On Why Authors Have More Power than Readers
Letters of Opinionauthors / commercial speech / community / harassment / power / readers / risk / stalking125 Comments
I had originally intended to write a follow-up post to last week’s piece on feminism and the Romance genre, but the enormous Kickstarter debate kicked me back to a post on authors and power I had intended to write some months back after the Kathleen Hale incident. During that debate, I suggested that when authors say they feel powerless relative to readers, that there was a confusion between power and risk. That authors, by virtue of the fact that they are offering their creative content for commercial sale, assume more risk, and therefore feel like they have less power than readers, when, in fact, they generally have more.
Let me explain.
Professional authors offer books for commercial sale. That means they are businesses, and those businesses are built around whatever pen names the author is using for her work. Authors acquire readers and fans, and the more popular the author, the more protective and powerful the fanbase. And in the furtherance of their commercial success, authors call on their fans to assist in promotion and marketing, perhaps through the creation of “street teams,” which have readers functioning as local promotional agents on behalf of their favorite authors’ books.
When authors are acting as commercial businesses, they are often engaging in commercial speech, which, is speech aimed at marketing, promoting, and selling their work. As I have talked about before, commercial speech is considered more powerful (potentially influential) and therefore receives less First Amendment protection (assuming we’re talking about a US context). Authors also have professional networks, which include professional groups for the advancement of their genre or craft, like RWA or the Authors Guild.
Additionally, authors have the benefit of enacting two roles, author and reader, or private individual and commercial business. In fact, many authors maintain separate identities as readers, so that they can keep the two separate in public discourse. There are some contexts in which authors will designate themselves as “readers first,” or will talk about putting on their ‘reader hat,’ as a way to shift between perspectives and interests.
Readers, on the other hand, are consumers of products that are offered for commercial sale, even if they acquire them at a library or through a friend or at a used bookstore. Readers may write reviews of books they buy and read. They are not represented by a professional organization, do not have professional networks, and do not have the authority of a commercial voice. For the most part, readers represent themselves and function in an individual capacity.
If we draw a line from the most popular author to the least connected reader, we have the progression from least powerful to most powerful. Popular authors can mobilize their fanbases with minimal effort; in fact, sometimes fanbases will mobilize on an author’s behalf, even if the author isn’t asking for advocacy on her behalf. Pure readers, on the other hand, basically have the influence of a single voice, a single opinion, a ‘one’ among ‘many.’
Most of us online fall somewhere in between the most powerful author and the least powerful reader. Some readers have blogs, from which we review, which means we acquire ARCs. Some readers are paid reviewers; some readers (like me) do freelance work like editing, cover design, web design, or the like. Similarly, some authors have only one or two books published and do not have a massive fanbase. Some authors are working multiple jobs to make ends meet and are publishing their own books, hoping to break out into mainstream popularity. Some authors were initially bloggers or reviewers, and therefore have one reputation that they are trying to build into another. There are many variables here.
I have heard a number of authors say that they don’t feel very powerful at all. That they don’t have huge fanbases or huge incomes from their writing. They say that readers hold all the power because we can say what we want without consequence and we can give a book a negative review without worrying about the author’s career. That we run the market, because publishers are always trying to figure out what we will buy. That readers are king. Again, I think this perspective relies on a confusion between risk and power.
Let me explain.
Authors take on risk when they enter the commercial marketplace. They write a book that may offend readers or that may just not be popular. They may say something publicly that alienates some reader. They often have to bear the burden of promotion and marketing, even when they may have a publisher who they technically pay to do that. As independent contractors, they have to measure risks against rewards when they sign contracts or act as their own publisher. They may invest all sorts of time and even money into a project that doesn’t take off. They may never be able to quit their day jobs to write full time.
Readers, on the other hand, seem to bear little risk. They have a seemingly endless supply of books and other entertainment options from which to choose. They can, theoretically, say what they want about a book and not worry how it affects their own career, which is separate from their reading. They have publishers trying to figure out what they will buy, and, in turn, acquiring books they believe will succeed in the marketplace.
Risk, however, is not the same thing as power (or, more specifically, powerlessness). Readers act as individuals. Any power they have is collective, but most often not because they are acting in a coordinated way. For example, when a publisher says that a book didn’t succeed because no one bought it, they see readers en masse, as the market. Readers who buy books they really want to see succeed, only to be told that the book didn’t sell well, understand how little power they have to influence a book’s success. Those readers who did buy the book, who wanted to support the book, are not even considered relevant. Conversely, when a book succeeds, all sorts of assumptions about what “readers” want are made, and readers get many more books that look like the successful book, even if they want something completely different. In both cases, readers is a comprehensive term that is based on no consciously coordinated actions on the part of individual readers. The power of the market is almost something that exists beyond and apart from individual readers, because each reader is contributing a single voice that is perceived as a whole from an outsider’s perspective.
Authors, on the other hand, have the combined roles of a commercial business and a private individual. They have the ability to move between those two identities and to use whichever seems more advantageous depending on the context. Because readers and author do not always share the same interest, the ability to shift between both identities can be very valuable. When they want less risk, they can be readers. When they want greater rewards, they can be authors. As authors they can an do engage in a consciously coordinated way, partnering up to do cross-promotion or marketing, maintaining listservs and author boards that allow them to exchange advice, strategies, and information. They network through professional organizations and have agents to represent them.
As a category, author is much more powerful than reader. And when we really see that power is when, for example, an author gets an essay published in The Guardian, in which she chronicles the stalking of a reader-reviewer, not only violating that reader’s privacy in her pursuit, but also in the article itself, where the reader-reviewer is identified, vilified, and represented in a way designed to engender sympathy for the author’s invasive conduct.
Or how about when authors line up in defense of one of their own, this time to call readers who dared to question a Kickstarter campaign everything from “bully” and “hater” to greedy, piratical, misogynistic ingrates who didn’t think authors deserved to be paid for their work. How many readers get Chuck Wendig to signal boost their ‘plight’ in a blog post or have a writer for a well-known online media outlet chastise readers for “bullying” an author, on nothing more than a “feeling” that she felt bullied?
In fact, the backlash against readers reminded me vividly of the Cassie Edwards plagiarism debacle, in which readers were, once again, lambasted by authors, criticized for speaking out and for criticizing an older woman. One prominent author even asked, “Did Cassie Edwards run over your dog?” in response to posts detailing the plagiarized passages. Hell, we see authors brazen out accusations of plagiarism almost routinely now.
Still, nothing demonstrated the power disparity between authors and readers better than the Hale incident, because the stark truth is that readers who are stalked and harassed have absolutely no recourse. Their reviews can be taken down at Goodreads or Amazon at the request of an author and they can be battered by an author’s protective fanbase. Authors can continue on in their careers, untouched by their publishers, leaving a reader feeling frightened and vulnerable.
Readers, on the other hand, can be doxxed and harassed in the alleged project of putting an end to bullying, and who will put themselves on the line to protect them. At that point, readers generally have a single choice: do they continue on, reading and reviewing, or do they get out, giving up an enjoyable hobby in order to protect their privacy and their safety.
Because authors have a real investment to protect in the form of their work’s profitability, they are less likely to leave the community. There is a higher risk in being an author, because the potential rewards are substantially higher, as well. For reader, their risk is lower because their reward is lower — the love of reading, of sharing books, and of engaging online with other readers. And because they have a lower reward, and fewer resources to protect it, they can more easily be driven from the online ecosystem than authors who have a professional livelihood to protect. In fact, how many times have we seen an author claim she is giving up publishing or giving up writing because some reader said something mean, only to have her fans and fellow authors cheer her on and encourage her to return triumphantly to the marketplace?
Yes, I know that individual authors often feel like they lack power. I get that they feel torn about speaking out, afraid of saying the “wrong” thing, frustrated at not selling enough books, worried about what readers will and won’t like, and a whole other host of concerns that make them feel vulnerable. But they still belong to the more powerful group interest, with the added benefit of being able to wear their reader hat when convenient. It may not always seem like a lot, but it’s still more than what the average reader has.
THIS!! Thank you!
I’m a reader; have been ‘reviewing’ for only a short time – and ONLY for my personal benefit. When I retired, and spent more time on social media, I quickly discovered how NOT to say things about certain books OR authors. So I made a conscious decision to write my ‘reviews’ for me, and to NEVER indulge in any form of criticism.
You may say that negates completely what reviews are about, and I would agree. But I’m too old to play playground games of “he said, she said”. I have a great deal of respect for ‘real’ reviewers and book-bloggers, and authors too. But I’d rather stand and watch, than be included in argument.
Opinions are unique to those giving them, and opinions should be respected, regardless.
I agree with the bulk of your post but I think it is fair to say that authors can also run the risk of being harassed (or doxxed if they are using a pseudonym) and that part of that risk comes from the fact that having a public and approachable persona can help to sell books.
I don’t think it makes them any less powerful in relation to readers in the other ways you describe, just that they are very definitely not immune to creeps (and in the past may have faced an expectation that they would endure the creeps in order to continue their career…at least within the science fiction genre).
Some authors have this sense of entitlement, because they’re considered (or they consider themselves) celebrities, aka artists in the same vein as famous actors and musicians. Their egos expand and they feel they are above everyone else, which means the reader.
I so appreciate that most authors do act professionally.
If an author is going to insist on reading their reviews I hope they keep in mind that a so-called bad review often sells books. What didn’t work for the particular reviewer may be just what another reader wants. I’ve lost count of the number of books I’ve purchased due to “bad” reviews over the years.
I agree with @Annamal that authors can be harassed/doxxed as well. Sadly, that particular phenomenon can happen to anyone online.
I completely agree that writers have more power than readers, even a baby writer such as myself. More risk = more power/reward. That’s the only reason a rational person would take on more risk.
I think what causes writers to have the opposite impression is Amazon’s top 100 rated books lists. One bad review will knock a book off that list because there are so many ‘perfect’ rated books on it. This ‘challenge’, however, was created by writers as many of the writers of the books on these lists paid for their ‘perfect’ reviews.
Readers do have quite a bit of power. Publishers tend to publish the type of books readers buy. But yes, writers have much more power.
About harassment…
Once you put any opinion online, you will get pushback.
A book is hundreds of pages of opinion (yes, it is fiction but some readers don’t separate a character’s opinion from a writer’s). Writers should expect quite a bit of pushback.
I get death threats and other craziness. I knew this would happen before I made the decision to have my stories published (this knowledge is one of the reasons belonging to a writing organization like RWA is important). It is a price we writers pay for realizing our dreams and, whenever I hear a writer complain about it, I think ‘she didn’t do her homework before deciding on this career.’
And with power comes responsibility…which I don’t think many authors see. The responsibility to put ourselves in our readers’ shoes and understand that they may see an action that we (with our business hats on) might consider perfectly OK as spammy, aggressive or downright unethical. You provide a good example in the case of the word “bully,” which imo should be banished from an author’s vocabulary with regard to readers or reviewers. I can’t imagine any vendor in a purely commercial field behaving toward their customer base the way authors do. Especially since, as you say, a good author is an avid reader and should KNOW what the balance of power feels like from that side (I still turn into a nervous fangirl when talking to Famous Authors at conferences).
I love my negative reviews–they teach me more about my craft than the glowing ones, and I do believe they help sell books. That’s one way in which the balance of power has shifted very slightly toward the reader–an individual reader has the power to make an author see their work from a different light. I never, EVER want to see the end of the reader-review system, and am very concerned that readers retain their full rights to review negatively, anonymously, with GIFs, in any way they choose. So what if that makes some authors feel powerless?
@Cynthia Sax: “Readers do have quite a bit of power. Publishers tend to publish the type of books readers buy. But yes, writers have much more power”.
IMO publishers tend to publish books which reader as a collective would buy (“the market” as Robin said). I am not trying to make it about me, but the only reader whom I can reference and for whom I can speak is myself, so here it goes. In m/m romance genre I want more books like the ones Tamara Allen writes, like the ones Ginn Hale writes and I am not talking about these specific writers writing faster, because I am certainly willing to wait for as long as it takes for them to produce a new book. No, what I am talking about is the “type” of the book I want (if you can call it a type, because it is a very general description, really) – story and characters first and sex second (or third, like icing on the cake as I like to say).
Unfortunately not that many readers tend to feel like me (some definitely do, but based on what books I see selling well, I think I can generalize with enough confidence that not many do). And I say “unfortunately” not because I disrespect their tastes, but because that makes it less likely that *I* as an individual reader will get more books like the books that I want to read. So, no, I as an individual do not feel that I have a power at all to make publishers look at me (any reader who feels like me) and make them to publish more books like I want to read.
Of course I am also a DA reviewer and when I review I can make my voice heard louder than the readers who do not review , but as to what I described above, I do not feel that it makes one yota of a difference.
@Sirius: I completely agree that, as a collective, readers have more power. (as a collective, writers have more power also which is why we participate in anthologies, boxed sets, etc)
Simply by talking about Tamara Allen, however, means more readers will look up her books and possibly buy them. More sales=more publisher possibilities/more self pubbers getting into that niche. I’ve had a series saved by one noisy reader. She bumped the sales up around a hundred books which made the difference between stopping and continuing the series.
I suspect many readers don’t realize how close to the line some series are, especially for baby writers. Hmmm… this might be why these same writers talk about the readers having more power. Any writer who has had a series canceled due to missing the sales goal by 100 books or less might view Romanceland this way.
@Cynthia Sax: Just for the record(and shouting into the void), I know death threats are the reality for any kind of public figure and that people need to go into those careers with eyes open but they really really shouldn’t be.
The price for being in public should not be death threats (any more than the price for walking down the street should be cat calls).
@Annamal: I agree. Unfortunately, it is the world we live in. There are some unstable people on this planet and being in the public eye attracts them.
Happily, these unstable people are the exception (though we still should take precautions). The majority of folks in Romanceland are kind, thoughtful, wonderful people.
This is an interesting analysis, and it makes me think about my personal power (or lack thereof).
As a reader, I don’t necessarily want “power”…I just want to be entertained (and maybe a little enlightened) by the way an author presents a certain story or subject. When I do leave a rating or review on Amazon or Goodreads, I try to be very specific about why I loved or didn’t love a particular book so that other readers looking at the review can decide whether or not my personal preferences match their own. If there’s one thing we all agree on, it’s the subjective nature of reviews! I’ve never gotten push-back after writing a less than flattering review, so I can’t speak to that except to guess that I’d probably shrug and never buy that author’s work again (which is a form of power).
As a new author, I don’t feel powerful at all (but I also don’t expect or need to feel powerful). I agree that affiliations with groups like RWA do give individual authors a bit of power (but more importantly to me, it connects me to a supportive, helpful community that helps offset the sometimes isolating lifestyle of writing). Best-selling authors certainly have fan bases that can be mobilized to help them promote and sell their work. From what I can tell at this early stage, the vast majority of authors are not best sellers, so their personal circle of influence is pretty small in the scheme of things (they directly reach fewer readers than a popular review blog like this one).
But perhaps the reason writers sometimes feel like readers have so much power is because, for example, when we pitch a new story idea to our agent and she says, “Ooo, very edgy and current, but it won’t sell well in the romance market because it is too polarizing and/or political”…then it seems like the readers’ buying preferences (which are well tracked) strongly influence what authors get the green-light to write. That ability of readers to shape the market in this way is extremely powerful (at least, in my opinion).
I’m not complaining or criticizing, because I understand and respect the principle of supply and demand, but that “demand” does give readers power.
Most writers I know (myself included) are extremely grateful for each and every reader who invests the money and time to read their work. After all, the primary goal of writing is to engage other people. Most writers I know also expect a variety of reviews/reactions to their work and do not get overly upset by negative feedback. By the time we get a book out into the world, we’ve become quite used to rejection and critique! ;-)
It is very unfortunate that a few extreme reactions (like the Hale situation) make it uncomfortable for the rest of us to feel safe voicing our thoughts and opinions in the community of book lovers! In this regard, the extremists (writers or reviewers) seem to have entirely TOO much power.
Thanks for opening up this discussion. Maybe the real takeaway is that anyone with power and influence should wield it wisely and fairly?
As a reader who falls into several “minority” categories, all I feel is powerless in compasrison to authors and “the market.” In fact, after the Hale incident I felt both powerless AND helpless.
Feeling that way while the people who [I feel] hold all the power bash and trash while claiming that they are being bullied has…made me look at the majority of all authors with distrust and a bit of animosity. I’ve watched myself become more and more hidebound every year. I take less risk when it comes to new authors now because I do not know if I can trust those authors not to stalk me.
And when – at the end of the day – the reader is left in [regular] fear of her life…does she have any power at all.
Yes and thank you for writing this. Risk assumption and powerlessness are not the same thing. That readers have less power than authors seems obvious to me, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.
You wrote: “Authors acquire readers and fans, and the more popular the author, the more protective and powerful the fanbase.”
Is power being defined by *reach*?
If it’s the respect of the audience, if power is measured in *readers*, Dear Author has a wider base of readers than many, many authors – either indie or traditionally published.
When I started writing – and blogging – I had a handful of readers. I had a handful of very devoted readers. I was grateful for that – and I interacted with them largely and entirely as myself.
When that number grew – and it did – the paradigm changed for me. I became aware that my words were given more weight because I was the author of books that these readers had loved. They had an attachment to my opinions that I understood because I am *also* a reader. I became more aware that people who love my books might leap to my defense when I didn’t *need* defense.
I didn’t start out having that kind of influence. I would argue that DA didn’t, either. It was a fabulous site meant for romance readers – an audience that drives fiction sales, but has received, historically, very little respect.
But at this point, DA *has* weight and power. It’s gained that from years of free blogging and news and deals and very opinionated reviews. It’s gained that by being real. it’s gained audience the way any very largely trafficked blog, or *author* does: by being relevant and interesting to its *readers*.
If power is defined, again, by reach, by breadth of readership, DA *is* in the author class, imho.
Do you consider DA to be in the author class/category or the reader class/category? (This isn’t meant to be an argument against your points, all well-taken; I am genuinely curious. DA has, in my opinion, more weight on the internet than most authors I know.)
@Cynthia Sax: I am a woman working in IT so I definitely understand dealing with the world the way it is (I am tremendously lucky not to have faced even a fraction of the crap or the creeps that other women working in IT have encountered) .
I also feel that it’s worth emphasizing the fact that while this is the world the way it is now, it is not the world the way it absolutely has to be.
No reader should have to feel worried that an author will stalk them and for what it’s worth I first heard about the Hale scandal when the authors whose blogs and tweets I read started pointing to the original article as an example of how not to behave. I don’t want to come across as #notallauthors (because even a few authors engaging in this kind of behaviour has created a toxic environment). I just want to highlight a subsection of authors who object publicly to this kind of behaviour.
Come to think of it there are practical ways that some authors have contributed to creating a safer environment for fans (at least physically), the co-signers of John Scalzi’s policy on not attending conventions which do not have a well-defined harassment policy include a number of authors http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/07/03/my-convention-harassment-policy-co-sign-thread/
I disagree on a couple of points.
(1) I am not sure that it is really possible for authors to transition between an author and a reader identity. I’m one of those authors who has shifted along the spectrum: I was primarily a reviewer, then for a while I maintained a double identity, then I realized that to do so was both untenable and dishonest, and so I switched to primarily author.
I still talk about the books I read, and I still get a lot of pleasure from those discussions–it makes me really happy to find out someone has read & enjoyed a book on my recommendation.
But at no point during those discussions do I feel like I’m wearing a ‘reader hat’. I feel like an author who talks about books. I can measure the distance between those discussions & the ones I’d have when I existed online mostly as a reviewer & it is pretty huge.
For one thing, I do not have the credibility that I once did–and I shouldn’t. My opinions are compromised.
(2) If an author’s fanbase is part of her power then a reader’s social network should also be.
One thing I regularly think when a kerfuffle erupts and an author complains that ‘everyone’ is falling in line behind some reviewer’s opinion is that the reviewer had to EARN that trust. That it’s the product of months or years of taking part in a community & gathering like-minded individuals & contributing. It’s not automatic. There are lots of readers & reviewers that nobody listens to. But there are some who have a huge voice, a huge reach, and a TON of respect.
Dear Author, of course, is staffed entirely by such reviewers. And–I’m sorry–I think it’s really bizarre that you would imagine that you don’t have a lot of power?
I acknowledge that the basic spectrum that you pointed out–from least powerful reader to most powerful author–is accurate. At the extreme upper end, a really, really popular and influential author could drown out almost any reviewer & Hale is an example of a debut author who had the connections to do the same.
But just because you’re accurate about the extremes doesn’t mean that through the middle, there’s no room for reversals & upsets. I don’t think this can be generalized to “authors have more power than readers”.
(3) I do think that authors have a greater responsibility not to abuse their power & that there’s a greater need to hold authors to account when they abuse the power that they do have. For reasons that you name: we have a commercial interest; we’ve accepted a certain amount of risk; we should be held to standards of professional behavior.
@Erin Satie: Since I previously commented about not feeling that I have a lot of power (and I am one of DA reviewers), I just want to clarify that I was commenting *specifically* on not having a power to make publishers printing books that I want to read. I mean, obviously in the exact sense nobody has that power, but I do not feel that publishers would listen to readers like me, because sex sells and sex only interests me when I read in conjunction with story and great characters. And I absolutely do not feel that I have such a power. Do my reviews help sell books? I have no idea, but I was specifically responding to the point about publishers listening to the readers and printing the books they want to read. I do not feel like publishers are listening to this reader at all.
@Annamal: The unfortunate thing is extreme or bad behavior from writers draws media attention. Here we are, talking about Hale, increasing awareness of her name, while there are plenty of well behaving writers who, as we often joke, would have to set themselves on fire to get the same coverage.
As bad behavior by writers is rewarded, I expect to see more of it.
As a reader who reviews, I don’t feel that getting my reviews removed comes close to risking being stalked or doxxed. I’ve had a review removed and gone back and forth with Amazon on it. I’ve also had my reviews edited; Amazon couldn’t stand to see Howard Roark referred to as a rapist, go figure. Those were irritating episodes, but at least I could appeal to someone. Some of the other episodes I’ve seen had no effective moderators.
As an author, I have another way in which I wield power: authors talk to each other, beta-read for each other and influence each other’s stories all the time. Readers who share their opinions might be given the same weight, but for many of us we have more access to other writers than to readers.
@Sirius:
I’m going to go for a metaphor here–bad logic!–but I think that social capital is like a non-liquid asset. Like, when you own a piece of property you probably mostly feel, year to year, like it costs you money: in taxes and upkeep. The property has a great deal of value, but you can’t access all of that value at once without selling (and then you don’t have it anymore).
So it’s pretty easy to feel like you’re powerless, because what can you really do with that power? In the short term, not much.
So. Back to the point. I think it’s fair to say that Dear Author played a part in the revival of contemporaries. I don’t know how much of the credit goes to DA, but SOME. Which is huge. It just took time and happened incrementally.
I think that great stories & great characters sell, but you can’t just order them up the way you can a book with lots of sex. So it’s practical to go for the sure thing & hope you have the power to act when the story/character books come along.
@Michelle Sagara:
“If power is defined, again, by reach, by breadth of readership, DA *is* in the author class, imho.”
This is an interesting way of looking at it.
I am sure there are some authors out there who like to think they have/or are entitled to/ power, just because they wrote a book, but when it comes to commerce (be that a coffee maker, toaster or a book) power is in the hands of the consumer.
If I don’t like a product, I can return it and get my money back. It’s a bit more difficult with print books, however. My local bookstore will not offer a refund for a book I didn’t like, especially after I’ve read it. But then I, as a consumer, am free to sell this book to a *second-hand* bookstore, give it away, or toss it in the recycle bin (digital copies, I just delete from ereader) and then I chalk it up to experience. A risk I took, but I will not spend $ again on Author X. And I long ago stopped trusting author endorsements/reviews, especially when authors are contracted with the same publishing house. Just because I like Author Y’s writing has rarely equated to I will like this book from Author Z.
Fans of books by Author X, Y and Z can shout from the rooftops all they want, how good a book is, the fact of the matter is that if I didn’t like Author X, Y or Z in the first place, or stopped liking an author for whatever reason, I won’t again spend my hard-earned money on them.
@Cynthia Sax: I think good behaviour by authors can and has been rewarded (I do not think that it is guaranteed to be rewarded and I think in the case of women writing in tech…speaking out on any issue is an incredible risk).
I saw a number of people who started reading John Scalzi or Mary Robinette Kowal and cited their public stances on attitudes within the science fiction community as the reason that they initially checked those authors out.
It’s going to be a while before I have time to respond in detail to comments (day job!), but I did want to clarify one thing before it turns into one of those “she said WHAT?!” moments: NOWHERE in this piece did I say Dear Author is powerless. I did reference a continuum of power, on which each of us falls, our place dependent on multiple factors. I will, however, point out that Dear Author is a blog, a collective of voices, which has included some authors over the years.
Thanks for the great comments, everyone!
Robin, you’ve made some excellent points, and it’s certainly a relationship that should get analyzed more. The more the reader and author communities become personally connected, the more we should be aware of our power dynamics.
@Erin Satie: I agree that it is worth noting that readers can and do have social networks and capital of their own, and that those networks should be considered when noting power differentials in individual cases (which makes this all the more difficult, because describing the power in a singular identity is different from describing how an individual person has power or lacks power because of all of the identities they encompass).
What I think is important to note is that, while readers have social networks and can be seen as influencers in the community much like authors, readers do not have the capital power that authors do. Authors as small business owners take on power roles in regards to selling their products that readers can’t do. Sure, readers can enact similar ideas to get their content read, but authors benefit from an author-reader relationship in that they get financial gain as well as social gain. Readers aren’t seen as being small business owners, they’re primarily seen as consumers and their blogs or content as “hobbies” rather than professions.
DA’s power is also something worth considering, because non-author entities can definitely gain influencer status in the communities we’re discussing. However, it’s also worth saying that even websites like DA are frequently disempowered because they aren’t based in the business the way authors are. Authors are seen as “legitimate” because they are authors. In recent discussions, how many points were met with accusations that bloggers (as an entirety – including sites like DA) didn’t understand publishing? Those kinds of moments happen all the time.
Because the reader hat is seen as more common and as unprofessional, even when it may have more direct reach than a lot of authors, it isn’t viewed as legitimate in terms of business and industry – which is a big power differential. Power is more than just reach – it is how society legitimizes specific roles and identities over others, and how those identities are treated differently because of that viewed legitimacy or lack thereof. I think, in that respect, the argument that authors have more power than readers comes into a much fuller form. Reach is limiting because it doesn’t take into account this difference in perceived legitimacy in the roles and the resulting differences that come from that.
@Erin Satie:Your comment took me aback. Where in the post or comments did anyone say Dear Author is powerless? I read the post as Robin advocating for readers as a group, not for DA, and I see Jane’s position on the recent Kickstarter advance campaign in a similar light.
@Erin Satie: I am wondering if you could clarify what specific meaning you assign to “power” in this context, because maybe I am not disagreeing with you at all. That a lot of readers read my reviews? I am pretty sure that is true. DA has a huge audience, I know that of course and I am guessing at least part of this audience does read my reviews. I am pretty sure that all my fellow reviewers here are read by a lot of people. But if you are talking about influencing people’s buying decisions, I am honestly not sure. There was some anecdotal evidence at the website which I previously reviewed for that our reviews increased sales, but it was *very* anecdotal, like some authors sharing the tales of increased sales right after reviews had appeared. Nothing more than that. Not that I care much or at all whether my reviews help sales, I feel that if this happens, it is fine, but it is an undirect consequence of sharing what I thought about the book with other readers. But because we are talking about power, I am just curious what kind of power you were talking about. If this is just the power to be heard – absolutely, I am pretty sure we are. Besides that? I just do not know one way or another.
@John:
I think this is where the discussion gets too complicated for me to formulate much of an opinion. I could go on & on w/ responses, but I’d have no idea where I was heading or how long it would take me to get there.
I responded because Robin parsed the idea of ‘power’ into specific types, and I thought at least two of those types were worth pushing back on.
@Robin/Janet:
& Robin, I’m sorry if I overstated/made a straw man out of your argument. Not my intention at all (and in any case, it’s not fair to use DA as a stand-in for the average reader/reviewer).
@Erin Satie: Most of that comment was meant as a general contribution to the discussion – I should have made that clearer. Discussions of power are always complex, and I completely agree that it’s worth pushing back because it’s not something easily quantifiable no matter how much we all talk about it. I’m glad you brought it up personally because it helped spark the question of how powerful reach really is by itself.
@Erin Satie: No worries. I actually think your social capital argument is relevant, too, and I’ll respond later tonight to the rest of your points.
@Sirius:
I didn’t think I was disagreeing with you–more that your comment crystallized something for me. Both in terms of how social capital works (so no one review would cause an editor to sit up and say, “Oh, I should acquire what this fine fellow requested!” but, over time, you could shift the whole conversation until the editor sits up & says, “You know what I’m in the mood to buy today?” & not ever realize that you planted those seeds) but also in terms of the kind of pyrrhic victories that you can achieve with social capital–exhausting all of it at once. (As could be the case when you mobilize at a time of kerfuffle.)
Maybe it’s because I live on a farm. Because it’s always: retrench those ditches, disk the stalks back into the earth, test the soil, hope those seeds sprout…
I am going to correct myself, when I said “consumers had the power.” That was arrogant on my part, for my tastes do not drive the market in any commercial product I happen to like or dislike. However, I do believe authors/readers/reviewers-bloggers can INFLUENCE (“The capacity to have an effect…” OED) a consumer’s buying decision. Some will take a review (be it from an author/reviewer-blogger) as gospel, others will take it with a grain of salt. Trial and error, for me, when it comes to *new-to-me-authors* but if my tastes didn’t * click* I simply won’t buy again. I long ago stopped reading a lot of authors who still top the NY Best Seller’s List, for the same reasons: that *connection* ceased to move me. (I will also add that I am a stickler when it comes to grammar. The more grammatically correct a novel is, the more likely I am to buy that author again, if the plotline/characters/dialogue also appeal to me.)
@Erin Satie: thank you for giving me some food for thought :).
I would have no idea about authors having power and misusing it. [/sarcasm]
More seriously, there are so many hierarchies of power in being an author. Are you talking about la Nora, Scalzi, Gaiman, or someone like me who has no fan base and certainly no street teams, who began by giving away my writing and only decided to try to be published at all to give my reviewing some cred?
With so many self-pubbed authors, and so little success among the vast majority of them, you need to qualify what you mean by ‘power’ and ‘author’.
I’m certainly not typical. I made my name in m/m by reviews six years before being published. I acknowledge I’m an author but most of the perks and issues of pro authorship have passed me by or have no interest for me. In any dispute between author and readers, I’m on the reader’s side every time, to my considerable cost. And in every dispute where another author has gone after me, or where I have taken on a BBA, I have had no support from my fans, or other authors. I’m actually actively ashamed of being an ‘author’ and can’t wait for the day when my books no longer sell even a single copy so I can close my site and I can retire ‘Ann Somerville’ forever. (Why don’t I close it now? Because I’m using my few sales to help out friends. That’s my personal discretionary income – pin money – that I don’t have to discuss the use of with my husband, because its loss doesn’t affect him or us in any way. When it’s gone, then I’ll use our joint income if I choose to.)
So what power do I have compared to a reader? I guess some people listen to me more because they know my name, but often that’s only so they can bash me for my views. I really don’t know, since my profile is no different now than it was when I opened my ‘original slash’ exclusive review site (the very first one dedicated to what became m/m). The main difference now is that people can say ‘And I will NEVAH buy your books again’ in addition to all the other crap they hurl when they disagree with me. (And I can say ‘bye bye you won’t be missed’ because it’s true. :)
Recently Robin was chided for ‘aiming’ her 2700 twitter followers at a poor, poor abused ‘reader’ (who is actually an author and BBA) with ‘only’ half that number of followers on twitter (but the same number again of friends on GR.) (The chider herself had almost as many followers as Robin, BTW.) While twitter follower power can be misused – especially by men (don’t ever piss off Will Wheaton because his followers are really nasty) – I thought it was a stupid comment to make because Robin does nothing to increase her followers beyond being a DA blogger, whereas this (and other authors) actively use social media like Twitter to build, excite and aim their fan base where they will, for the purpose of selling books. Robin, like most bloggers, isn’t selling anything other than her views.
The big difference I’ve found over the years between authors and readers is this – authors use their power self-interestedly on behalf of their author chums, readers more selflessly on behalf of others readers. When I see a self-declared ‘reader’ banging the drum on behalf of a poor, poor abused author, in every case a little digging reveals that, oops, that ‘reader’ is an aspiring or about to be published author (or already published), or they have another power base closely allied to authors (ie they work for a publisher, would like to, or are interested in building a social justice platform to influenced what books are published and read.)
“When I see a self-declared ‘reader’ banging the drum on behalf of a poor, poor abused author, in every case a little digging reveals that, oops, that ‘reader’ is an aspiring or about to be published author (or already published),”
@Ann Somerville:
Are there any non-aspiring writers? I dread telling anyone I’m a writer because the first thing said is “Oh, I’m thinking about writing a book.” I’m always tempted to respond by saying “That’s a coincidence. I’m thinking about becoming [whatever career they’ve chosen]” (grins)
I will admit to promoting the writers I believe are both talented writers AND nice people. Romanceland is VERY small. Many of us know each other and I prefer to direct reading buddies toward writers I know will treat them with respect and gratitude.
I once directed a reading buddy to a writer I didn’t yet know and she treated this reading buddy badly. Years later, I still regret that recommendation. So I make it a policy to reach out and (hopefully) befriend the writer first.
“Are there any non-aspiring writers? )”
@Cynthia Sax:
Me for one (unless you count writing code). I write and draw for my own amusement but I have no plans to ever do it commercially.
For the record here are some authors speaking out in favour of not harassing readers and reviewers
Stacia Kane http://www.staciakane.net/2012/07/11/avengingwtfery/
and John Scalzi (who tends to be both prolific and generally on the right side of most debates and therefore gets cited a lot)
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/17/bad-reviews-i-can-handle-them-and-so-should-you/#comment-342129
Admittedly not harassing people is a pretty damn low bar but as Cynthia Sax highlighted, it’s not a good situation when only bad behaviour gets rewarded.
@Annamal:
Here are a list of people( and their posts) who specifically spoke out against STGRB in 2012. Look at the names that aren’t there. Given STGRB targeted a number of romance bloggers, where are the big name romance authors? Stacia, Jenny Trout, Jessica Scott, Amber Lin and Carolyn Jewel are the only pro names on the list from romance, other than me. Ray Garton and Scalzi I think are the only other pros.
Where’s La Nora? Where’s Crusie? Where’s Anne Rice – oh wait, she *supports* STGRB. As did a bunch of other authors, and even more came out on Kathleen Hale’s side recently. (Hale ‘interviewed’ the owner of STGRB.)
None of the screamers who’ve ever come after me for criticising BBAs spoke out about STGRB.
If you’re talking about the ‘record’, the story of authors and reader harassment is a profile in pure cowardice. And the story of reader advocacy by authors all over, is pretty much the same. The only time authors care about harassment is when they’re the target – as in the recent RequiresHate case. If RH had confined herself to shitting on ordinary readers, we’d never have heard about her behaviour.
@Ann Somerville: I spoke out against STGRB (I have a I Support Reviewers page on my site – http://tasteofcyn.com/2014/04/26/i-support-reviewers/ ) but I didn’t sign anything. I didn’t know there was anything to sign.
The issue is… the writers who don’t make drama usually don’t participate in drama. We’re too busy writing (unless we’re stuck as I seem to be today)
@Cynthia Sax:
” I didn’t sign anything. I didn’t know there was anything to sign.”
Who said there was? I specifically mentioned authors speaking out – ie writing blog posts – in 2012, when the site opened.
@Ann Somerville: I think your link is missing.
I think it is possible for people to be completely unaware of horrendous things happening on the internet (a lot of people are still going to look blankly at you if you mention gamergate for example…or alternatively assume you know a great deal about ant genders).
Both Nora Roberts and Jennifer Crusie maintain an online presence but I don’t see them engaging much with the internet at large. I am not aware of either of them ever expressing any kind of opinion that is supportive of STGRB (if I have missed some context then I’m sorry). STGRB is definitely something worth speaking out about but I don’t think silence necessarily equals consent here.
Anne Rice on the other hand….well yeah that does not surprise me.
I saw Delphine Dryden and P N Elrod speaking out in support of Stacia Kane’s post though if you want to add to your list of actively supportive published authors
@Ann Somerville:
“I specifically mentioned authors speaking out – ie writing blog posts – in 2012, when the site opened.”
I remember reading blog posts against it (written by erotic romance writers – we were very vocal as we respect the right to privacy – STGRB would have killed reviews of ALL erotic romance) but these posts didn’t receive a fraction of the coverage the highly organized pro-STGRB contingent received.
This was partially our fault as we weren’t as organized. We didn’t have buttons or a unified front. Plus many of us are, as I mentioned, anti-drama.
@Annamal:
” I think your link is missing.”
http://stopthegrbullies.net/reactions-against-stopthegrbullies-com/
“Both Nora Roberts and Jennifer Crusie maintain an online presence but I don’t see them engaging much with the internet at large. ”
Nora used to post at DA. Crusie was invested enough in the Cassie Edwards situation to attack the Smart Bitches over it, as Robin mentions. And STGRB caused an enormous stink at the time.
“STGRB is definitely something worth speaking out about but I don’t think silence necessarily equals consent here.”
I never said it was. But silence does not equal speaking out either. And plenty of authors knew about STGRB and decided that readers being stalked and harassed into silence wasn’t anything to do with them.
Versus, say, the number of authors who spoke against the reader/reviewer Kathleen Hale drove off the internet, or who attacked Jane and other critics over the Kickstarter thing.
I’ve been around a long time. I’ve seen a lot of shit go down. And I am not exaggerating the utter lack of response from authors on reader issues or readers’ rights. A handful of exceptions doesn’t mean it’s the norm.
@Cynthia Sax:
“many of us are, as I mentioned, anti-drama”
Yes. Just like so many authors, the only time you want to use your platforms to speak up is when you have books to sell.
WhIch is fine, if that’s your policy. Just don’t expect me to take you seriously when you say you defend readers rights too (especially as you have twice now dismissed it all as ‘drama’. People being stalked, doxxed, harassed and silenced is not ‘drama’ – it’s deadly serious)
@Ann Somerville:
Yeah, that list is only a fraction of the writers who spoke out about it. You can add almost all writers in the erotic romance genre.
I didn’t know this list existed. I never heard about it.
@Ann Somerville: Didn’t Cynthia Sax just link to her post supporting reviewers and condemning STGRB?
@Cynthia Sax:
“Yes. Just like so many authors, the only time you want to use your platforms to speak up is when you have books to sell.”
Hmmm… so I state that I publicly stood up against STGRB and I’m now accused of only using my so-called platform to sell books???
I don’t write erotic romance for the income (I made a loss in 2014 on the writing). I don’t post my opinion, for what it is worth, here for sales. Some day I’ll likely make the best seller lists but that isn’t my version of success. I certainly don’t want to be famous (do you see my face anywhere on the internet?). Please don’t assume that all writers have the same goal.
And yes, I think writers who campaign against negative reviews and the reviewers who give them, trying to expose identities and ‘punish’ them, ARE creating unnecessary drama. Negative reviews are part of the job. Writers use pen names. Readers/reviewers should have the same options. I find it ridiculous that this is even being talked about.
I think what Robin is getting at is that groups of people on the internet believe the other is powerful and they are powerless. From one vantage point, the others seem more powerful.
Whether a person in the group feels empowered or disempowered colors the person’s opinions/actions/behaviors. Authors feel that readers drive the bus but Robin (and I think John’s really great comment) notes how this fails to account for authority that authors derive from just the position of being an author (even without a fanbase).
Readers have inbred authenticity too but on reader oriented issues such as what other readers think, what buying habits they have, and the like. When it comes to issues where author and reader interests overlap, that’s when I think the authorial voice is granted more authenticity.
You see it in the comments when people add “as an author” or even in anonymous comments when people include “as an author” in their anon handle. They use it unconsciously because they know it carries weight.
@Jane: “They use it unconsciously because they know it carries weight.”
Huh. I use it *consciously* as a declaration of interest. You know, because of the power/financial interest differential we’re talking about right here.
I’ve not actually seen it used the way you say it is. Maybe I’m naive on that score :( (I mean, I’ve definitely seen authors throwing their authority around, but the ‘as an author’ thing didn’t seem part of it.)
OTOH I have *definitely* seen defenders of an author go out of their way to pretend the author is just an ordinary reader, and to be treated as such. I assume this is because they know damn well a BBA going off on another reader is a lot more deserving of criticism than a reader who has a problem with another reader.
“I’ve not actually seen it used the way you say it is.”
Er, just remembered people like Author on Vacation and so on. If those are who you had in mind?
I just reread my first comment on this post and I sound like a pompous git.
Sorry, everyone.
@Jane:
“You see it in the comments when people add “as an author” or even in anonymous comments when people include “as an author” in their anon handle.”
I mention that I’m a writer in comments because I’ve been criticized for not identifying myself as one in the past. In the interest of full disclosure, I try to mention anything (large) that might have influenced my response.
Being a writer doesn’t always carry more weight. Some readers believe we have hidden agendas, that everything we do is done to sell more books.
I wouldn’t reco commenting honestly on posts as a marketing strategy. I think I’ve lost more sales than I’ve ever gained. (grins)
Just read another whiny entitled post (nope, no link for you!) about how readers *owe* 4/5 star reviews on every book because writing is soooo haaaaaard. This one was particularly jaw-dropping in its insistence that readers shouldn’t leave measly 3 star reviews without *discussing it first* with the author — presumably also leaving a phone number and address, so if they are naughty and disobey her instructions, the author can drop by and have a little chat with them.
Excuse me, that’s “the Author”. That’s how she referred to herself, every other sentence.
It’s jarring to see someone moan about her powerlessness whilst claiming the lofty status of a Capitalized Essence.
@hapax: Oh dear, I specifically look for 3 star reviews of books by unfamiliar authors because they tend to unpack the reasons why some aspects of the book worked for them and others didn’t.
If a book has no 3 star reviews then I approach the reviews with cation.
@John you raised some very good points (as did others) about how authority weighs in to the question of reach.
But I’m actually thinking individually. I am a single author. I am one voice. I have opinions, which are of course mine and my responsibility. But I have readers, some of whom love my work and some of whom don’t.
If I, as an author – which is what I am no matter where I am on the internet, for better or worse – post about a particularly bad review – at all – it is seen as the act of an aggregate. It will be seen, by some, as an attempt to rouse my fan-base to defend me by going after the reviewer. Even if the post is specific to *my own* thoughts and reactions, it is still seen as a wielding of power.
For that reason, *I don’t do it*. There are many, many things I do not say on the internet, because I *am* aware that some readers do feel protective.
Even if I, as a *person*, did not ask for any intervention whatsoever, many people will feel that I am wielding power given me because people read and like my books. So: that’s the reach *assigned to me* when I am on the internet.
I’m not complaining about this; it is entirely what it is. But I’m aware of *what it is*.
So, let me come back around to DA. At *this* point, DA has authority. It has weight. It is read by a multitude of readers, authors, and author-readers. Jane is scrupulous in her research, pragmatic in her arguments, and forceful in their presentation. When Jane says something – anything – it is, in this community heard. It is read.
Jane has an opinion about KS. She states it clearly. But *some of JANE’S readers* will then carry that ball out into the internet wilds. Is Jane responsible for what those people say or do? She didn’t *ask* anyone to do *anything*. She spoke of her own thoughts & her own reactions. But she is perceived, by and large, as instigating the entire KS fire, at least in author circles of my acquaintance.
Here’s where I’d argue that DA is in the author-class. It has reach. It has a community that is protective and involved. It has authority. Is *Jane* responsible for someone sending a picture to Stacey Jay? No, of course not. But can it be argued that Jane should, because DA *has* reach, be aware that this *could* be the outcome?
@Michelle Sagara
I can hardly take this comment seriously when you end with the idea that I knew or should have known someone was going to send a picture to SJ’s email. I don’t know her, her friends, anyone who even knows where she lives.
Why would I presume anyone would take this action? Or anticipate it? What else should I anticipate and foresee in this crystal ball I supposedly have?
Robin, this is an interesting discussion that I haven’t really seen addressed elsewhere as clearly.
(disclaimer: I am an author, and I have no power. Or perhaps I have superpowers. All I’m saying, is that Wonder Woman and I have never been seen in the same room…)
When it comes to author power with respect to the reader, it’s true–authors don’t have any powers. And neither do readers.
I cannot force you to buy, read, finish, love, or hate my book, or prevent you from reading other books.
You cannot force me to write, or stop me from writing.
Reader and author are both powerless in this most essential relationship to each other. The simple act of opening a book starts us out on equal footing–I wrote, you read. I serve up a story, you digest that story (or push your plate away, send it back, or throw it up). At the same time, we each have Real Ultimate Power over our own halves of the exchange–I can quit writing any time (no, really, I can…), and you can quit reading any time (with great force, and at low cost, if you have a paperback. If not, please treat your ereader gently).
Reading is a private, personal thing. The power question, I believe, comes when the personal is made public through discussion and review. I think it’s important to note that it’s not “readers” who are caught up in a power-exchange relationship with authors, but rather a subset of readers who also write reviews. Then, a reader’s public writing becomes subject to pretty much the same forces as an author’s public writing does. Which is, to say, the audience response. Which is in no way an objective landscape.
So when speaking of the reader-author power exchange, it’s all going to be relative. As an author, I only have the influence that my readers grant me (and maybe not even that–the people who read my books don’t necessarily give a crap about what I say on the internets). As a reviewer, you have the same. And it’s going to seem greater in comparison to some, and lesser in comparison to others.
Like most of you (and probably most rational people), I’ve been kind of horrified by 2014’s literary breakdown. Authors stalking reviewers. And then writing articles about it. And having interacted with the entity known as RH/BS/Winterfox/etc., I’ve been kind of horrified by the influence of one toxic reviewer over so many peoples’ writing (and by this, I’m including authors *and* reviewers, because the person had some seriously undue influence in how people not only crafted their stories, but how other people crafted their reviews of stories–entire communities of reviewers and colonies of authors).
2014 showed us a pretty ugly, nasty, bad-behavior troll living under the bridge of the greater book-reading community, and it’s important to have these discussions to understand that the limited portion of the map we, as individuals, see of the reading community, is not the whole territory.
I think it’s important to note that this very subjective perception of power should be examined from a place not in terms of the very unusual, irrational people being at the center of the landscape, but rather from a point where the rational majority of the writing and reading community lives. The people who stalk and harass should not be the parts of the community with the most influence on how we choose to build the community.
I can’t, as one person, tell you that you should continue reviewing if you feel that author-default behavior is going to be to come to your house and do bad things. I know I’ve thought twice about my current heroine’s ethnic background in the light of what a reviewer like RH could say about it, but I’ve decided that reviewer-default behavior is NOT RH (and even if it were, I can’t not tell my stories). For what it’s worth, I’ve got a personal code of ethics that says I don’t have a public opinion about reviews of my work, and that I will not respond to reviews of my work beyond the occasional, “Thank you” or, in the case of a technical complaint, a sincere attempt to help resolve the problem. And I trust that in this, at least, I am among the rational majority of both authors and readers.
@michelle sagara: No. Jane is not responsible for that because she didn’t write about Stacey Jay’s KS (on Twitter or DA) until *after* SJ received the threat and took down the KS. (Jane, pls correct me if I have the timeline wrong).
@Athena Grayson: On the whole, this is a sane and respectful comment. But you start off on the wrong foot with this:
Umm, no. You wrote, and either a) a faceless corporation paid you, took the book, delivered it to me (and many other me’s, none of whom have our name attached to anything , and are not considered to be individuals but a “market”) and I read; or b) you turned yourself into a business entity, published the book yourself, I paid you, you delivered the book to me (copy the above parenthetical, insert here).
We are NOT starting out on equal footing. The author is compensated financially for the transaction, the reader is not (unless a paid reviewer, which we have already set aside as a special case). The author is considered as an individual, the “readers” are considered as a mass. Even when talking about the relative power of review blogs, note that most of us refer to the reach and influence of “Dear Author”, not “Jane” or “Robin” or “Sunita”.
@cleo: This is the timeline of my involvement on the SJ thing:
1) I see people on twitter talking about a KS. I investigate. Read the KS. Read some tweets.
2) I tweet about three things including how I didn’t understand how someone who self published 10 books the previous year needed help this year and it didn’t seem like much of a reward to pay someone $20 to promote their book at my blog. I can’t remember my third tweet. But I never mentioned the author or linked to the KS because I don’t like to draw attention to things/events/books that I don’t like. (In keeping with all publicity is good publicity)
3) I argue with Courtney Milan about how KS is not an advance.
4) I go to sleep
5) I wake up and the KS is down.
6) I go about my business because I don’t know the author, I don’t care about the KS.
7) Authors in my timeline and others begin subtweeting, calling readers and bloggers anti-author and how they bullied SJ. They (including Chuck Wendig) posited that those who didn’t like the KS were misogynists!
8) I objected to those terms. Forcefully but politely.
9) A friend of SJ’s admits SJ took it down because someone sent SJ an aerial photo of her home from Google Maps.
10) I write this blog post.
Somewhere along the line people make twitter accounts for the sole purpose of telling me I pretty much drove SJ out of the community and that I’m making it toxic. Others call me anti-author. Still others accuse me of not wanting authors to be paid for their creative endeavors.
It’s…baffling particularly since the KS was taken down not for any so called misogynist tweets or mean girl posts but because someone who knew SJ’s address sent her a photo in her inbox.
@michelle sagara: I’ve now read several of your posts on this thread and I still *cannot* understand what point you are trying to make.
Are you trying to say what? That readers should look at DA like an author? That what? You keep going around and around the point of how big DA is…I’m assuming there is a reason why.
What I can say is this: There are tons and tons of people who are very active online who have no clue who DA is – either the individual bloggers or the entire site. DA is a specialized site that mainly focuses on one genre. Readers who do not read Romance are unlikely to be aware of this site.
I can also say that YOU and YOUR NAME are very familiar to me and I have never read any of your work. I’d say that the power balance falls on your side…
@MrsJoseph I read almost no romance, but I read DA more than I read any other blog.
What I am trying to say, and clearly have not been saying *well*, is that if *power* is defined by having readers, fans, and *reach*, DA has power. It has power or influence in exactly the same way that authors do: it is interesting and relevant to its readers. People outside of the readership may or may not grant it the same social hierarchical values – but in this case, within the community, it’s a force.
J. Random Bookblogger is not DA. She may have started out with the same love of reading and the same desire to talk about books with other readers – but she is not DA.
Saying that I have more power than J. Random Bookblogger is undeniably true.
Saying that I have more power than DA is very murky. Within the community itself? Not true.
Since the post started out as a discussion of who has *more* power, brought on by the entire heated debate about KS, I wanted to get away from theoretical power structures and hierarchies. And if I, as an author, am expected to – very reasonably – appreciate and handle the power I do have with care, is it *only* because I’m an author, or is it rather because I *have power*?
If the latter – if having the power defines the need to be aware of possible consequences of my actions – than it becomes a discussion about power and consequence.
@Jane: Thanks for clarifying. Wow.
@Annamal:
I hear ya. Consequently, I’m usually sparing with 4-star ratings on books that I review. (Five being extremely rare.) But recently, I’ve rated several in a row as 4-star. And my first thought, looking at those reviews, was, “I’m going soft; losing my credibility.” Not that anyone reads my reviews, but that spate of 4-stars looks like I’m pandering or something.
“You see it in the comments when people add “as an author” or even in anonymous comments when people include “as an author” in their anon handle. They use it unconsciously because they know it carries weight.”
Heh? It does? Cool. I’m so far down the author food chain that I have to look up to see plankton. “Oh, look out, there’s the whale!”
In these discussions, anyway, when I mention my pathetic version of “authorness,” it’s simply to note that I have a horse in the book race, but, nevertheless, I am a big supporter of readers writing whatever kind of review makes them happy–good, bad, or filled with snarky GIFS.
@Jane:
You can not predict what your audience will do, but the more audience you have, the greater the chance that an individual in the audience is the kind of person who, when presented with a circumstance that you object to (for perfectly valid reasons), will take it on themselves to do something unpleasant.
You aren’t responsible for that person’s actions (any more than an author is responsible for their most rabid fans). The only thing you have done is draw attention to something (that probably needed drawing attention to). It’s just worth being aware that your audience might include such people.
I don’t think that actually happened in this case though, I believe a description of the Kickstarter made it on to reddit which means that I am frankly amazed that anonymous creeps stopped at sending house plans (which constitutes enough of a threat).
@Annamal:
“It’s just worth being aware that your audience might include such people.”
This is a bit patronising, don’t you think? Given Jane’s personal experiences with stalkers, harassers and crazy publishers who sue for being butthurt?
I am unaware of any DA post sparking harassment or stalking. There have been numerous occasions when an author has sent their flying monkeys after DA, its commenters, and Jane herself.
@Ann Somerville: ” flying monkeys ”
That’s a bit harsh, isn’t it?
I mean, considering that the original flying monkeys were fun-loving pranksters, and only served the Wicked Witch under the duress of the Golden Cap, while longing for their freedom?
Won’t somebody think of the monkeys???
@Ann Somerville: Jane was asking how she could have predicted someone sending a house plan to Stacey Jay.
I did not intend to be patronising and I apologise for it.
I’m not aware of DA sparking harassment or stalking either (and I would be surprised if it was a regular occurrence), however any organisation with a large internet based audience is at risk of having a member of that audience go feral.
@hapax:
Ugh, don’t. I’m having flashbacks
(And I always thought the flying monkeys came from Flash Gordon, but the googles tell me these are actually Hawkmen.)
@Annamal:
“however any organisation with a large internet based audience is at risk of having a member of that audience go feral.”
YES. Many writers are managing this situation by inviting passionate readers to be part of street teams. I regularly tell my street team members that I’m buddies with most of Romanceland (writers, reviewers, bloggers, readers) and that I’m cool if someone doesn’t like a story. I assign missions, giving examples of actions members can take to support my releases without hurting others. Before I had the street team, fans were making these decisions on their own and not everyone thought about how their actions might hurt others.
(I’m well aware that other not-as-professional writers use their street teams for the opposite purpose. That’s a discussion we’ve had here in DA comments in the past.)
I don’t know how a blog would manage this. Blogs don’t tend to have street teams and it is a little much to have reminders posted.
@Cynthia Sax:
“I don’t know how a blog would manage this. Blogs don’t tend to have street teams and it is a little much to have reminders posted. ”
I think Jane’s policy of not directly linking to people who are behaving badly is a good one though (along with not giving those people/organisations publicity).
@hapax: “You wrote, and either a) a faceless corporation paid you, took the book, delivered it to me (and many other me’s, none of whom have our name attached to anything , and are not considered to be individuals but a “market”) and I read; or b) you turned yourself into a business entity, published the book yourself, I paid you, you delivered the book to me (copy the above parenthetical, insert here).”
I’m speaking in terms of the base act of reading a book, which has an independence from the transactional nature of acquiring a book (you can get a book for free from the library or by other means. You can choose to read a dead author, who does not personally receive any money for the book, you can read a book that has been published on the web for free as a series of blog posts, or delivered via some other electronic means). Most of us do not have cost analysis at the forefront of our minds in the middle of enjoying (or even hatereading) a story. In this most distilled act of communication, author and reader start out as equals–someone wrote the words that someone else is reading.
It’s only in the analysis after the fact where the transactional information comes into play–does the reader feel as if she’s received value for her money, and if so, does she choose to share her perception of that value.
I guess I’m just not seeing how a reader giving up her money in exchange for a book is also giving up her power as a reader, or how an author is conferred more power by virtue of being either a contractor to a faceless corporation that assumes transactional and delivery tasks, or assuming responsibility for some additional delivery tasks herself. However, I do operate on the base assumption that most authors (and most humans of any stripe) are rational people, and that 99.999% of readers are voluntarily interested in receiving a good story for their money, and 99.999% of authors are interested in telling a good story and receiving some monetary recompense. I also operate on the assumption (based on personal experience) that no amount of warning from other reviewers will drive me away from reading a book that piques my interest, and no amount of bad reviewing will keep me from writing a book that piques my interest.
Now, if you’re arguing that you as a reader, a reviewer, or as someone without a large personal governing and/or military force at your command has less power than Amazon, then I am with you, there. ;) Amazon can arbitrarily take down my stuff just as easily as it could yours.
I don’t think personal power comes automatically by virtue of being an author (or running a review blog, or anything else). I believe that some people who are currently authors can acquire large followings of other people, but that those same people would just as easily acquire followings if they were singers, or bartenders or street prophets. Does the position of “author” lend itself to attracting a share of personalities that could easily form a personality-cult? It’s probably as likely as any other occupation with a platform and a bullhorn of even limited size. But that power comes from the attention given to the person by others.
@Athena Grayson:
“most authors (and most humans of any stripe) are rational people”
I don’t know which planet you live on, but it must be nice. On this one, my experience is that most people lose their minds the moment they have a book published, and the only reason you don’t know that is that either they’re on the good drugs, have good keepers, or are smart enough to work out that freaking out in public over every sling and arrow won’t help their books sales.
Authors are bonkers. Some hide it better than others.
And most people aren’t rational at all. They just think they are.
Why yes, I am a misanthrope.
[comment not to be taken entirely in deadly earnest.]
I think Jane was pretty clear in her post about the Kickstarter what she thought of the stalking/harassment of the author.
As long as there is no threatening, no personal attack and no ridiculous band-wagoning…I’ll support the right of the person. Whether it is a reader, reviewer or author. The bottom line here is integrity. Does the person…the person…show it? I don’t judge on whether they are an author, reader or reviewer. I think we’ve all been lumped into categories and boxes. Somehow, along the way, we have forgotten that there are actual people behind our LED, HD screens. To me, it isn’t about power. It isn’t about rallying. It isnt about power. It’s about right and wrong. Common courtesy. If someone hates my books…so be it. That doesn’t mean people should attack the character of someone else or assume they know about another person they’ve never even met. That doesn’t mean I don’t like them or will gather some faceless group to run rampant over them.
Personally, As a former reviewer, I thought I had the power. The power to influence people to read the books I loved. To embrace world’s I wanted to live in. Now, as an author, I’ve realized the power, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Each book is different. Each reviewer is different. Each person is different. That is what it boils down to. The individual. And regardless of how bad it can get, how great it might possibly be…that is what we have to uphold. The power of being an individual. That used to mean something.
@Madison Sevier:
I forgot to add that I vehemently do NOT condone stalking. Just wanted to make that clear.
@Athena Grayson:
Okay, if that’s what you want to look at. Strip away all commercial transactions, market research, publicity, critical analysis, reviews, blogs, “street teams”, FB and Twitter, libraries, word-of-mouth recommendations, etc. etc.
Just “the base act of reading a book.”
In *that* *moment* , the relationship between You (author) and Me (reader) is:
You talk; me listen.
Are you seriously saying that there is no power differential there?
@michelle sagara: I guess. But – IIRC – the post does not just talk about reach/readers/fans as a factor of *power* it also discusses how the person is viewed and their credibility.
You [seem] don’t want to acknowledge even the possibility that authors – by the simple factor of having written and published a book – often have a great deal more power than readers. But when I look at even poor selling, unknown writers I see then wielding more power (and often for evil) than readers.
One great example is the hated STGRB group. It is mostly comprised of “failed” authors. These authors had poor reception of their books, low readership and low sales. And yet the creator of that site has been interviewed and given lots of publicity by several news sites, authors and blogs. Even Hale referenced the site when she wrote her article defaming a blogger. And yet, no matter how many bloggers [and some awesome authors] speak out against the site and show PROOF that the site produces lies on a regular basis…the site is still given more credibility than readers/bloggers. Because the site is created by and “defending” authors.
@MrsJoseph I think I have acknowledged that authors have more power than readers in the general case. If I haven’t, or if I’ve been unclear, let me state that upfront: Authors have greater weight and power than single readers.
(I think it was John that brought in the point of credibility.)
But it seems counterfactual to claim that DA is a *reader* in that scenario.
In the case of authors, is power defined by legitimacy? If you are a self-published author, you are grudgingly granted that – if at all – in the wider world. Many, many readers I know still sneer at self-pubs. When relative strangers discover I write novels (I generally say I am a freelance writer, rather than a novelist), the first question they ask is whether or not I have a publisher – i.e. whether or not I’m legitimate.
Does a self-published author have more social legitimacy than readers? If they are Amanda Hocking, Hugh Howey, etc., then: yes. Because *success* legitimizes. But the rank-and-file don’t get that automatically. In many circles, being self-published puts you *farther* down the social totem pole.
Does an author who sells poorly have more power than you, personally? If you mean name *recognition*, then yes, absolutely.
But does an author who sells poorly have more power than DA, the aggregate?
I am not saying that *readers* and *authors* have equal social weight. I am not implying that J. Random Bookblogger is more recognized than I am. I think I said outright that in that equation *I have more power*.
I am saying that *DA* and most authors have equal social weight. For the purposes of this conversation, DA is not – in any logistic interior graph I can draw – a reader.
I think conflating DA with average readers is an (unintentional) mistake, and even an understandable one. Yes, the site is written by, run by, *readers*. It was started by readers. It is ferocious in the defense of *readers*. It’s one of the things I both admire and respect about it.
But the main thing that gives an author power is an audience, which DA demonstrably has. @Annamal made the point I was trying to make. When your reach is greater, it extends farther.
I never asked for that reach. But I’m aware that I have it, and I move far more carefully on-line than I once did. Am I personally responsible for what other people choose to do? No. I’m not legally responsible for it either. But I do not want to be the pebble that starts the avalanche.
If someone gives me a bad review, it ruins my day. I feel like I have failed the reviewer. It probably didn’t make the reviewer‘s day happier *either*, because opening up a book that you hope and expect to love and finding that it’s a bad book is *always* kind of depressing. So: reviewer doesn’t like my book. We both have a bad day.
If I write about that review – at all, anywhere – and someone charges in to defend my book, the reviewer might have an uncomfortable, extended bad day. IF that person begins to send the reviewer invective filled email, if that person starts to stalk – that is more than just one bad day. I am *not responsible* for the hate filled email or the stalking. But I am aware it could happen.
There are freedoms that you, MrsJoseph, have that authors don’t. If you think a review is stupid, you can disagree with it anywhere, for as long as you want. You can write GR reviews or Amazon reviews. You *can* have a voice. I can’t.
I’m not saying this to complain. I’m stating a fact. *I can’t*. And part of the reason that I can’t – on the internet – is that I’m aware that I have reach. I’m aware that my words can and probably will be read by people I have never met, and those words will be interpreted in ways I can’t imagine.
I don’t feel powerful. I am expected to behave *as if I am*.
I would argue that the individuals who comprise DA *don’t feel powerful*. I’d also argue – as I have been – that they *are*.
@MrsJoseph
I am uncertain how to address the point you made about STGRB and legitimacy. I don’t spend a *lot* of time on the internet (the past couple of days being both the reason and the exception). Kathleen Hale did reference them – but that’s the only place I’ve seen them legitimized and given the actual content of the piece in which they were referenced, I wouldn’t say ‘legitimate’ is the correct word.
No author I personally know (and yes this is now anecdotal) has ever had anything good to say about them. Ever.
I am told that authors support them.
I think I could go to my email lists and fail to find a *single* author, in the hundreds, who did or do support them. What I would get, otoh, is a lot of “who?” or “what is that?” Because the internet is vast, we’re not always dealing with the same information or experiences, and we do tend to make decisions based on the experiences we’ve had.
An author who stalked and doxxed mentioning them doesn’t grant them legitimacy in my eyes, or in my social circles – but again, my circles are limited to the things that are relevant to my life or interests.
And now, I will go to work.
@michelle sagara: how can you state that average reader has a freedom to disagree with the review any time she wants if the price of disagreement could be as we all saw author finding out her address, stalking her in her real life. She could be doxxed by STGRB as once again we all saw that it happened before. Legitimate or not, for disagreeing with the *review*, or writing a review thats the price the average reader can pay. I fail to see how this comes even remotely close to her having more freedom than you.
I am not going to talk about DA being or not being an average reader, because I reread Robin’s post and I am actually not sure where she equaled DA to *average reader*. I think DA reviewers are not a collective voice though.
@Sirius
Point taken.
I was not thinking of reviewers, but of comments and interaction with a review. And I see it all the time: people disagree with reviews. They are varyingly polite or less polite, but – it’s often a discussion. Could someone take exception to the disagreement? Yes. But I’d argue that that’s an issue that *anyone* on the internet can face if they put their words out in public places. There are thousands upon thousands of examples – many of which do not overlap with writing or reviewing at all.
We are *both* being circumscribed in our behaviour because of people with boundary issues. Some of those people will be writers. Some will be readers.
If an author is dealing with stalkers – dealing with readers who threaten to, say, rape their best friend – authors don’t assume that all readers are stalkers or worse. That is the price an author can pay for simply writing fiction and having it published. As was pointed out in the OP, that’s risk, and the investment & livelihood makes it impossible to close up shop and walk away.
Reviewers are being threatened in the same way. They are being threatened by people with boundary issues and serious problems.
The fact that in the case of the author it’s a reader, and in the case of the reviewer, it’s the author, doesn’t change this fact. In the example I offer – the author posted about it publicly on her LJ – does the fact that she has more power and greater reach change the fact that in this case she is powerless?
@michelle sagara:
I see the point you are trying to make but I don’t think that DA was saying that DA equals the average reader-reviewer. DA is larger, it also contains many people – some of whom have left DA to go on to careers in the industry. But at the same time DA is not given the same respect as large authors that could be considered “on the same level” with DA. If that was the case, authors would not routinely bash DA. But I digress.
Regarding you – and other authors – feeling that you don’t have a voice…
I hate to say it but you can lay THAT issue at the feet of your fellow authors. Readers have never said “Authors shouldn’t review.” AUTHORS are the ones going around saying that authors shouldn’t review (unless positive, of course) because AUTHORS and/or publishers may retaliate. Not readers. Readers love to get the opinion of their favorite authors (yet another part of their power) and frequently beg for more. I moderate a small handful of groups on GR and I regularly see readers wanting more [positive] author interaction/recommendations/reviews/opinions. The only opinion I have ever heard a reader say they don’t want to hear from an author is when the author tries to tell the reader how to review.
This maybe slightly off subject but – I think – that readers aren’t expecting authors to CONTROL their fans. But we do want to see authors defend us just as vigorously as we defend them. We want authors to stand up for us when another author [who we often feel is more powerful than us] charges in to call us names, to stalk us, to write blog posts about us that gives the times and places where we could be located. Readers often see authors rigorously defend each other but it is a VERY SMALL FEW who actually defend the reader. I think that is what readers are looking for.
@michelle sagara: I wish I had the amount of exposure to them that you have. I have seen a lot more. I’ve seen the site interviewed by authors – this posted on blog posts. I’ve seen the site interviewed by at least one large news site: The Guardian (IIRC). I’ve seen lots and lots of authors supporting that site.
Quite often the circle goes like this: Author writes book -> book gets bad review -> author throws a shitfit -> author contacts STGRB -> the shit hits the fan and splatters -> author goes on a rash of deletes.
Of course, I am a reader-reviewer and as such am threatened – and have been threatened – by that site. I
@MrsJoseph: “Readers have never said “Authors shouldn’t review.” AUTHORS are the ones going around saying that authors shouldn’t review.”
As I’m a writer, Amazon, for example, won’t post my reviews. I understand the reasoning behind their policy. Some ethically challenged writers were posting 1 star reviews of their perceived competition’s books. I was on the receiving end of this myself. One reviewer would be always the first to review any of my erotic romances, posting that they weren’t romances and that they didn’t have happy endings (which is the kiss of death for sales in the romance genre). When this rule was put in place, those reviews magically disappeared (and my sales happily increased).
I, however, stopped reviewing everywhere then, including GRs (which Amazon owns). I now tell readers which books I’m reading but I don’t comment on them.
I do believe that many writers defend readers, reviewers and bloggers but it isn’t ‘news’ (because this should be our default – not the exception) and isn’t reported on.
@MrsJoseph: Ugh I’m sorry you’ve been threatened, that sucks (and as you’ve been saying, it has a chilling effect on what other reviewers will write).
I’ve been wondering whether there might be scope for some kind of author driven initiative to collectively state that what STGRB (and by extension any other author who harasses readers or reviewers) does is completely unacceptable .
Something like John Scalzi’s statement on not attending conferences without clearly defined harassment policies but aimed at fellow authors. I’ve seen a lot of individual statements from authors but a collective voice might have more carrying power.
@Cynthia Sax:
This makes me sad but it’s sorta right back to the authors curtailing other authors instead of readers curtailing authors. I will argue to the death for your right to write honest reviews of the books you read. But I also understand why you don’t.
@Cynthia Sax: What do you mean Amazon won’t post your reviews? Is there a new rule they implemented stating that the authors cannot review? I mean I understand why you won’t do it of your own volition whether I agree with the reasons or not, but I never heard about Amazon forbidding the authors to review before? I am just curious, because I definitely saw (few, granted) authors’ reviews on Amazon.
@Annamal: Thank you.
I can say it made me re-think being on the internet. I gave thought to shutting down shop and getting off (completely). What I eventually ended up doing was to: severely curtail reading books by SPAs (unless they came recommended by people I trusted), make it a habit not to post photos of myself, run any personally taken photos through an editor to remove the digital fingerprints, do not email people I don’t trust, completely stay off of author blogs/sites that I don’t trust, etc. The list goes on and on. And even with all of that, I know that if someone really wanted to find me, they could.
I haven’t given up writing reviews but there are a lot of books I think I’d like that I will never get to because I’m nervous.
Re: Author collective – I’ve seen a lot of people mention wanting something like this. I don’t think it will ever happen. A lot of authors say that “other authors are not their co-workers_” and therefore have nothing to say/do about their actions. (Which I find hilarious when you compare that to the same group of authors saying that they don’t review (or review negatively) because they don’t want to hurt other authors. Cake, please.)
@MrsJoseph This is what I wrote when I first heard about STGRB: http://msagara.livejournal.com/72408.html
But the complication – for many authors – is this. We are often *not aware* of when a reviewer is being harassed.
How did I even know about STGRB? Dear Author, of course. That’s how most of my friends found out.
But (you knew there was a but): many authors have learned to *stay out of* reader spaces. I do not have, and have never had, a Goodreads account, because GR to me is a reader space. Some reviewers – not all – consider an author’s presence chilling. It can stifle discussion. If someone hates my book (any book), they’ll often think twice about saying so to my face. My baby may be ugly in your opinion – but it’s cruel to tell *me* that.
If I’m there, there’s a type of discussion that *won’t* occur. So, I am not there.
What the means, though, is that I – and many similar authors – remain *unaware* of what reviewers are encountering. It’s not that we don’t care – its that we don’t *see* it, because we’re not active in those spaces.
And if we become aware of it, we post in *our own* spaces, rather than in the reader-related spaces. So…we may post, and you may never see it. Our perceived silences are more about social internet spheres not overlapping than they are about our disinterest.
@Sirius: “What do you mean Amazon won’t post your reviews?”
If Amazon flags your account (and, I believe, the IP address associated with it, as I can’t post on my alternate accounts) as belonging to a writer, it won’t post your reviews. This isn’t new. It has been happening for over a year.
I don’t know how this flagging happens (as I don’t know how Facebook flags erotic romance writers’ accounts as selling ‘adult material’, disallowing them to boost posts). It could be based on a complaint or somehow linked to our Author Central accounts or ??? I don’t know.
@Cynthia Sax: Thanks for the information, I did not know that writers cannot post reviews on Amazon any longer.
@hapax: “You talk; me listen.
Are you seriously saying that there is no power differential there? ”
Yes. I have children. Let me tell you all the ways I talk and they *don’t* listen. ;)
There’s no mechanism in place to force you to continue to listen/read, or force you to accept the ideas I put forth. Best I can do is hope I’ve enticed you to keep reading, but you’ve got all the power right there to put down the book, throw it against the wall, or pick up another one. Everything else…is tangential. It’s a function of the public sphere, and it exists in some form everywhere there’s a stage and a bullhorn.
Another poster put it very well–power is in the eye of the beholder. I’m not a very connected author in the social sphere–I spend more time reading than engaging–so at best, I end up being a bystander or a rubbernecker when the midden hits the windmill, or reading about it after the fact. (To answer @Ann Somerville’s question, my planet is one where I try very hard not to let The Crazy live rent-free inside my head. Toxic situations are avoided, and toxic people are culled, and I try to be very conscious of where my boundaries lie. It is a boring planet, and doesn’t get many non-imaginary visitors.)
But my social presence is only a tangential part of my existence as author, or reader. I’m not using internet platforms to tell a story (although some forms of storytelling do), I’m only using them to tell others that I have a story. So I don’t perceive this power over a reader, and I guess I don’t see where it’s a function of being an author. It is more likely that the power comes from being a person with a platform, and that’s not specific to authors.
@michelle sagara: “many authors have learned to *stay out of* reader spaces. I do not have, and have never had, a Goodreads account, because GR to me is a reader space.”
Yep. I’ve been told to stay in certain sections of GRs. I have a profile and, for one of my releases, a discussion group but that’s it. On Amazon discussion boards, writers are told to stay in the Meet Our Authors forum (Amazon is strict about this).
I was sad to leave all of these communities but I understand this need for reader only spaces. It is challenging for some readers to have an honest conversation about a story with the writer listening.
And with power comes responsibility…which I don’t think many authors see.
I often think about responsibility as the “ability to respond,” and I think that’s where we really see the power differential between readers and authors. During the Hale incident, for example, readers spoke out against the post; bloggers tried a short-term blackout (for which we were criticized by authors and other readers); we asked The Guardian for clarification about their motives in posting; we wanted HarperCollins to speak out about their policy on providing addresses of bloggers, etc. And it all was basically pissing into the wind.
I know people think the stalking and harassment problems are new, but they’re not. I’ve linked in my post to incidents involved Deborah Anne MacGillivray, Emily Giffin, STGRB, and Hale, among others. STGRB was first legitimated by the Huffington Post, and it’s been revived by multiple mainstream media outlets and, of course, the support of authors like Ann Rice. The author involved with the Kickstarter fiasco initially asked that people questioning the project not be attacked by others, but the next day she wrote a post that IMO was an open invitation to blame anyone who dared question her. And the comments provide a great deal of solidarity and sympathy with her. And there are other incidents, too. It’s not, IMO, particularly anomalous, and I know that readers feel that authors are not, en masse, condemning this kind of thing. In fact, I’ve often wondered why authors won’t speak out publicly against their own fans going after other readers. Why is that? If the reader is loyal enough to defend the author, why would the author believe that they are not powerful enough to speak out against that kind of behavior? And it’s ironic, because anyone who has read DA for any length of time knows that one of Jane’s top priorities here is civility. Why? Because blogger reputations don’t outlast their blogs. Authors, on the other hand, can be total aholes and still sell books. We’ve seen it over and over and over. And if they wear out or tarnish one pseudonym, they can reinvent themselves under another and try again. Authors who are not NYT bestsellers still can get readers to serve on street teams and take on other aspects of marketing and promotion. Bloggers don’t engage with readers like that because we ARE readers and are perceived to be part of the support team, even if we’re not directly or intentionally supporting authors and publishers.
All you have to do is look at the comments made by authors criticizing readers for questioning the Kickstarter campaign and compare them to reader comments to see how differently readers and authors engage with each other. Overwhelmingly, readers were much more measured and respectful of authors in their comments than authors who criticized readers were. Chuck Wendig blamed readers for talking about details of the author’s living expenses that SHE HERSELF RAISED. Jane’s situation with people blaming her is a perfect case in point of how no matter what the actual reality was, some authors rehearsed an alternative narrative, and that’s the narrative that gained traction. In fact, it seemed to inform the blog post of the original Kickstarter author, and the change it marked in her public approach was nothing short of extreme.
If power is defined, again, by reach, by breadth of readership, DA *is* in the author class, imho.
John has already provided an excellent response to this point, so I’m going to piggyback on his comments. First I’m going to note that reach may be one element of power, but it’s not the only or even more important element. One author can exercise power over one reader, which is hardly reach in the way you define it here.
But even more important is the fact that DA is a blog, a collective site that exists above and beyond its individual contributors. But even as a collective voice, what real power does it have? There seems to be no indication that our reviews sell books (or discourage sales). Jane and I have used this space for years to beg authors and publishers to do things that have never come to pass (I have personally written numerous pleas to authors to speak out against reader harassment, and, uh, crickets – beyond, of course, those authors who have, from the beginning, been vocally supportive of readers, and for whom I remain very grateful). Someone claimed that DA helped “save” the contemporary, but if that’s true, why haven’t DA posts on other subgenres had any real effect? What I think happened with contemps is that SA and SBTB kind of tapped into an upcoming trend. A trend that authors and publishers make happen with books and marketing. Yes, I know, “readers buy books.” But, as I noted in my post, readers are only choosing from what’s available to them, and they are not acting in a coordinated way. The “market” may have power, but the market is as much a creation of authors and publishers as it is a responder.
And let’s not forget how many publishers and authors think that bloggers exist to support and serve them and their books. That, right there, suggests a perceived hierarchy that puts authors over readers and bloggers, including group blogs like DA. We often have to proactively provide reminders that we do this for ourselves and our fellow readers, NOT for authors and publishers. And if our fellow readers feel that other readers are not serving their interests, they are quick to critique and police.
In fact, the self-policing aspect is one of the things that I think marks a real difference between author and reader communities. Author loops and lists and professional networks and organizations are about support and mutual promotion. It’s obvious to readers when a certain topic is hot among authors, because we get a lot of commonly used language – it’s like a narrative is repeated over and over again. If authors don’t think readers notice this, well, we do. Authors are looking to sell and try many different strategies to do this. We have seen services that claim they will place books on bestseller lists; purchased positive reviews; money-making social networks like Tsu; and other things designed to help authors move books. Advice is shared on how to write books that sell (remember the C.S. Lakin book experiment: http://barbararogan.com/blog/?p=777) Blogs like DA are basically providing a free service to other readers. And in the case of DA, service that is taken very seriously. Jane and the blog are judged on standards of ethicality. Authors and publishers are judged on a very different set of metrics (popularity, sales, etc.). Now I’m not saying that all authors support or approve of all things – I know authors who take issue with how their colleagues approach certain aspects of the business. I’m just saying that as a group, authors are judged more generously, even though they are actually selling their work.
Yes, I get that individual authors don’t all have a ton of power. As I noted in my post, it’s a continuum. But as a group, authors are more powerful, which means that individual authors belong to the more powerful group and in some ways are likely to benefit from that power (e.g have access to more social capital)
I’m going to go for a metaphor here–bad logic!–but I think that social capital is like a non-liquid asset.
I actually think the social capital argument is a great one to show precisely how much more power authors, as a group, have. Authors have agents, publishers, fans, author loops and lists, and editors — and more — that aid mobility. These networks provide professional development, advice, support, profit sharing, contractual agreements, expert support for the production and sales of manuscripts and books, etc. What do readers have? Other readers. Sure, we can get ARCs, but those are promotional materials intended to sell books and support authors and publishers. Whatever assistance bloggers and readers give to each other is not aimed at “selling” more or building a professional presence. We’re largely our own audience, so it’s not like we’re trying to sell more copies of something to more people. And our support structures are not set up for that, either.
Re. the question of whether authors can review books on Amazon, here’s what the Customer Review Guidelines say:
2. Are authors allowed to review other authors’ books?
Yes. Authors are welcome to submit Customer Reviews, unless the reviewing author has a personal relationship with the author of the book being reviewed, or was involved in the book’s creation process (i.e. as a co-author, editor, illustrator, etc.). If so, that author isn’t eligible to write a Customer Review for that book. Please review our Customer Review Guidelines for more information. http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-review-guidelines-faqs-from-authors
I’ll try to get back to comments tomorrow – work has been kicking my ass this week and I have no cable provided internet at home right now, so my online access is a bit limited. Thanks again, everyone, for the great discussion, though!!
@Janet: 2. Are authors allowed to review other authors’ books?
“Yes. Authors are welcome to submit Customer Reviews, unless the reviewing author has a personal relationship with the author of the book being reviewed, or was involved in the book’s creation process (i.e. as a co-author, editor, illustrator, etc.).”
Ahhh… so it is based on complaints (which makes sense as this is how Amazon seems to be dealing with flagging adult content and policing naughty covers, on a complaint by complaint basis).
What happens when Amazon receives one (or two or three) complaint (s) (from anyone) that the reviewing author has a personal relationship with the author of the book being reviewed? It looks to me (based on my experience) that the author’s right to post ANY review is revoked.
Which makes sense from Amazon’s POV. If I (supposedly) broke the rule once, I’ll likely break it again. In my case, I likely DID break the rule. I usually reach out to any writer whose books I enjoy. Heck, if I tag a writer when talking about her book, she usually friends or follows me (I do the same if anyone talks about my books). Is that a personal relationship? I guess so.
“In fact, I’ve often wondered why authors won’t speak out publicly against their own fans going after other readers.”
…why SOME authors won’t speak out…
Because I have seen SOME writers speak out (on Facebook). I’ve seen SOME writers apologize for the actions of a few overzealous readers. I’ve seen SOME writers ask readers to leave street teams and cut all ties with these readers because they wouldn’t follow the guidelines.
These aren’t posts I tend to share. Why? Because, while I respect the apologizing writer’s morals, I also feel her embarrassment. To share the post appears as though I’m pointing out the writer’s mistake or poor judgment.
IMHO… the current conflict in Romanceland is spiraling upward due to the classic birth vs death scenario in the media. There’s on average 20.18 births for every 8.23 deaths (worldwide) yet, watching the news, death is always mentioned. Births are rarely covered. The average person’s perception is the world is becoming more and more violent.
The writer train wrecks always get coverage. When was the last time I read a blog about a writer behaving herself? I can’t remember. Yet I know there are shining examples (Kelley Armstrong and Laura Kaye come to mind) of writers treating their readers, bloggers, reviewers like gold. Why isn’t Romanceland covering them, holding them up as the way writers SHOULD behave?
In fact, I’ve often wondered why authors won’t speak out publicly against their own fans going after other readers. Why is that? If the reader is loyal enough to defend the author, why would the author believe that they are not powerful enough to speak out against that kind of behavior? And it’s ironic, because anyone who has read DA for any length of time knows that one of Jane’s top priorities here is civility. Why? Because blogger reputations don’t outlast their blogs. Authors, on the other hand, can be total aholes and still sell books. We’ve seen it over and over and over.
I think I answered this one for @MrsJoseph.
If readers of mine went after another reader and I was made aware of it, I would speak. But my first attempt to ask for calm would be as private as I could possibly make it – email, facebook – something social. Why? Because I would assume that this was their attempt to support me – that they cared about me – and I would try to make them see that this was something that actually caused me pain without kicking them publicly in the face. If that worked, you would never see it. You would never be aware of it.
I’m going to move the posts here slightly. I’m not trying to derail. You’re aware of Requires Hate. You’re aware, at this point, of the way she went after readers. All authors were of course aware of the way she went after authors – but in the main, authors did not publicly respond because she was a reviewer. A bookblogger. A reader.
The most that authors felt they could do was stay out of her space and her way, and because she was very toxic in what was considered performance-rage, where she went, authors definitively did not go. Yes, authors talked about her in *private* spaces, because they have friends who also write, and they felt traumatized. But they stayed out of her way.
They were not therefore aware of what she was doing to readers because they didn’t see it. They were not in any of the spaces in which readers congregated. Even if they had seen it, even if they did comment, they would be accused of wielding their authorial power against … readers. It only happened a handful of times. But – it happened.
And so: she traumatized *other readers* because authors were told that to interfere was punching *down*. It was authors being too damn sensitive.
And she used that. Authors felt powerless. Readers felt powerless.
But until Laura Mixon did her very long post, many *authors* had no idea of what was going on. They’re not so heavily on the internet, or not in the *same spaces*. When they did know they were horrified. I knew she was going after authors – which I cannot touch – but had no idea she was stalking other readers. What she did to Cindy Pon’s readers were horrible.
That leads to spaces and overlap and different visceral concerns, as well. Because we all have them, and they will not be exactly the same for any of us.
When the GoFundMe campaign for DA went live, I couldn’t support it. I can’t give money – ever – to GoFundMe. The actions of GoFundMe had been in my feeds for weeks at a time, in three waves. Even if I wanted to, I could not have missed it. It would be relatively easy to go from that to assuming no one could possibly have missed it.
But I assumed that Jane’s feeds were different. I didn’t assume she didn’t give a damn about women’s rights or racism or etc.; I assumed she didn’t know. I gave her the benefit of the doubt. And: of course she hadn’t known.
We *all* see different things because we’re all following different blogs and twitters. I have seen enough of DA that I could give it the benefit of the doubt: If Jane/Sarah knew about GoFundMe, I reasoned, they would never have used it. So I sent money for the defense a different way.
I wanted to support DA. I know this will probably not be obvious to you, given my participation in this post, but I love DA. I admire DA. I admire the work you’ve all done to bring things to light. It’s a legitimate news source for me. The essays about consent – your last essay about feminism – are sharp and intelligent and thoughtful. I admire and respect the way you all lend the power of your blog to underline the plight of the less powerful. DA strikes me – very much – as a place that not only decries bullying but attempts to help. I love that you are open about your love of romance, because I feel that romance readers and writers, historically, have been dismissed or worse.
But I have always seen DA as a power. . It is not voiceless. It is not reachless. If I made a public complaint about DA, for instance I would not feel like I was punching down. It’s because DA has that power and reach that it can lend aid to other readers and be heard. I admire DA because it has power and uses it responsibly.
But the OP made it seem, to me, that you don’t feel that you do have power. And our own perceptions of the power we do have are often at odds with external perceptions. So, I replied.
Umm, the first paragraph of that last post should have come through in italics >.<. The first paragraph is what I’m replying to.
@michelle sagara: I appreciate that post. I’d like to see more posts of that kind of nature from authors on a regular basis. I’d like to see lots and lots of posts condemning groups like stgrb, condemning people like Anne Rice; condemning any author who would harass and terrorize a reader.
I’d like to see authors get together to do more than just promote each other, I’d like to see them promote not harassing readers.
I also know that at one time readers were trying to compose a list of authors to follow and support who showed support to us ….but while authors who attack do so in many different places with many different people at the top of their lungs…it seems that the majority of authors who support readers write one or two personal blog posts and move on. But the reader continues to be attacked – while still getting demands for the reader(s) to financially support the harassers.
I do not feel that readers have any type of real power in comparison to authors. And when readers get together in groups to support each other while being dog-piled, insulted, harassed, attacked, stalked and doxxed – we get called “gangs of bullies.” Or Anne Rice’s favorite: Careerist Gangster Bullies. Then we get harassed again for boycotting, reviewer blackouts, not “reading properly,” not “reviewing properly.” Screw it.
Most of the time I am full of rage-fatigue. It’s probably why I haven’t been able to complete a full book so far this year. I’m tired.
It’s funny, I often hear that reader reviewers must “think of the author!!!!! They are sensitive!!” when writing reviews. But now, when I do “think of the author” I get a mental picture of some whining teen with entitlement issues. It gives me the sads, a headache, and a desire to read old favorites by authors long dead.
I also dislike Anne Rice with a passion that cannot be denied. I used to be a major Anne Rice fan. Now I actively steer people away from her.
“And let’s not forget how many publishers and authors think that bloggers exist to support and serve them and their books. That, right there, suggests a perceived hierarchy that puts authors over readers and bloggers, including group blogs like DA. We often have to proactively provide reminders that we do this for ourselves and our fellow readers, NOT for authors and publishers. And if our fellow readers feel that other readers are not serving their interests, they are quick to critique and police.”
I don’t think publishers approach you because they think you exist to serve their interests, though.
I think the *only* interest they have is reaching eyeballs. They approach DA the way they would approach RT or Publisher’s Weekly or any other magazine that has readers. They approach you the way they would approach any business.
It’s not that they think you exist just for their use; it’s that you have reach that they want to access – and that’s the only point of commonality. DA sells ads, yes? So does RT. Or newspapers. They’re approaching you the way they approach any business that gives eyeballs.
In the case of publicists, that’s their job. They care about doing their job. They aren’t here to join the wider community, because that’s not what they’re being paid for. To them, DA has eyeballs. They want to reach them.
To them, it is DA that has the power in that equation, because DA can say NO. They can beg, plead, cajole, threaten – but the ultimate right of refusal is DA’s. People often feel that if they want something that can be withheld, the person who does the withholding has the power.
And yes, the only point of contact becomes what *they* want. But…I don’t think they think you exist to give them that. That’s just the paradigm they’re accustomed to with other places that can: again, RT, PW, etc. etc.
@michelle sagara: Publishers also approach small bloggers – with no ads – as well. With demands, etc. You may feel that they may feel that the blogger has the power (of refusal) but they sure don’t behave in that manner.
@MrsJoseph I think publicists approach everyone with one goal in mind, because that’s their job. I only wanted to point out that they’re not – imho – approaching you because they think you exist only to serve their interests. It’s their job. They don’t actually care about anything you do outside of those parameters.
I.e. I don’t think that it’s a reasonable proof that they look down on bookbloggers or that hierarchically, it shows that bookbloggers are down the totem pole. If it is, they also look down on RT and PW and any newspaper they still send books, etc.
Now – if you want to make the argument that they look down on *all of their sources* of publicity, that’s different.
If you want to make the argument that bookbloggers *are not businesses* and should never be approached as if they are, I can get behind that, as well. But I think they are approaching DA/bookbloggers the way they approach any other business. They are only interested in their own needs, yes. Businesses in general expect that.
“There seems to be no indication that our reviews sell books (or discourage sales).”
Oh, they do. Especially for an unknown writer with a very tiny reader base. Reviews here and at SBTB make a considerable impact on sales. You two are the brass rings for self-published romance authors.
I think you have more power and influence than you seem to realize.
“In fact, I’ve often wondered why authors won’t speak out publicly against their own fans going after other readers. Why is that?”
I’ve wondered that for a long time. You’re not kicking your readers publicly in the face (as per the comment above) by politely asking that they allow others to freely post critical reviews and so on. You’re protecting all readers, not just your own, by encouraging them to be fair and sensible. I’m not sure what to think of writers who won’t do that much when their readers go after reviewers or bloggers. I don’t like to assume those writers feel a sense of power or satisfaction in seeing their readers behave that way, but in some cases, the behavior seems to suggest it. Certainly in the case of some writers who are very vocal otherwise, it leaves me wondering what can be stopping them from doing the right thing.
@michelle sagara: I disagree. There have been situations in which bloggers have been “threatened” with being blacklisted because of honest (but negative) reviews. That’s more than “just doing their job” in my honest opinion.
All in all, it seems that you do not believe there is any real power imbalance here – unless specifically limited it to the smallest reader-reviewer compared to the largest author. I think I’m starting to really understand that.
I disagree strongly based on my experiences. It is possible that – if you take the time to check out some reader spaces (even if you decide not to participate) – you may be able to understand why I (and many others) disagree so strongly.
@MrsJoseph
Let me ask a different question, then.
The people who threaten to blacklist you are exercising power, yes? They are saying they will not send you books to review? They are attempting to wield power that they have?
(Yes, it is not doing their job. But some people understand that a *good* publicist is a person who has the social charisma that makes others *want* to help them; a bad publicist is a pushy used-car salesmen. People can be both good and bad at their job.)
How is this – and this is an honest question – different from blacklisting an author?
If the former is an exercise of power, isn’t the latter the same? In the former case, you will not get their free books. They are one source of books. In the latter case, they will not get your custom. You are one source of custom. You can ask *your* readers to join you in boycotts because you’ve been mistreated. You can ask your blogger friends to refuse to review books by the publisher/author. Some people will listen. But some will not. The publicist has now poisoned the well. You will not help them again, ever.
If the actions of the publicist – in threatening you – are an exercise in power – proof of power, if you will, how is the latter not similar?
And if the answer is: because other people will read/review/buy their books, doesn’t that just mean that you singularly don’t have the power to destroy a career? You have the reach you’ve built. There are probably a lot of bloggers who will not touch that publicist’s books/authors because of their behaviour.
Where it breaks down for me is – again – people with serious social boundary problems. The stalking, the doxxing – those are acts of violence, imho. But again, authors suffer from this as well. These people are not powerful because they are authors *or* readers; they are powerful because they have no set of social norms and civilized behaviour.
Respect of DA does not mean agreement with everything it does – as has been pointed out by DA. Authors will disagree. Authors will even disagree publicly. But the disagreement itself doesn’t constitute bullying; that was the point that Jane was making in her KS post. If, by disagreeing, or not agreeing entirely, I am now somehow anti-DA or anti-reader, if it means a serious lack of respect … isn’t that what Jane was arguing against? Wasn’t she saying that disagreement is *not* bullying? Sometimes we disagree, but – disagreement isn’t in and of itself necessarily an exercise of power.
But if it *is* – does that mean that, because I’m an author with an audience, I can’t disagree because disagreement *itself* is an exercise of greater power and by extension, bullying?
@michelle sagara:
I don’t get free books unless they are offered to the masses – but I know plenty of bloggers who have had that threat. I prefer to source my own books because I don’t want anyone claiming they have a “right” to my time or reviews.
I think there is a big difference between refusing to purchase one author’s book due to mistreatment of said author and blacklisting a blogger over an honest but negative review. Can you not see the difference? One is a threat over being unable to control someone’s content and the other is a reaction to being treated poorly.
Regardless, if a blogger and their fans blacklist an author…that author will normally do fine – it’s a small number of people. If all of Romancelandia blacklists an author…that author can simply change pen names and get back in the business of selling books. Bloggers do not have that luxury.
And I hope that “anti-DA” or “anti-reader” comment is not in relation to our discussion because I have not said that nor have I implied it.
@michelle sagara: “If the actions of the publicist – in threatening you – are an exercise in power – proof of power, if you will, how is the latter not similar?”
I’m not MrsJoseph, but I can answer this easily — because for authors (and their representatives), behaving badly works.
Blacklisting bloggers, stalking reviewers, throwing temper tantrums online; anything that gets them attention, anything that gets people talking about books, it’s all publicity, and — when you’re trying to get noticed among the vast glut of books out there — there is truly no such thing as bad publicity.
I’ll give you an example: in the Friday news, there’s a mention of THE BOY WHO CAME BACK FROM HEAVEN, one of the slew of the “I died and got a tour of Heaven” stories that have been around since at least the 2nd Century CE. But it’s been overshadowed of late by PROOF OF HEAVEN and HEAVEN IS FOR REAL.
Now the author has completely disavowed it, and admitted it was all “made up.” The publisher is withdrawing it. But I have had *five* people come to the library and ask for it today — a book that the author and publisher both admit was not only a pack of malarkey (pardon the pun) but actively spiritually harmful! And yet they want to see “what all the fuss is about.”
Meanwhile, if a publicist or author threatens, abuses, blacklists a blogger / reviewer — what happens? If the reviewer can’t get enough books to review, well … people may feel sorry for her, but without content, who will read her blog? If she doesn’t feel safe, and “goes quiet” for a few months, half a year … again, pity and condemnation of the publicist’s bad behavior, but her readership will forget about her and go away.
If it is the *reviewer / reader* who is behaving badly? Say that I declared publicly “Michelle Sagara is being a bully because she is civilly disagreeing with a post on DearAuthor in the comment threads!”
[parenthetical aside, which NO ONE has even come close to saying, so let’s drop that line of argument right now]
“I will never read or review her again! I will go to Amazon and give all her books one star ratings!” Would that boost my readership because people are curious about my tantrum?
Nope, they would point fingers and laugh. Any credibility as a reviewer I had would be completely in tatters. If I was remembered at all, it would be as a Bad Example.
*This* is a power differential. It may not be right, or fair. You might not feel it. But it’s real, and I see it all the time.
@MrsJoseph: “that author can simply change pen names and get back in the business of selling books. Bloggers do not have that luxury.”
I’ve re-invented myself dozens of times as a business blogger.
Yes, it means starting from (almost) zero – new name, new domain, new email addresses, etc.
but that’s very similar from starting again as a writer. A writer starting again under a fresh pen name (due to poor sales or blacklisting) usually starts from (almost) zero also.
I hear what Michelle is saying. DA is popular and well-respected. Jane has 20k followers on twitter (much more than the average author) and she doesn’t even tweet that much. The blog has a lot of sway in the publishing industry. Reviews here absolutely do matter and can boost sales. I imagine that SBTB makes more money advertising than the average author.
However, when you look at the top earners and most influential romance authors, they have far more followers, money and power than any blog. So overall I agree. Collectively, authors have more power. They are respected as professionals while bloggers are too often seen as amateurs, wannabes and jealous haters.
I don’t belong to any author loops or secret groups, so I haven’t heard behind-the-scenes gossip, but my impression of authors overall is positive. I feel the same about bloggers. The vast majority of us are enthusiastic book lovers. 99% of authors are supportive of readers and criticism. They stay out of reader spaces. I spoke out against STGRB repeatedly. I have a review policy posted on my site, inspired by something similar I noticed on Meljean Brook’s site (IIRC). I’ve asked my readers not to harass or downvote. I write reviews myself, some not so positive.
My impression is that no one really cares. Bad author behavior gets reported and everything else goes unnoticed. No matter what the majority of authors do, we all kind of get lumped in as silent instigators or Ann Rice types. Reviewers get lumped together as haters or bullies. I’m not sure if there is a solution to this, other than continuing the dialogue and hoping for better days.
@MrsJoseph: “it seems that the majority of authors who support readers write one or two personal blog posts and move on. But the reader continues to be attacked ”
Yes, let’s talk about this.
What do you wish for us to do?
By writing blog posts, we are showing our support of readers, telling our readers (the only real audience we have) how we feel and how we wish for our supporters to behave.
And unless another blogger allows us to guest post for her, (which is rare – how many guest posters, for example, does DA have?), we only have our personal blog posts.
The last time I emerged from the writing cave, we discussed (in DA comments) gathering a list of supportive writers.
What was decided then was that the list was useless because there was no way to prove that writers were walking the talk, truly being supportive of readers and reviewers.
At that point, I (and more other commenters) ran out of creative ideas.
Then I received the 12 novella serial deal from Avon and was sucked into the writing cave.
Has there been any movement since then on this?
@hapax @MrsJoseph Thank you both for the examples.
“I think there is a big difference between refusing to purchase one author’s book due to mistreatment of said author and blacklisting a blogger over an honest but negative review. Can you not see the difference? One is a threat over being unable to control someone’s content and the other is a reaction to being treated poorly.“
Yes, I can absolutely see the difference in *ethics*. The publicist is being *unethical*. No question.
But one can just as easily say: “this publicist is a raging asshole” as one can “publishers feel we are there to serve their needs”. When I get angry or entitled email from readers, I think “this person is being a jerk” and not “readers feel entitled to tell me what to write, how, and when, and also where and how to publish it”.
So I am not arguing – in any way – that their behaviour is good or right. Nor am I arguing that your behaviour is bad or wrong.
But both of these actions are exercises of power.
I think the tarring with the broad brush creates higher walls between all of us. Most of the reason I do not engage more fully in the DA community is because the edges of the power *I* perceive myself as having are *not* the edges others perceive. I understand that I do not see power clearly when I myself am making *no attempt* to exercise it.
I have seen DA come out in favor of authors when royalties & money owed were *not being paid*. The entire lawsuit came about because of a news post that was *extremely* helpful and useful to authors and writers. I *know* DA is not anti-author, based on past reading. But in the current post-Hale climate, there’s an edge and a suspicion that wasn’t there in the past.
It is understandable. I’m not saying that bloggers have nothing to fear, because demonstrably, they have.
I think that voices like DA have educated authors – like me – about readers, and their concerns. None of us start out with any audience. We don’t automatically understand, internally, the shift in power when we develop an audience. But in large part, those of us who have learned to stay – respectfully – out of reader spaces are not on the radar. The people who are? Kathleen Hale.
The way most authors acknowledge that we have the greater power is by staying out of reader spaces and reader conversations – by erring on the side of caution.
But that means that increasingly, the interactions are negative, because often people who do *not* acknowledge that are the ones who are interacting. And no, it’s not 100% – but. I would never *have* this conversation in a smaller space, a space with less weight, for want of a different word.
@hapax
To your parenthesis: I was responding to the notion that disagreeing with DA was bashing them, or that it demonstrated a lack of power on DA’s part, which has been raised elsewhere on this thread. There is no author, no matter how successful, who doesn’t get bashed somewhere on the internet. LKH is the prime example of that, but certainly not the only one.
The commentators here have not in any way made me feel that I am attacking either them or DA. Nor have they made me feel that I am under attack.
@michelle sagara: “But that means that increasingly, the interactions are negative, because often people who do *not* acknowledge that are the ones who are interacting.”
This is a very fair point, and one I don’t have a solution for. Saying “authors should just stay out of reader spaces” is not only a bit extreme, but counter-productive; and would render impossible an interesting discussion such as this!
I am reminded of lengthy discussions of the fraught potentials of “parasocial relationships”, especially when there is no clear understanding of boundaries. The relationship between the author and the reader is *always* going to be asymmetrical: by reading your book, I have been granted entrance into [at least a corner of] your brain and soul and heart, and feel that I “know” you; yet the act of reading doesn’t give you (the author) any insight or connection to me, and you are most likely not aware that I exist.
In honesty, it is far more often the reader who is confused about this relationship. Author friends have told me (privately) about the all-too-common (and creepy) experience of having strangers write them, email them, even approach them in public under the impression that they are “friends” because of this one-sided sharing.
Yet (perhaps out of the pressures of marketing, perhaps out of natural gregariousness) authors are guilty of blurring these lines as well. Addressing fans as “my friends”, enlisting them as (unpaid) publicists, sharing (carefully chosen) personal tidbits and perks — all of this creates the illusion of a social relationship that doesn’t exist.
Maybe that’s why we have seen so much more “bad behavior” on both sides — there is a very personal sense of *betrayal* with a bad review — or a failure to deliver a book that meets our expectations (yeah, I’m not giving the outrageous antics of disappointed Charlaine Harris or Veronica Roth fans a pass here ; hate on the books all you want, but picketing or threatening an author? No. Just … no)
@hapax:
“Saying “authors should just stay out of reader spaces” is not only a bit extreme, but counter-productive; and would render impossible an interesting discussion such as this!”
(blinks)
Is Dear AUTHOR now a reader space?
I suggest it’s time for a name change then.
(grins)
As for addressing readers as friends, I do this.
I consider everyone a friend until they show me they aren’t
…which is probably why I write romance.
I believe in love, optimism and hope.
“The average person’s perception is the world is becoming more and more violent.”
We’re in an age of global warfare and violent attacks. The perception is accurate on a global scale.
“Why isn’t Romanceland covering them, holding them up as the way writers SHOULD behave?”
Maybe because an author being nice to her own fans is the default, and also self-serving.
An author bashing or stalking readers and reviewers has an impact on all reviewers and reviewers. That makes it of more pressing interest.
“If readers of mine went after another reader and I was made aware of it, I would speak.”
Good for you. I can tell you from bitter experience this isn’t the norm at all.
” authors did not publicly respond because she was a reviewer. A bookblogger. A reader.”
Missing the main point about Requires Hate that she positioned herself as a Queer Woman of Colour and thus could not be gainsayed. A tactic that is still going on with other authors/SJ ‘leaders’, and she has not given up either.
And you are also ignoring the fact that she amped up her attacks because she was an aspiring *author*. She was championed and published partly because of her Social Justice stance.
“They were not therefore aware of what she was doing to readers because they didn’t see it. ”
Calling bullshit on this one.
“I didn’t assume she didn’t give a damn about women’s rights or racism or etc.; I assumed she didn’t know.”
Jane didn’t set up the fundraiser, but Gofundme was the only funding service to offer refunds, which was important to her.
“But I have always seen DA as a power. . It is not voiceless. It is not reachless.”
One – Robin has repeatedly said she never claimed this. She has also pointed out that this ‘reach’ means diddly on the issues of most concern to the blogger community, ie doxxing, harassment and stalking. It didn’t protect Jane from Tina Engler destroying her privacy and using a law suit to chill free speech. If it didn’t protect Jane, no blogger is safe, no matter how big.
Publishers don’t tend to sue authors, though. Even mouthy bitches like me. I wonder why.
“But now, when I do “think of the author” I get a mental picture of some whining teen with entitlement issues. ”
Ditto. I’m sick of thinking of the author. After my most recent review experience, I’ve just given up reviewing. Not worth the aggravation to promote some entitled arsehole’s book for them.
“I don’t think publishers approach you because they think you exist to serve their interests, though.”
Oh please. I’m a reviewer who was too honest about Loose ID books, and was thus banned from receiving ARCs from them. They think review sites are part of their marketing plan. Nothing to do with readers at all.
“Businesses in general expect that.”
Reviewers and book bloggers aren’t businesses. Nice little elision there of the facts, Michelle.
“How is this – and this is an honest question – different from blacklisting an author?”
“One is a threat over being unable to control someone’s content and the other is a reaction to being treated poorly.”
What Mrs Joseph said, with bells on.
“Reviewers get lumped together as haters or bullies.”
Oh Jill, I am rolling my eyes at *you* saying this. Oh yes, I am.
“What do you wish for us to do?”
Stop thinking your job starts and ends at popping out of your cave (two years after the fact, even), writing a blog post and two, and then retreating to your hole to whine about all the drama.
In fact, stop minimising the situation existing now for bloggers and reviewers, start paying attention, and stop overrunning posts like this pretending you, with your multiple books and your reader base and your career, are just some poor, powerless little person who could never have an impact on the discussion. What you’ve done since you’re turned up here is derail and derail, just as Michelle has, and I am not impressed with what either of you have said.
“Is Dear AUTHOR now a reader space?
I suggest it’s time for a name change then.”
Have a look at the page you’re on. Right up the top, on the right.
See it?
Now do stop being so ridiculous.
@Ann Somerville
I know that DA isn’t a business. What I hoped to do was point out the ways in which publisher approaches are not meant to *be* disrespectful. Yes, they see DA as outreach – and only that.
I don’t think publishers understand viscerally that DA is *not* a business. They are therefore treating it the way they treat anyone they want favors from.
Being threatened by publishers – as you were – is wrong. It’s also seriously misunderstanding what gives reviewers credibility. But surely all publishers don’t do this? I don’t disbelieve that some do – I *can’t* disbelieve that.
“In fact, stop minimising the situation existing now for bloggers and reviewers, start paying attention, and stop overrunning posts like this pretending you, with your multiple books and your reader base and your career, are just some poor, powerless little person who could never have an impact on the discussion. What you’ve done since you’re turned up here is derail and derail, just as Michelle has, and I am not impressed with what either of you have said.“
I am not attempting to minimize the fear that bloggers feel in the current climate. If that’s what you’re taking out of my words, I am failing utterly as a writer.
But I fail to see how the fact that I have a platform elsewhere has been relevant to anything I’ve said here. I have never claimed – in any of my comments – to be powerless. I have claimed to have an imperfect understanding of *how* that power is perceived on the outside – but I’ve never claimed to be powerless or voiceless.
@michelle sagara:
“But surely all publishers don’t do this?”
Isn’t it bad enough that more than one does? And Loose ID is not exactly a little publisher.
“I am failing utterly as a writer.”
Dunno about that, but you’re failing as a reader in that I was responding to Cynthia’s question.
“but I’ve never claimed to be powerless or voiceless.”
My comments are responding directly to comments made by you and Cynthia, most Cynthia.
But you are both minimising your own power as individual authors, and of authors as a group, and maximising the powers of bloggers, by putting yourselves at one end of Robin’s continuum, and DA at the other.
The real comparison would be between say, you guys and the Book Smugglers at one point in the continuum, and someone like Anne Rice and Dear Author at the other. Mid list authors have more reach and influence than mid list bloggers, and mega blogs like DA have nothing like Rice’s effortless media penetration or influence on purchasers.
Your first comment blamed Jane for what happened to Stacey Jay. It was authors and publishers jumping up and down about a few people’s conversation on Twitter – not naming Jay – that made her Kickstarter notorious. It was their influence and reach which blew it up. Chuck Wendig on his own has more influence and reach than all the collective bloggers at DA together. And Wendig did enough on his own make Jay’s situation into a circus, let alone all the other self-interested authors and publishers and editors who chimed in.
And yet, for some reason, it had to be one of Jane’s readers, not Wendig’s, who decided to cross the stalker line?
You just don’t understand the difference in power that Robin has tried to explain here. And authors on the whole aren’t interested in using that power to help anyone other than those in the publishing industry. Readers are out in the cold every time.
@Ann Somerville:
I’m confused as to what you want from me, Ann. You tell me I’m “overrunning posts”, which suggests that I should stop posting, yet you continue to call me out.
I asked a genuine question – what can writers do to help readers – and you suggested that I don’t have that right because I don’t post here everyday.
BTW… I made NOTHING from romance writing last year. I spent more than I made. If I’m ‘midlist’ than the entire industry is in trouble (because if I was writing erotic romances for money, I should have quit two years ago).
@Cynthia Sax:
“I’m confused as to what you want from me, Ann.”
I already answered this question.
“you continue to call me out.”
I replied to your comments, that’s all.
“you suggested that I don’t have that right because I don’t post here everyday.”
I said no such thing, nor thought it.
“I made NOTHING from romance writing last year.”
And this is relevant to what, exactly?
@michelle sagara:
But the OP made it seem, to me, that you don’t feel that you do have power.
I’ve re-read through the post trying to understand where you might get that idea from, because the only people who made comments to that effect were authors. I’ve highlighted the portions of the post I think apply, and I have to admit that I still don’t get it:
If we draw a line from the most popular author to the least connected reader, we have the progression from least powerful to most powerful. Popular authors can mobilize their fanbases with minimal effort; in fact, sometimes fanbases will mobilize on an author’s behalf, even if the author isn’t asking for advocacy on her behalf. Pure readers, on the other hand, basically have the influence of a single voice, a single opinion, a ‘one’ among ‘many.’
Most of us online fall somewhere in between the most powerful author and the least powerful reader. Some readers have blogs, from which we review, which means we acquire ARCs. Some readers are paid reviewers; some readers (like me) do freelance work like editing, cover design, web design, or the like. Similarly, some authors have only one or two books published and do not have a massive fanbase. Some authors are working multiple jobs to make ends meet and are publishing their own books, hoping to break out into mainstream popularity. Some authors were initially bloggers or reviewers, and therefore have one reputation that they are trying to build into another. There are many variables here. . . .
As a category, author is much more powerful than reader. And when we really see that power is when, for example, an author gets an essay published in The Guardian, in which she chronicles the stalking of a reader-reviewer, not only violating that reader’s privacy in her pursuit, but also in the article itself, where the reader-reviewer is identified, vilified, and represented in a way designed to engender sympathy for the author’s invasive conduct. . . .
Yes, I know that individual authors often feel like they lack power. I get that they feel torn about speaking out, afraid of saying the “wrong” thing, frustrated at not selling enough books, worried about what readers will and won’t like, and a whole other host of concerns that make them feel vulnerable. But they still belong to the more powerful group interest, with the added benefit of being able to wear their reader hat when convenient. It may not always seem like a lot, but it’s still more than what the average reader has.
As I already explained, DA isn’t a single reader; in fact, it has included authors over the years, so it’s been an inclusive blog that to me demonstrates that authors can serve and be seen as both reader and author (even when in author hat, so to speak).
But I think the real issue here is that it doesn’t matter how much power DA does or doesn’t have, because the *reader* category is inherently less powerful than the *author* category. DA definitely has a substantial readership and respect among *some* other readers and authors. By combing reader voices and establishing a recognizable platform, the blog has recognized presence – at least within a very small corner of the internet. And I know for a fact that it has a bigger presence and influence than *I* do as an individual reader (all you have to do is compare my Twitter followers to Jane’s, for example). But as soon as you look at how Hale affected readers and the impotence of DA to do anything about that, I think the power differential becomes really clear, and it becomes clear in this way: the *institutional structure* of publishing recognizes the *author* category as more important than the *reader* category – in part because authors are commercial partners. I honestly don’t think this is even arguable as a concept. Now, if you want to compare publishers and authors, I think publishers are likely more powerful (e.g. they can demand contracts of adhesion).
If readers of mine went after another reader and I was made aware of it, I would speak. But my first attempt to ask for calm would be as private as I could possibly make it – email, facebook – something social. Why? Because I would assume that this was their attempt to support me – that they cared about me – and I would try to make them see that this was something that actually caused me pain without kicking them publicly in the face. If that worked, you would never see it. You would never be aware of it.
Why not do both? Assuming you could actually contact a reader privately, you could always, always make a public statement indicating that you do not support or appreciate any of your readers harassing or stalking or threatening other readers (or authors for that matter). Believe me, I’ve been riding this hobby horse for years, and I think authors know damn well that badly behaving readers don’t threaten their commercial power, or they *would* be making these kinds of public statements. Which, again, demonstrates the power differential, IMO.
I’m going to move the posts here slightly. I’m not trying to derail. You’re aware of Requires Hate. You’re aware, at this point, of the way she went after readers. All authors were of course aware of the way she went after authors – but in the main, authors did not publicly respond because she was a reviewer. A bookblogger. A reader.
Actually, I have been told be several who know the situation well that RH WAS called out. But because she attacked both authors and readers routinely, she was an anomaly, and because she attacked women and people of color, it was often not women of color who spoke out against her, because they were afraid of being attacked themselves. I will also note that despite all this, she has had the defense and protection of a number of authors, and continues to build a solid reputation and readership *as an author* despite everything that went on before her authorial persona was revealed. In fact, we have seen more and more authors engage in behavior that appears to be the intentional cultivation of notoriety, because, as @hapax pointed out, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I don’t think publishers approach you because they think you exist to serve their interests, though.
I think the *only* interest they have is reaching eyeballs. They approach DA the way they would approach RT or Publisher’s Weekly or any other magazine that has readers. They approach you the way they would approach any business.
I actually think your comment kind of proved my point. Which, by the way, I wasn’t making with any pejorative judgment about publishers, even though you inferred one. I tell my boss all the time that it’s my job to do what she tells me to do, and that is nothing but the truth. I work in an extremely hierarchical environment, and there are clear levels of power. This is not a negative judgment, just a fact, similar to the fact that I know my place in that hierarchy, and I know the limits of my power, of which there are many.
Because power is not measured by what my actions are – it’s measured by their effects. And when it comes to readers and publishers, the real power lies with publishers, even as they may be telling authors that they’re just doing as the reader wants. Oh, if this were only so! They may be responsive to what they perceive to be the market’s desires, but only because it’s their job sell their product (at a profit, if possible). Just as it’s the job of a commercial writer to sell their product. I’ve always believed that one of the reasons the book ecosystem works with reviewers and publishers/authors is that at some point there are common, if parallel interests. However, I don’t think for one second that publishing, as a business, gives a shit about book bloggers beyond the promotion they perceive us to be providing *for them* or *their author*. This is why, on NetGalley, for example, publishers have the right of refusal for ARCs. Remember the letter written to book reviewers for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: http://flavorwire.com/17026/how-to-alienate-bloggers-and-boost-book-sales. Publishing, as a business, knows there are plenty more readers where we come from. The power differential between publishing as a business and reading/blogging is substantial.
This is not a complaint; it’s a fact.
Re. STGRB, I went and looked at your post (I’ve been without cable for almost two weeks, and it finally got fixed, hopefully for good, yesterday), and I thought it would be much later than it was, since you noted that you wrote about the group when you heard about it. In fact, you posted within days of when DA posted on it, pretty much at the beginning of the issue. I then went through your blog to see if there were any other posts on reader harassment or reviewing doxxing and didn’t find others. Not that you are obligated to write those posts, but for readers this has been an ongoing issue, not just with that particular group, but with other authors, before and after your post. And, as I said in my post, what investment does the reader have in remaining with a community where we are threatened with all that? We *know* that authors have an investment, because they’re selling books, and the promise of income is there, as is the knowledge that you have professional networks and resources at your disposal.
An important element of power is the ability to get people to do things that are at odds with or outweigh their own best interests (to effect an outcome in spite of opposition). Between authors and readers, and with the recent Kickstarter as an example, I don’t think you can successfully argue that readers, as a group (including a group blog like DA) have much, if any, of this kind of power. But we have example after example of authors, as a group, demonstrating this kind of power.
@Cynthia Sax: The writer train wrecks always get coverage. When was the last time I read a blog about a writer behaving herself? I can’t remember. Yet I know there are shining examples (Kelley Armstrong and Laura Kaye come to mind) of writers treating their readers, bloggers, reviewers like gold. Why isn’t Romanceland covering them, holding them up as the way writers SHOULD behave?
I almost didn’t respond to this, because it feels like an attempt to shift away from the terms of the original discussion. But I want to point out a couple of things.
First, one of the reasons readers talk about this, is because we, as a group, don’t have the same power authors do, and if we can’t effect change in author behavior, we can at least let other readers know what’s going on and register our objections.
But beyond this, are you truly suggesting that readers don’t talk regularly about how great any number of authors are? Because I see this all the time. So much author love. So much book love, which IMO is even more important, because the whole point is not to over personalize the relationship between readers and books (and already there are so many ways in which these barriers between author and reader are crumbling, and I don’t think it serves either group, but especially not readers). Should we start giving bonus grades for books written by authors who aren’t ABB? Or just reviewing books by authors we like or think are acting like decent human beings?
In general, I see so many readers promoting author’s books and RTing their tweets and telling their friends to read a certain book. Readers go to, cover, and support author conferences. Readers promote RITA nominations and cover the awards. Readers recommend books and host author interviews and blog tours and so much other promotional stuff, I sometimes feel like there’s too much of an emphasis on promo. Are you suggesting that we should be featuring articles on authors acting like decent, ethical, human beings and responsible citizens of online book communities? Because that seems kind of creepy to me.
“Because power is not measured by what my actions are – it’s measured by their effects.”
But *that was the point* I was trying to make in the initial couple of posts.
The reason you wrote this post was the KS storm.
The *reason* DA is in part being blamed for the KS storm – against time-line and fact – is *because DA has reach* and that’s where, I’d argue, the vast majority of people first heard about it. Everyone did not, again demonstrably, hear about it from DA first–but that is beside the point in the greater gestalt.
Power is not measured by DA’s actions. It’s measured by effects.
The fact that the effects are *not* the ones you intended or wanted is something that all people with platforms have to deal with.
@michelle sagara: Putting aside the fact that you ignored the entire context of my comment, I think it’s clear we’re at the ‘agree to disagree point.’ You clearly believe that “reach” is equal to the kind of material power I’m talking about here, no matter how many of us try to articulate the distinctions (e.g. thinking someone has power doesn’t objectively endow them with that power).
As for the KS thing, I don’t know whether you’re referring to Jane as an individual or DA the blog, but in both cases, they were late to the KS announcement party. Many posts had been written before Jane posted hers (Wendig’s heavily trafficked post appeared a whole four days before Jane’s), and the debate was absolutely raging on Twitter before Jane made her pretty meager set of comments on it.
Now, if you want to argue that DA gets blamed for having power it does not, in actuality, possess, I’ll definitely be on board with that one.
“Now, if you want to argue that DA gets blamed for having power it does not, in actuality, possess, I’ll definitely be on board with that one.”
Oddly enough, I would be on board for that, as well.
I would like to answer one previous question, though:
“Why not do both? Assuming you could actually contact a reader privately, you could always, always make a public statement indicating that you do not support or appreciate any of your readers harassing or stalking or threatening other readers (or authors for that matter). Believe me, I’ve been riding this hobby horse for years, and I think authors know damn well that badly behaving readers don’t threaten their commercial power, or they *would* be making these kinds of public statements. Which, again, demonstrates the power differential, IMO.”
I am perfectly willing to make a general statement, and have before. The STRGB post is not the only time I’ve written about author/reviewer issues.
I would not be willing to make a *reader-specific* statement until I had at least tried to speak with the person in question. For all I know, given it’s the internet, the reader is thirteen, and is doing her best to defend something she loves with the tools she feels she has. I give her the benefit of the doubt here, and reach out personally–because in theory, she might actually care if I tell her I find it harmful or painful. If the goal is to have her stop bad behaviour and *she does*, I’ve achieved that goal.
I know I should stop. The conversation has drifted…but it’s gone to really interesting places, and I can’t resist. (Apologies in advance.) It’s clear that we’ve established a few things: that Power is not monolithic. That Power is not very well able to be perceived from an objective perspective. That “readers” and “authors” are not monolithic entities whose individual members wield the same volume of Power as their groups do.
@Robin/Janet: “In general, I see so many readers promoting author’s books and RTing their tweets and telling their friends to read a certain book. Readers go to, cover, and support author conferences. Readers promote RITA nominations and cover the awards. Readers recommend books and host author interviews and blog tours and so much other promotional stuff, I sometimes feel like there’s too much of an emphasis on promo.”
Hoo boy, you are not wrong about that. :) From the other side of the fence, authors are under pressure to go to conferences, tweet promotionally, ask for retweets, enter contests, seek out blog tours (and many of these activities are not always free–beside the point, of course, as it’s a cost of doing business from this side). From this side of the fence, I hear other authors constantly looking to create, host, or attend reader-focused conferences, and avoid conferences that have become too author-centric.
And I know this is not news, but it’s become a part of the business to give away a lot more stuff–blog tours will often include not only free books, but other swag given away to commenters, conference attendance usually includes a raffle basket–I’ve even seen retweet contests, where a retweet is an entry in a giveaway as part of a promotion. My point is that in a lot of these interactions between readers and authors, somebody is getting something extra (and sometimes, that somebody is a publicist, book tour company, or conference organizer). All these interactions with obfuscated or multiple motivations make a fertile environment for abuse of power exchange. And when unstable individuals enter the mix, the environment can quickly grow toxic, which is sad. At the best of times, and with the best of motivations, reader/author interaction should be an excited, excitable exchange of ideas. A good squee over a book is still one of my favorite things to have happen to me.
Robin/Janet again: “Are you suggesting that we should be featuring articles on authors acting like decent, ethical, human beings and responsible citizens of online book communities? Because that seems kind of creepy to me.”
That would be really embarrassing. Or really funny. I would be honored to be the recipient of a “Today, I put my pants on outside my undies” author award.
I’ve debated about putting up a “Statement of Rationality” on my personal blog, but have wiffled on it. Partly because I’m not happy about the fact that this isn’t the default behavior of everybody. And partly because by doing so, I might be giving oxygen to something that should not be receiving it. I’m still personally very confused about what or who is STGRB (and I haven’t been that eager to look–I remember hearing about it here at DA but it was a while back), but if it’s a crew of ABB, the last thing I want to do is give a troll another set of eyeballs.
Bad Behavior thrives on attention, even negative attention, and I don’t want to contribute by commenting even other places. You know, that old, “If you’re a [email protected] on the internet and no one’s around to hear it, do you still get an entry in the Encyclopedia Dramatica?” philosophical chestnut.
I’d be curious to know, though, if that’s something readers would find relevant. Or would it just be cluing people in to a drama going on that they would have been much happier not knowing about?