There’s been a backlash of sorts on some authors’ blogs around the internet due to the exposing of Cassie Edwards’ borrowing. I’ll be posting on Tuesday about some thoughts about the definition of plagiarism as it could be defined in the romance writing and read community, but today, in lieu of a ebook post, I thought I would ruminate a bit on the meaning of a fan. Here’s what I thought the fan/fangirl definitions were:
Fan - someone who appreciates, enjoys, and is positive about either an author and/or her work. Within the fan definition, there are varying degrees of fandom.
Fangirl - zealots, irrational in their devotion to an author. A person who has so personalized his or her relationship with the author that s/he becomes one with the author and presents herself/himself as the author’s voice throughout the internet.
Now it appears that fangirl is being used as a weapon, not against people who are fetishizing a particular author, but for those of us who take personally what we see dismissals of issues importance to the reputation of romance.
One of the barbs being shot out is by author Deborah Smith who used her Amazon blog to post a diatribe against Nora Roberts for standing up against plagiarism. In the post, she stated that she wondered whether she should post publicly “because the last thing I want is to be eviscerated by Nora Roberts’ avid fangirls.”
I’m not really going to go into what I think of Smith’s post. I posted my thoughts at Karen Scott’s blog. What I am exploring is the meaning of “fangirl.” I don’t know what that means anymore. I thought I did. A couple summers ago, I wrote a tongue in cheek post about traits of a fangirl, but I think its being expanded to encompass anyone who agrees with someone else. I.e., if I agree with a stance of Nora Roberts, then I must be her fangirl. Anyone who paid attention to the costume controversy of 2007 would know that I disagreed with Roberts on her stance on the issue.
Robin and I agree on many a things but I swear we almost came to blows during a telephone conversation regarding the construct of Happily Ever After in romance. I might have even called her a name or two. I wasn’t at my best in that discussion. (I’m very passionate about my devotion to the HEA).
I’m sure, though, that there are some that would peg me as a Nora Roberts or even a Robin/Janet fangirl. But I can’t be if, by definition, that means that I agree with every proclamation that flows forth from their fingers or mouth.
I wonder, too, if there are authors who perceive true fans to be that way. In Jennifer Crusie’s comments on the SBTB subject, she mentions two “non fans” of hers.
I just figured that was being covered elsewhere and what struck me was this perfect storm of Hillary Clinton, Cassie Edwards, and a couple of my non-fans taking another shot at me in the comments of the other site about that letter blog I did awhile back. They all converged together and I had a Thought. So I expressed it.
Argh Ink, Jenny on January 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm.
I am fairly sure that she was referring to Robin and I since we were the ones questioning her comment at SBTB “Did Cassie Edwards run over your dog” and we were about the only ones who questioned her posting a reader’s email and mocking it.
Robin penned a B+ review of Agnes and the Hitman and I have repeatedly said that Welcome to Temptation is one of my favorite contemporary romances written. Does that make us two ‘non fans’? I like to think of myself as a fan of Crusie’s writing. I’ve bought all her books, even the hard to find and expensive Sizzle. I’ve even undertaken the cost to buy the ebook versions of her Harlequins when they were re-released. There are certain aspects of Crusie’s persona that I am also a fan of and some that I am not. Does that make me a fan or a non fan? Fan girl or hater?
To be a good fan, do I have to support everything that an author does to be considered a “true” fan or a “real” fan? If I stand up in support of an author, am I automatically a fangirl? Does it get stripped away once I disagree with an author? If I am considered a fangirl, does my opinion have no value? If I am not a fangirl, does my opinion have no value? Can I be a fan and still be critical? Are we fans of the writing or the person and if it is the person, what do we really know about the author that makes it possible for us to be a fan?
I believe that we as a romance community would be better if we moved away from the fan culture, the personalization of the author/reader relationship because the relationship that we readers have is truly with the book. The only real connection the author has with a reader is through the words and so it seems that we readers are projecting our feelings of the writing onto the author, both positive and negative.
If we are just “fans” of the work and not the “person” why would what we know about a person affect our feelings toward their work? Deborah Smith is one of my favorite authors and by that I mean, I love her writing. I’ve always thought she had the GIFT. But now I feel battered and disillusioned so my feelings for her work must be inextricably tied up in my feelings for her public persona else why would I feel like I can’t read her anymore?
Maybe we think that because the writing resonates so strongly that we think if we met the author of writing that we loved, we would be BFF. Conversely, if someone’s writing doesn’t connect, we assume we could never have anything in common. So when met with the evidence that the author isn’t anything we thought we knew, we feel betrayed in some way, disappointed. And that sometimes the disappointment can become so sharp that the emotional string that connected the writing and the reader frays to the point that it breaks.
I know I am not making much sense but that is primarily because I haven’t worked it out for myself. What do you all think about the meaning of the word “fan” and how it plays within our community versus how it should play. Can you be a “true” fan and still disagree and make that disagreement known? Does the “I got your back” apply to authors as well as authors’ works? At what point should we (as opposed to do we) allow an author’s online persona affect our reading?
I’ll admit to being a Suzanne Brockmann fangrrrl, because I have met her, repeatedly, consider her a friend, and will defend her as a person from any and all comers, because she is full of win and awesome as a person. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t think and express the thought that her last few books before All Through the Night were not her best romances, that she’s slipping over into suspense main plot, romantic sub-plot territory now and then and that I’m disappointed with that. Criticizing her writing does not, IMO, mean that I criticize her as a person.
I think Nora is The Most Amazing Role Model when it comes to class and dignity and is the Platonic ideal of ambassadors for the romance genre. And I’ll admit that Honest Illusions and Birthright are two of my favoritest books. But I’ll also say that I pretty much can’t stand the characters of some of her categories who seem to drink and smoke their way through their stories and seem hard and cynical even in their HEA. Saying that does not negate my opinion of her as a person as she has presented herself on the sites and blogs that we both frequent.
People are strange, sometimes. They really are. And after that profound thought, it’s back to bed for me, if my three-month-old will let me in.
Fangirl in some cases seems to require a deification of a writer (goddess)and an obligation to park one’s brains at the door of the shrine in the cultic style.
Failure in any form to adhere to opinions issued from the inner sanctum may cause one to be damned as an apostate/schismatic/ heretic by true believers, if not by the “goddess” herself.
This point will be different for many people, but I genrally have a low tolerance for fucktards, so it’s a hard question for me to answer.
I also think that it depends on your previous ‘book-reading’ relationship with the author in question. If you love his/her work, then it’s easier to excuse him/her for their stupidity or ignorance. However, if you’re not familiar with any of their books, or have perhaps only read their one best-seller that was published ten million years ago, then their fucktardiness will only ensure that you avoid their works in the future.
We are influenced everyday by stuff that we see, read, and hear, but we still have the ultimate choice when it comes to deciding whether to actually believe these things or not. Let’s face it, there are still people out there who believe that O.J. Simpson didn’t kill those two people.
I think this is where the issue of denial comes in.
I know I’m innocent because until this CE brouhaha I had never even come across a lot of the terminology (fangirl, squee, still can’t figure out what w00t means, grin); I guess it’s obvious I didn’t read very many blogs where that terminology came up a lot. Thanks for the education, SBTB and DA! :)
However, the question of reading pleasure and knowing the author has come into play for me several times over my reading career.
For a long time now, I’ve thought that the internet has been a double edged sword for reader author relations.
As a fan, it’s fabulous when you get to ‘know’ your author, get an insight in how s/he constructs their stories, where the inspiration comes from, maybe even get mentioned in the acknowledgments for contributing, get signed books, get ARCs, etc.
On the other hand, you might just learn things that aren’t so complimentary to your author.
Point in case for me are Catherine Coulter and Robert J Sawyer. I stopped reading Coulter when she basically said in an interview that now that she has the million dollar home that romance reader money bought her, she didn’t give a damn whether they liked her going into suspense and away from romance. I have not read a single book by her since. Many people have argued that she can do what she wants and I agree, but she didn’t need to stick it to romance readers in that manner and I do not reward this kind of attitude with my hard-earned cash.
I gave up on Sawyer after being a member of his mailing list for 2 or 3 years. He just exposed himself as a terrible know-it-all and of a vanity unparalleled. So, even though I like his writing, his personality has gotten in the way of my enjoyment of his books.
I have enjoyed Deborah Smith’s many books, but I will not read her any longer. I cannot help but think of her incredibly ignorant attitude in this plagiarism matter as exposed by her comment on DA. I haven’t even seen the Amazon entry yet!
I haven’t read Crusie in years either so she won’t be a loss for me, but she’s on the authors I won’t read in the future due to her attitude as well.
I know some people will think that according to this new nebulous definition I must be a Nora fangrrl. They would be wrong. Her books haven’t done it for me for a very long time and besides the occasional J.D. Robb I haven’t read her in years.
I do, however, definitely like the way she’s been interacting with both her fans and detractors and the public in this matter. Many of my friends have bought books of hers specifically due to the way she’s handled herself during this situation, even if they hadn’t read her in a while.
The other thing that complicates matters for me is that I’m honest to a fault (tactless, as described by some, grin) and here lately I’ve read some books by authors I consider friends that were just not good (either due to my personal taste regarding the subject matter or the writing wasn’t up to par).
As a reviewer, I now have to decide between my like for the person and my dislike for the work. My evil twin says, ‘write the review as you would if they weren’t your friends,’ but the good twin says, ‘temper the blow’… In this instance, I wish that I didn’t know the authors, because whatever I do, I’ll always wonder whether my relationship with them has influenced my public remarks on their books.
Not sure I’m very coherent here, but it’s not yet 7am on a Sunday, so I’m giving myself a pass.
I believe that we as a romance community would be better if we moved away from the fan culture, the personalization of the author/reader relationship because the relationship that we readers have is truly with the book. The only real connection the author has with a reader is through the words and so it seems that we readers are projecting our feelings of the writing onto the author, both positive and negative.
If we are just “fans” of the work and not the “person” why would what we know about a person affect our feelings toward their work?
I agree that the “the relationship that we readers have is truly with the book” but the author does, obviously, have some control over the contents of her books. Authors sometimes talk about “bleeding onto the page” and it’s true that sometimes one can spot issues/themes in an author’s work which are fairly obviously linked to aspects of that author’s life. To take the example of Suzanne Brockmann, mentioned by Sarah above, Brockmann’s personal views on homosexuality are quite apparent in some of her novels. Clearly that’s a good thing if you agree with Brockmann’s stance, but it would be difficult to argue that her views have had no influence on her work.
So there is a connection between the author and the work, and sometimes the author’s public statements can suddenly make certain things more obvious for a reader. Readers can often get caught up in a story and enjoy it even if there are bits they’d rather gloss over or which they interpret in a certain way because they want to be able to enjoy the novel. I’ve enjoyed lots of Heyer’s novels, but once I’d read the ones in which her snobbery and racism come through most clearly, it did make it more difficult to go back and enjoy the others in which those prejudices were less obvious (and therefore easier to ignore). In the same way, some comments made by authors might illuminate the world-view of the characters in their novels and force the reader to re-examine her/his understanding of those texts. In a sense it’s a bit similar to the way in which some people say that literary criticism can spoil a book for them. Being forced to look at some issues in a work more closely, particularly if they’re things you’d rather weren’t there, can spoil your enjoyment of a book. The converse is also true, because if you find something to admire in the author’s comments, or as a result of literary criticism, it may mean that you then see those positive qualities when you read the novels.
But that’s still at the level of the author’s ideas and ideals. Assuming that an author will live up to their ideals, and has always lived up to them, would be expecting too much of any author. Authors are human, and they’ll inevitably have doubts, make mistakes and say things they shouldn’t. I’d only let an author’s comments affect my enjoyment of the book if there was some direct link between the reason for the author’s bad behaviour and their underlying ideals/attitudes which, in some way, seep through into their books.
As for buying the books (which is different from reading them, because one can read books without buying them new) if I knew that the author was using the profits from the book to fund some cause I felt was immoral, that might very well make me think twice about buying the book new.
NO
NO
NO
Oh… were those rhetorical? ;-)
I’ve definitely see the ‘rabid fangirl’ type who all but threaten bodily harm on somebody voicing anything less than a glowing opinion about ‘their’ author. If it gets to the point that this reader can no longer get the fact that a person has the right to totally hate a book regardless of who wrote it we’re approaching rabid fangirl territory. Man, some of the behavior I saw on LKH’s boards when I still lurked there… can we say… SCARY?
But a person can adore a writer, adore their books, their online personality and still manage to separate themselves from that adoration. Just like you can respect and like a person’s online presence and not care for their books. And you can LOVE a person’s books, but not care for the person.
I’ve said before there are two authors I’d go fangirl over…Nora Roberts is definitely one. Lynn Viehl/SL Viehl/PBW is the other. I love their writing. I totally respect the women. But that doesn’t render me incapable of individual thought. I’m still capable of having an opinion that differs from their opinion.
Too often, when you’re agreeing with somebody like NR, there are going to be people who say it’s just because of the person is and that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Are there readers who would merrily follow ‘their’ authors off a bridge and into a freezing lake if the author implied it was a good idea? Yep.
But not every fan is a lemming. Not every reader or author that admires another author, respects their opinions, and often agrees with them is a lemming. Implying otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of every reader (or writer) who has considered herself a ‘fan’ at some point in her life.
It is becoming blurred isn’t it? And Ms. Smith’s declaration quote
is truly insulting. I posted at Karen’s that I wasn’t a fangirl of Nora Roberts, but I am a fan, both of her writing and of her personally. To me there is a difference. A fangirl will blindly defend “her” author - no matter what ridiculous things ‘her’ author might say. A fangirl will write insulting comments on a blog when the blogger in question posts something that may be unflattering or gives a bad review of the authors work. Fangirls will go on Amazon and bombard the review board with praise for the author. A fangirl becomes so invested in an author she can’t really see the forest for the trees. A fangirl will squee when a character makes an appearance on a bulletin board. A fangirl is out of control. That’s my idea on a fangirl.
But then later in Karen’s post a couple of people who don’t fit into my idea of what a fangirl is, declared themselves fangirls of Nora’s. That’s when I start getting confused and the line becomes blurry.
As far as Deborah Smith - I haven’t read her but I’ve wanted to. The reviews of her books are always very positive. But now - I don’t think so. If she had merely disagreed, I would have been disappointed but still objective enough to disregard the fact that we hold opposing viewpoints. But she did more than that. She crossed a line I have in my mind as to what I will accept in author behaviour and what I won’t.
Being a fan of a writer means to me admiring her works. It’s different than being a fan of a person, though one can be both. And too disliking one doesn’t mean you have to dislike the other.
I don’t see anything wrong with fandom. I think that women (and men) expressing their love for anything is good and healthy and often fun. But all things in moderation. When taken too far, it becomes a problem.
I think that’s what they’re using the term fangirl to mean. Fangirl from my experience comes from TV/anime slash communities, and describes one devoted to the series in question. It’s not always a bad thing, and is often used affectionately among fans when someone gets excited about something only other fans of the series will understand. But outsiders will use it as a term meaning obsession, the bad side of devotion.
I think when it comes to attacking others who disagree is when it crosses the line. But that doesn’t have to do with fandom. That just has to do with being human and wanting to defend what’s important to you. There are those who fight about religion and politics and football teams with as much fervor. Everyone just needs to learn a little self control. Fans who have it are capable of discussing things without discussions turning ugly. Or as one friend put it, it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable. People just need to keep that in mind.
Breaking my internet vacation to post this.
As a writer, I don’t want fangirls.
Fan to me is a person who read the book, liked it, and posted a review/told me/emailed me about it. I do my best to reply to all such emails.
Fangirl is someone extremely dangerous to my career as a writer and to my sanity.
To me this directly leads into the somewhat larger problem of author “brand.” I’m a baby writer. I have a blog, which I started before I was published. I pretty much gave up on it. Anything I say, even on my not-so-secret personal journal, is viewed as representing “the brand” of my writer name. Here is the list of what I can’t do anymore:
1) Can’t link to any negative review of my work. I have a couple of fangirls who will go and bomb it and then I have to go an apologize and explain that no, they don’t speak for me.
2) Can’t express any negative opinion of the other author’s works. Her/his fangirls will come to my blog and create a flamewar, which will consume enormous amount of time and during which my conduct will be examined with a magnifying glass. (And then the author in question will be deeply hurt and will not speak to me again.)
3) Can’t express any critical opinion on any hot topic including but not limited to latest explosion in Romancelandia, latest weirdness out of SFWA, feminism, etc, or I will have a flamewar on my hands again.
4) Can’t express being depressed or tired, or I will get a slew of emails worrying about the next book’s progress.
Basically I can have an opinion but I can’t really express it in public. It’s not that I’m afraid or I can’t back it up. It just takes so much time to fight yourself free of the ensuing bru-ha-ha and it leaves you totally exhausted.
If I post an account of something stupid in BN, I will have a crowd to booksellers bombing my books on amazon with “author hates booksellers” tags (actually happened to one of my friends.)
If I say that I believe a particular author’s work is lackluster, I will be taken to task by that author’s editor (actually happened to me.)
Here is how ridiculous it is: an author was interviewed by one of the authors in a group promo blog I’m involved in. His cover featured a man who resembles Constantine from American Idol. He stated that he wasn’t thrilled about that, but really he didn’t have much input on the cover art. We got bombed with emails and posts from Constantine fangirls promising they will never ever ever buy his book and he is the worst person ever.
I don’t want to make it sound as if all writers are victims. There are some unpleasant authors out there and there are topics on which I will fight them to the death: plagiarism, racism, meanness, etc. But there are a lot of authors who end up following the “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” rule and I have to say fan presence often supports the wisdom of this motto.
I firmly believe that this culture is unhealthy for everyone involved. I wish we could somehow step away from that and afford each other a bit of personal space, but I have my doubts that it will happen.
Life would be a lot easier if I had no internet presence :P. But that’s not an option because as a baby writer, you’re pushed to promote yourself whichever way you can and the net is the cheapest place to do it.
Back to vacation now.
I read the Amazon post by Deb Smith, and found it, frankly, amazing. She was concerned that if she posted a personal attack against Nora Roberts (and it was personal, even through my lit crit not fangirl glasses), that Nora’s fans might be upset. Ok, gigantic duh? Wouldn’t it have been better to write that in her journal or in a note to her BFF?
But as a fan, I don’t care if my favorite authors have, maybe not feet of clay, but let’s say, sandy shoes sometimes.
Yeah, Georgette Heyer was a product of her times and upbringing. She was a total snob. And had she ever met me, a rabid fan, her nose would have had an aristocratic upturn immediately. Anyone further from a British aristocrat than I would be hard to find.
And much as I love Nora’s writing, one of her books p*ssed me off totally. But one out of 50 or 60 that I’ve read? Pretty good batting average, and without steroids.
The whole CE thingy is different. In my mind’s eye, I see her copying verbatim some interesting native tribal lore and then building her love story around it. Not learning about native lore, internalizing it, and adding it to the story in a seamless way.
Sandra Schwab seems to think we want historical writers to document all their research. Not at all. I hated Jasper Fforde’s fr*cking footnoter phone after the second book I think. But I still loved the books and I am a fan. Learning from a romance writer that cowboys in the 1880’s wore longhandles and not boxers was just fun. Didn’t need a footnote, just added authenticity to the book.
As a physician, I get more and nicer thank-yous from people for completing their paperwork correctly than I do for diagnosing their cancer early enough for a cure.
So I guess in my world, I don’t expect people to think logically. I expect them to be emotional. I’m not surprised when they don’t get it.
One of my patients just forgave me for saving his life six years ago. And only because his minister told him he had to. I bullied him into having the life-saving surgery. P*ssed him off good, I did. But, me, I was grateful he was still around to be p*ssed.
Seems to me, writers write books for readers to enjoy, but some of them get upset if we enjoy them too much, or too little. I guess each writer has a comfort zone for how much reader appreciation is just right. So the ex-romance writers who backlash against their fans, the folks who get mad because Nora is popular and successful, etc, etc, just seems like folks to me. All of us are human and some of us are more human than others. (Paraphrasing Dame Mary Stewart–yeah, I’m a fan.)
I wrote a long heartfelt and undoubtedly boring post which got eaten. Good thing, most likely.
I have an idea. (Dangerous, I know.) In the Trek World (Star Trek, the original one way back when) they classify fans as Trekkies (people who learn Klingon–at least as useful as studying Latin or ancient Aramaic–and who go to Cons in Spock ears), Trek maniacs–no definition needed, but would defend the series from even the most mild and reasonable of criticism and Trekkers. Trekkers are seriously devoted to the series, but don’t act the fool about it. My hubby is a trekker. He can tell which episode it is 30 years later by the color of Kirk’s shirt. I can only remember the Tribbles episode clearly.
Ok, so I propose in romancelandia, three levels of fandom–fans, those who appreciate the author and the author’s work in a semi-restrained fashion. Romaniacs or RFG–defend the author to the author’s death if need be. And fan-nies, fans who occasionally forget to take off the Spock ears in public.
Heh. Good idea. Lets do a classification system. :)
~Or as one friend put it, it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable.~
This is the nutshell for me.
I don’t mind heat in debates or disagreements. I don’t mind snark.
I believe an author can disagree with a reader, a reader with an author, an author with an author, a reader with a reader.
But I don’t believe ANYONE can tell me what I can or can’t, should or shouldn’t do. Where I should post, what I can say. I’m a big girl and do what I choose to do.
I guess I haven’t hit the blogs or sites where my ‘fangirls’ eviscerate others who didn’t care for one of my books, or my whole body of work. They may exist, but I haven’t stumbled on them.
In a perfect world we wouldn’t associate an author’s poor behavior with her books. I’m not perfect, and I can fall into this. There are authors I don’t read because I’ve witnessed what I felt was really awful behavior–witnessed in real life–and on the internet. But it has to be really over-the-top, usually repetitive awful behavior. Not disagreement, even over something I feel strongly about.
In my reading experience, the writer takes me on a journey. There are some people I just don’t want to travel with.
This whole “labeling” BS is what has kept me away from every single discussion going on. I knew that if I opened my mouth, I would be labeled as fan or fangirl of so and so. I simply didn’t see the point. I have never read a Nora Roberts book. Not the style I fancy in my reading material. This also applies to Jennifer Crusie. Mind you, my friends love them… I just can’t get into their respective styles. As to Deborah Smith, never heard of the woman until I read that rather ignorant and arrogant diatribe she posted and promptly removed from Amazon.
Either way, thanks for bringing this issue up. I am sure I am not the only reader that has chosen to stay on the sidelines, for fear of being accused of being a fangirl or being labeled with whatever other gross generalization of the day is being brandished about.
Interesting post, although I don’t agree with your definition of “fangirl.”
To me, a fangirl is someone who is keenly interested in something and has a breadth of knowledge/experience about it, whether it’s books or movies or whatever. I often refer to myself as a fangirl of fantasy literature/culture because I enjoy writing/reading/watching it, and I know a lot about the various aspects of it.
The words “fangirl” and “fanboy” have really taken on negative conotations in society in general, and it makes me sad. Tell someone you’re a fangirl, and a lot of people assume that you know how to speak Klingon. When did it become a crime to be interested in and passionate about something? Why does that make people geeks or nerds or whatever?
I understand your point, but maybe “fanatical” would be a better word to describe your idea. Or “zealot.”
On a side note, one of my comic books has a working title of “Fangirl.”
Being a self-proclaimed fangirl, can I still discuss books/authors/whatever intelligently and rationally? Yes.
Will I defend an author no matter what she writes or does? No. If a book sucks, it sucks. If someone does something stupid, she’s done something stupid.
Does not defending someone make me a bad fan or fangirl or whatever? No. Everyone, including me, is entitled to their own opinion, good, bad, or indifferent.
Also, when you say “I’ll be posting on Tuesday about some thoughts about the definition of plagiarism as it could be defined in the romance writing and read community” … why should the definition of plagarism be different for us than for anyone else?
Plagarism is plagarism. Enough said.
You know, I think I’m more likely to become a fangrrrrrl of a writer who can, himself*, separate his* writing from his* identity as a person.
–Someone who understands that you can like some of what he* writes and dislike something else he* writes.
–Someone who can say (and mean it!), “If you didn’t like this book/character/plotline, I failed you as a writer.”
–Someone who won’t tell you that if you didn’t like a particular plotline in one of his* books, for example, then it’s because you, the reader, aren’t smart enough to understand the writing. (Or any variation of condescending, patronizing behaviour thereof.)
–Someone who doesn’t expect all of his* readers to agree with every pronouncement he* makes, or have the same point of view he* does in all matters under the sun.
I’ve been known to try new-to-me writers because of their online behaviour. In some cases, I have liked their books, in others not so much. Still, I remain a fan of their online presence, because they invest it with large helpings of class.
I’ve been lucky–probably because I’m not as widely read as many here–in that so far I haven’t ‘dropped’ any beloved author because of how he* behaves in public. On the flip side, there are new-to-me writers whose books I won’t read because of their online behaviour. What can I say? Limited time + limited budget + limited tolerance for general asshatness (is that a word?) = not wasting energy on those I perceive to be idjits.
*he/she; himself/herself; his/her; etc.
hellifiknow…for years I’ve thought I was fickle, because the only person/thing I’ve commmitted to (and even then, not 100-do-or-die%) was me. I vote split ticket in elections if I don’t like all of my party’s choices. I read whatever a favorite author gets published then dismiss her if a couple of books later I thinks she stinks.
I rather like your take on fan and fangirl. Think I’d have to call myself a fan, though, because the ‘fangirl’ scenario just seems not only intrusive but…dismissive, of myself. I just can’t lose sight of me as I worship someone. - lol
Selfish to the core, I guess.
Jennifer Estep said,
Ms Estep, one would like to think so, but if you spend some time playing “follow the link trail” you’ll see that there are a few writers (and plenty of readers, it seems) who don’t know what plagiarism is.
(Yes, it’s sunday morning and I’m blog hopping. At least by now I have had coffee.)
This is an interesting topic - the Deborah Smith comment about being eviscerated by avid fangirls also offended me. It’s one of those remarks that seems designed to completely silence all disagreement, because if you disagree, by definition, you must be this irrational childish creature. When I think of how often women’s voices have been dismissed through labels such as “hysterical”, I am surprised (and outraged) that we’re back to that.
The other piece of this that has been really bugging me is that while there were a few comments made during CE Week that were disparaging of CE’s work, by far the majority of comments struck me as being well-reasoned. Same with the discussion of Hillary Clinton. However, CE’s defenders treat all comments as being part of a coordinated savaging by a gang of bullies with nothing better to do. It really burns my butt that a couple of people, using rhetoric that depends on manipulating a purely emotional response, dismiss all these people who carefully spelled out their thinking as being the mere snarling of rabid dogs. (or bitches, I guess).
It’s hard to separate that attitude from the works produced by the person with that attitude. It’s hard not to have a “yeah, you know, I think you’re entitled to that opinion, but I don’t want to spend time with your brain anymore” response. And it works in reverse - when authors say things that make a lot of sense, or reflect values that are meaningful to you, it’s more likely you’ll want to read their creative works. This goes for people I’ve already read, and a number of writers who’ve been new to me in the past months that I’ve been reading DA and SB.
I think I have a different take on “fangirl” — I’ve always thought of a fangirl as (for example) the comic book reader who also buys action figures (or Wonder Woman Underoos)…taking their habit into the next step. And adding the girl part was actually kind of a feminist statement, as in: these are for girls, too. Like Jennifer Estep said, it has a mostly positive connotation in my mind. A fangirl, to me, isn’t someone who has lost their own voice (or who uses it in defense of an author/creator, no matter what!!!!!!111) It’s possible to have a discussion with them, because at the heart of it, they’re fans of the *work* and, even if they admire the creator or characters, don’t wrap up their identity in them.
Rabid fangirls are something else, though (and in my mind are closer to the fangirl definition above) — that’s when the author/creator can do no wrong, and any dissenting opinion must be silenced, even if the only way to do it is by yelling and getting all of their friends. They kind of scare me.
I think fangirls are great for the romance genre. Rabid fangirls not so much, and in the end, they rarely help the author they’re supporting.
See, I think that’s actually a dangerous position. It implies that writers are required to meet their fans’ expectations in terms of plot/character development/whatever. But which fans? I think being able to say that a fan’s discontent = the writer’s failure is one step closer to shutting down creative license.
I think I’m reacting to this as a Harry Potter fangirl (yes, I own that term) after seeing the repeated absolutely insane attacks on Rowling from disgruntled rabid Harry/Hermione ’shippers, who really, truly believe that Rowling betrayed them, the evil H0R! She caved in to pressure from those ev0l R/H ’shippers and undermined her own serieshowdareshewepaidhermoneyforthis!!
I think, as fans, it is our duty to separate the writer from his/her text. If he/she writes a book we don’t like, is that the writer’s fault? (Sometimes it is, but not usually.) Do I think Connie Willis failed as a writer because I devoutly wish I’d never read Passage? No. She didn’t fail as a writer because that book didn’t appeal to me. My taste diverged at that point.
~Someone who can say (and mean it!), “If you didn’t like this book/character/plotline, I failed you as a writer.”~
I don’t think this equatesI’m required to meet every reader’s expectations–or any specific reader’s. The book failed that reader. Doesn’t mean I’m going to try to conceive and execute the next one to please that reader. But I can accept that for this reader, this book failed her expectations or wants or level of enjoyment.
And I’d also know that same book succeeded with another reader for, very likely, the exact reasons it failed this one.
Question:
Does owning Buffy and Spike action figures make me a fangirl? They were gifts! (and I love them so.)
As a further blurring or expanding of the term “fangirl,” consider that increasingly, people are slammed for being fangirls of websites or blogs. Part of what I’ve seen over the last couple years is that posters are conflated with the sites/blogs on which they post. Like authors of stories, the MeanGirls present a point of view, and fans who post on their sites or support the POV are looked upon as RFGs, and therefore, easy to dismiss.
Whatever the official definition, I’ve always aspired to be a fangirl. In my mind, I wanted to feel that slavish devotion and acceptance of an author’s entire body of work…alas, it was not to be. After years, many years, of romance reading, I’ve found that I’m more a fangirl of certain books. There are books by some authors that I’ve read, re-read, and will re-read again. However, that same author could have books that I’ve opened the front door and hurled it out onto the street. I understand that some authors have a moment of excellence followed by other moments of not-so-much-excellence. That’s why I love the books, not the authors.
As far as Nora goes, I used to read her back in the day, but I feel a little as if my tastes have changed. However, as a teacher, I feel the woman is seriously a role model to hold up. And that’s truly something extraordinary in this ambiguous day and age. Clearly she has things that she stands up for and she speaks emphatically and eloquently for her causes. Good on ya, Ms. Roberts, call me if you ever want to chat with middle schoolers about plagiarism.
With regards to some of the other players, I felt that Jenny Crusie was a little too rash in her comments at SBTB. As a public figure, she should’ve shown a little restraint before posting her snarky comments. I’m all for snark, I live for it, but when you’re in the public eye-whether you like it or not-you’ll be held accountable for your actions. IMO, Ms. Crusie should’ve realized that. Will I read her again? Uhm, probably not, but I really wasn’t much of a fan to begin with.
However, I will read her sidekick Lani again. Which is really ironic because I felt that Lani’s comments defending Jenny bordered on fangirlish and that was a little weird, but hey, that’s just my take. I do like her writing and I’ll be back for more Lani.
And Deborah Smith? What’s with that? She’s making Nora fans out to be on par with L. Ron Hubbard’s. What does she think’s gonna happen? Hey! Does she have a dog? JK!! Um, will I read her again? Maybe. I liked her a bit before, maybe.
As you can see, I’m not really gonna put myself out there as the defender of any author, but rather the books and the causes. Clearly I need to work on my fangirl skills. They should really offer a workshop to those of us that aspire.
I said earlier,
To which Ms Roberts commented,
That is exactly what I meant, snarkhunter. No writer should write for me (aka the mythical monolithic READER) with exclusion of everything else. But a writer who can acknowledge that when a book doesn’t resonate with one individual reader* that doesn’t mean that reader is attacking the author? That writer rocks in my book.
(*I believe Ms Roberts herself used that sentence or one very similar to it in a comment to a review of one of her books here at DA)
Okay, THAT I totally agree with, and now I can see what you meant in your original comment. I read it with a different emphasis or something.
Interesting discussion topic Jane. I had never ever heard the term “fangirl” until I started reading J.R. Ward’s Black Dagger Brotherhood series and joined her bulletin boards that were full of self-described “fangirls.” I think sometimes true fangirls give the author a bad name. Case in point with J.R.-there were a number of readers who posted at Amazon and Romantic Times (and presumably other sites as well) that they felt villified by the “fangirls” whenever they posted a less-than-glowing comment about any of J.R.’s books.
For me, being a fan means promoting an author’s books that I’ve loved or enjoyed with friends or in other arenas (i.e. writing a positive review on Amazon etc.), and sending that author an e-mail regarding the same.
*whispers* I have the Angel puppet, and it wasn’t a gift. :p */whispers* But it’s not too much of a secret that I am a Whedon fangirl. :) But this doesn’t mean that I think I ‘worship’ him, or have no objectivity. (I hated huge chunks of seasons 3 & 4 on Angel and I still pretend the last half of season 7 on Buffy never occurred.)
I agree with other posters that there is a difference between a fangirl and a rabid fanatic. One is a someone who has a deeper love for a subject than average fans, and the other is a scary extremist faction who seems to have deified the author and feel that any criticism towards that author is a sin that must be rectified with horribly spelled flaming hate mail.
I can usually separate the author from their work, so if I like their writing I’ll continue to read it regardless of their actions. Unless they do something magnificently stupid that outweighs all of my enjoyment in their books.
And it’s easier for me to separate the work from the creator with books, since a lot of the time I only have a vague notion of who the author is. It’s a lot harder when it comes to actors though, and I can’t help thinking how much more I would enjoy something if I didn’t know so much about them. A lot of the time, I usually just stop watching their movies, this includes Gibson, Cruise, Holmes, Heaton, ect.
Azteclady said:
In my own experience, this has been crucial. I had to learn that a judgment against something I wrote was not also an indictment of me, the human being. I think it’s critical that an author believe in his or her own integral value as a person, quite apart from what he or she writes. I write, but that does not define me. And having a reader say, “Wow, I hated this book,” does not! translate to, “Wow, Ann Aguirre is a dumb shit, and I can’t stand that bitch.”
Nora @22: Does owning Buffy and Spike action figures make me a fangirl? They were gifts! (and I love them so.)
In the good sense, yes.
I’m not in any position to point a finger at other fangirls. I own an original BBC costume from my favourite sf show…
I agree very much with GrowlyCub - I struggled over a response and found in rereading comments that they said what I was going to say, if with different examples since I’m not at present a romance reader.
In addendum:
I don’t really consider myself a fangirl of anything - a fan, certainly, but I rarely move beyond “Man, I really like these guys - I need to give them money.”. I have friends that are unabashed rabid fangirls of various things, and I guess that works for them. I feel awkward when they get their fan on, though. It feels a lot like craziness, a strange mania of which I can’t make sense.
I agree with Jennifer, the correct term for these people is “fanatic.” See the below definition and note the use of the terms “irrational” and “rabid”.
I also enjoyed the Winston Churchill quote. It explains a lot.
Noun
* S: (n) fanatic, fiend (a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause)) “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”–Winston Churchill
Adjective
* S: (adj) fanatic, fanatical, overzealous, rabid (marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea) “rabid isolationist”
Source: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fanatic
I’ve thought about this a good bit since reading the post. I do think, a la other comments, that the term “fangirl” has a negative connotation. But if you go back to the root, all fans are, by definition, fanatics. By that definition, the zealotry might have some good reason to be associated with the term fangirl.
Allow me to give an example. I read and enjoy Author X. She writes an insanely popular series, and has an extremely active bulletin board. This is all very, very good. There are some individuals who seem to have a significant emotional investment in the series and its characters, and - by association - the author. I have seen these individuals go into rabid defense mode when someone criticizes the stories in any way. Evidently, to these people, any criticism of the books equates to criticism of the author personally. These are the individuals I would label as zealots.
There are other individuals who justify and excuse away criticisms of Author X’s books. These individuals have clearly made the distinction between author and work, but the work is unassailable. These are the individuals I would label as fangirls.
There are still more individuals who discuss and debate the work, sometimes defending it, sometimes criticizing it, but with a general ambience of favor for the series. These I would call fans.
Beyond that, you get into casual readers and non-fans, people who are either ambivalent about the books or who actively disliked them. I suppose there is also a class of “haters” who conflate the author and the work, transferring the dislike of the books onto the author - sort of reverse zealots.
Anyway, that’s my take on the fangirl.
As I told Jane yesterday, this issue isn’t limited to genre fiction. Mega influential literary critic Paul de Man came under scrutiny after his death for articles written during WWII for Nazi-sympathizer publications, which in turn created an enormous debate over whether or not his critical views (or even deconstruction, the movement he helped found) could be separated from his politics and whether his lit crit work should be read at all.
So I don’t think it’s ever possible to completely separate a person from their work, while at the same time I think we need to remember that what we *see* of the creator is itself a constructed work, that for the most part we never really *know* any author (unless there is a RL personal relationship, of course). Which to me means that to some degree an author’s online persona can become like an extension of their work, but that both are merely *manifestations* and *presentations* that I might or might not find entertaining or interesting. I have purchased books by authors whose online voices have intrigued me, and I’ve taken little breaks from authors whose online voices have annoyed me until I can approach their work fresh once again.
I don’t, though, think I’ve ever come away from a book thinking that what an author wrote is code for what they are in RL, except under those circumstances where said authors talks about those things outside the book. In other words, if there is some kind of osmosis going on, it’s happening from the authors out-of-book mouth to my ears and not from the book itself. But because it is online, and because it is incomplete and uninflected communication, even still I try not to conflate the work and the authorial persona, at least until the authorial persona IMO impugns the reader *as a reader* — like, IMO, Deborah Smith did in her repeated comments. I think the whole plagiarism issue is really the first time that has happened for me, and it’s really sad, because there are authors whose work I really can’t even contemplate reading right now.
As for all the name calling going on over the Edwards situation, as I said elsewhere, the most extreme comments I’ve seen around the Edwards revelations have come from those defending Edwards or attacking the “mean girl” bloggers or Nora Roberts. That doesn’t mean I will defend every comment made about Edwards either, as some, IMO, are overboard. But in any case, I think the thing that has really shaken my faith in the integrity of the Romance community has been these author comments that dismiss the Edwards examples, trash the bloggers, or go after authors who dare to say that they think Edwards was wrong. I don’t necessarily expect other readers to care passionately about intellectual honesty in fiction, but I sure as hell do expect authors to care, and I’m amazed at how many times over the past couple of weeks I’ve felt like saying that is breaking a taboo, somehow.
As to the anti-blogger sentiment, some of it, of course, is transparent standard anti-blogger propaganda, a resentment happy to find what it sees as a cause. IMO that kind of anti-blogger name calling IMO amounts to using Edwards, exploiting the situation, really, to go after — once again — the bloggers, and all that sort of speaks for itself, IMO.
No, the stuff that gets me is the stuff like Deb Smith has said over and over (complete with incorrect assertions regarding copyright and plagiarism), because I can’t understand where it’s coming from. Is it a personal grudge against Roberts? Is it author CYA? Is it lack of respect for readers and bloggers? Is it a fear that bloggers have some weird hypnotic power over readers? Is it bitterness totally unrelated to any of this? And in Smith’s case, she’s a publisher, too, right?
Obviously there’s a lot of personalization going on at Smith’s end of things, too, as well as with some other authors who have made comments that have baffled, frustrated, and just plain pissed me off over the past couple of weeks. No one, IMO, is beyond taking something personally. It’s all a matter of degree, IMO, and of the ability to make reasonable distinctions outside the heat of the moment.
Ultimately I guess it’s up to each of us to say what we mean the best way we can and, at the end of the day, be able to live with what we’ve said, regardless of how someone else takes it. At least that’s honest.
It seems to me the problem is that the defenders of Cassie Edwards are trying to defend the indefensible. Since they have no legs to stand on, they are using the logical fallacy of personal attack (learned no doubt from watching the political shenanigans on the tv) and so instead of addressing what you say, they are simply going to attack you by name calling and hope no one notices how completely stupid and ridiculous that is. Same applies to the Smart Bitches and to Nora Roberts and anyone who has reason enough to read what CE wrote and then to read the originals. I mean, duh. It’s pretty obvious.
Di
There’s also the verb form “to fanboy/girl someone”, which basically refers to the uncontrollable “Ohmygosh it’s youooo!” gushing we are prone to on encountering actual Real Live Author/Actor/Etc. Which is normally harmless, if perhaps embarrassing on one or both sides, but occasionally goes a lot further and into Creepy Stalkerdom. I’ve seen an example of the latter outside a stage door, and there is very definitely a difference. Online it results in the sort of behaviour Ilona Andrews refers to at post 9.
Amen.
And I’d like to add that prior to my first comments I hadn’t read all of D. Smith’s blog. I’ve done so now and I, too, agree with Robin’s comments:
I know it’s judgemental, but I really feel it’s a grotesque lack of character on those that even slightly condone CE’s actions or make excuses for how maybe CE didn’t know what she was doing. BS. I’m wondering how D. Smith would feel if high schoolers were using her work in their creative writing classes and not paraphrasing or citing? Would that be okay? Would she be flattered if they were passing her work off as their own?
Sandra Schwab seems to think we want historical writers to document all their research.
Jackie, I knew I shouldn’t have taken part in the discussion on the Cassie Edwards case, and on what or what doesn’t constitute plagiarism when writing fiction (read: it was an extremely idiotic thing to do), especially as I didn’t seem to manage to get my point across. Yes, I was getting more and more frustated as the discussion progressed and several suggestions (in some cases demands) were made that authors should document their sources more properly, because for somebody who relies heavily on research and who loves to play with intertextual references, many of these suggestions could be construed as an attack, even if they were never meant in this way.
I am sorry if I stepped on anybody’s toes during the aforementioned discussion. This was never my intention. I’m also sorry if I came across like a dog with a bone and got on everybody’s nerves.
Meljean said:
Yep, yep. Too true. I’m a good example because I am an LKH fangirl– her books, and her and her husband personally. However, I not only retain a sense of humor, but I also feel no compulsion to wander the interent ever on guard and ready to defend her to the death. Have I done so? Yeah, a few times when there were some personal attacks that I knew were not based on facts. And I have expressed my opinion or interpretation of her books at a few places.
But let’s face it, considering the amount of anti-LKH sentiment out there, jumping in to defend her would be a full time job and I would certainly deserve the label of “rabid fangirl” if I felt that no one was allowed to express any negative opinions about her. Mostly I just stay out of it because anything I say will simply be dismissed as “rabid fangirl” blathering. And life’s too damn short to spend it in no-win arguments, anyhow.
Hell, there’s even been a few times where I’ve covered my eyes and thought “Oh, Laurell, what did you DO?!”
And Ilona, thank you for expressing this issue from an author’s POV. Your comments were very enlightening and I can’t imagine how frustrating that double-edge sword must be.
That is a behavior I’ve seen all too often and yes…. it does hurt the author.
If you love a book, great. That doesn’t mean everybody has to love it and those that don’t love it don’t need to be mocked, scorned or insulted.
But that does happen and I think it’s part of why ‘fangirl’ has developed this negative connotation. But it’s not really the ‘fangirl’ doing it.
It’s the RFGs or the fanatics.
I think LKH is a great example of an author who has created a public persona that merges with her work. Whether it’s publicizing pictures of herself, her husband, and her assistant dressed as characters, or talking a lot about the personal details of her life *in relation* to her writing process and the content of her books, she has made it very difficult, IMO, to effect a separation between her books and her authorial persona. So I understand how her fans can think they *know* her, because IMO she cultivates that personalization. That doesn’t, IMO, mean that it’s a free-for-all for readers, but it’s also not just author v. book with her, either.
We’re all making value judgments here, which is why, of course, there’s so much heat around these discussions.
I was thinking yesterday about how I feel this situation is similar to and different from the Viswanathan plagiarism case. In Viswanathan’s case, I’m not even convinced she wrote the whole of Opal Mehta, and who knows because she took responsibility for what happened and there’s only that book to go by. With Edwards it’s multiple books, multiple external sources (fiction and non-fic), multiple examples in each book. And here’s my dilemma with that: if she thought was she was doing was okay, what does that say about how professional Romance authors are educated about plagiarism or how their ms’s are vetted by their editors and publishers? In other words, even if she really thought it was okay, IMO we’re still back to a general ignorance of or disregard for intellectual honesty and creative integrity *somewhere* in the mix of her books being written and published.
I don’t know what kind of a person Edwards is, and I can absolutely entertain the idea that as a person she’s wonderful and as an author she made some unethical decisions. I’m not looking for “punishment” for her, although I do not think that any books future or repubbed should go out with copied material in them. Same with the cries of witch hunt, the dismissals of the copying, the assertions that it’s all about the mean girl bloggers, and the ‘who cares, what’s the big deal’ comments: what do those say about the general value placed on intellectual honesty in the genre? Are those the more standard views, or is it the views of authors like Nora Roberts, Julie Leto, etc., who have been vocal anti-plagiarism advocates?
It is an interesting distinction between fan/fangirl/rabid fangirl. I think more recently the term fangirl does carry a negative image. It is used to dismiss someone’s opinion. Just because I am a huge fan of someone doesn’t mean I will blindly follow them or that my brain has ceased to function logically.
When I am personally offended I am more likely to speak out. I am offended by blatant stupidity and illogic. Deb Smith knew she would be insulting people and didn’t care a whit and still did it. I view Jennifer Crusies comment as more of a spoke before she thought type of deal. It did bother me but I still enjoy her works. I will not touch any Deb Smiths works with a ten foot pole.
“Fans” of authors have a lot of power. They can spread the word and attract new readers, but just as easily a fan’s bad behaviour can really turn off future readers and do a lot of harm. As a fan I try to act responsibly and not go overboard. As one of Megan Whalen Turner’s phrases “Don’t offend the Gods” could be turned into a saying for authors and fans-don’t offend the readers. (Now come on you just knew rabid fangirl that I am I had to work her in somewhere-now go read King of Attolia).
With the spotlight on Romance, and Romances struggle to be a credible genre, I think it reflects poorly when you have romance authors that publically see nothing wrong with plagerism and attack those that are trying to bring attention to the matter. Trying to quietly sweep something under the rug is not a good idea. Kind of like trying to shut the barn door once the horse has left.
~if she thought was she was doing was okay, what does that say about how professional Romance authors are educated about plagiarism or how their ms’s are vetted by their editors and publishers?~
While publishers and editors don’t hold workshops and seminars on plagiarism and infringement, they do have standard language in the contract wherein the author guarantees the work as orginial. And would, I assume, believe the author was taught the basics about copying in school.
Again, Romance is not at fault or even flawed because of this matter. Not even due to the response of some who find it no big, or seem confused by the terms and their meanings.
Publishers, regardless of the genre, don’t have time to vet every mss under contract.
I have a very hard time believing anyone who writes for a living genuinely believes it’s okay to lift the work of another writer. I just can’t buy it, particularly can’t when it’s multiple times over the course of years. Particularly again, when they would have had to live in a cave not to hear about other instances of copying and infringement–and the fallout from it.
Those who believe it’s okay are deluding themselves. I don’t think any amount of education would make a difference in that case.
Authors write books, we read them–or not–for many reasons. Our mutual contract should begin and end with what’s between the pages, IMO. Educating, inspiring or moving either party is a bonus and a blessing; expecting more from either is where the balance tips, usually not in a good way.
“… fans who post on their sites or support the POV are looked upon as RFGs, and therefore, easy to dismiss.”
This is the problem I have with labels of any kind and that includes books, politics, religion and talk radio. When we apply labels, we place that person with whom we disagree in a neat cubbyhole, which means we don’t have to deal with them or address what they say. It’s easy to call someone a fangirl/idiot/Democrat-Republican if you don’t