic monologues, and the ironic invocation of Godwin’s Law (aka Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies) has provided enormous free entertainment for an apartment full of college girls taking their finals. As we’re probably younger than the majority of y’all and thus are looking up to you to set an example and all that, all I can say is, “For shame!”

And sometimes that whole “channeling” thing gets you in trouble. You get so immersed in your character’s head that you “see” things the way they do.

A simple “for instance”. If you write about a woman in say, 14th century England, and she’s lived a life without the frills, perhaps on a farm or something, well she has a different take on the world. Now, at this point in time, many new dye techniques were in use (many introduced by travels to other lands). So, for this woman, to travel to court and see all the new colors and fabrics would be a wondrous thing.

Do these colors and fabrics match what we have today? No way. But to her they are as vibrant as the colors of the rainbow.

For a writer, the trick is in trying to bridge the gap between our modern sensibilities, and the historic ones. To bury the reader so far into your world that these things are easily accepted.

And boy howdy! That’s tough. LOL.

Go too far and you look as if you are slapping the canvas with modern paint. Not far enough and the reader isn’t engrossed in the time period.

A tricky tight-rope, but one I will forever try to walk because I adore the genre. (You can probably guess that it is also my favorite genre to read. Wink.)

I’ll be interested in next week’s post on accuracy in historicals.

Actually, Seressia, next week’s column will be on reader expectations in general, although it will dovetail with some of the issues in this discussion. I’m sure, though, either Jane or I or both or someone will write a column on historical accuracy sooner rather than later.