On Nov. 3, Miss Snark called Anne Stuart the Nitwit of the Day. On Nov 9, she posted a blog about Anne Stuart that said “Cause once is never ever enough times to be the nitwit of the day.” On Nov. 11 she posted a blog about Anne Stuart called “Nitwitery Follow up.” At that point, I asked Anne Stuart if she had run over Miss Snark’s dog. When she said, “No,” I posted my blog. Miss Snark stopped harassing Anne Stuart, very possibly for reasons having nothing to do with my blog. What she did was harassment, which she thought she could get away with because she’s anonymous.

A pseudonym is not anonymous. Most of us go to conferences using our pseudonyms, give speeches using our pseudonyms, do book signings using our pseudonyms. The vast majority of the people who know me, meet me, talk to me, meet me as Jennifer Crusie. I am accountable for the words I write and I stand behind them. (For those who want my real name, it’s on the copyright page of most of my early books: Jennifer Smith. Yeah, THAT sounds like a false name.)

“Being able to complain about one’s situation without repercussions such as losing one’s job because one’s employer saw one’s blog about them” is also being able to slander one’s boss and destroy his reputation without consequences. People who don’t have the balls to face the people they’re attacking, shouldn’t attack.

0

Secret admirers are often nice additions to a life.

Secret assassins–not so nice.

If you’re going to rough someone up, at least have the–ah–nerve to put your name on your brickbats.

Marcie Lamb

0

The fact is that there are many valid reasons for anonymous blogging including the very thing you are standing up for. Being able to complain about one’s situation without repercussions such as losing one’s job because one’s employer saw one’s blog about them.

Stephen King wrote under the pseudonym Richard Bachman for awhile. Does that make his books and career any less valid? Not only that, I believe that when he first started out as a writer, the publishing company he signed up with treated him very badly. I don’t remember if he publicly complained about them or not but I do know that he went out found himself another publishing company who treated him better.

MaryJaene Desario

0

Color me incredibly amused by this, considering that more than fifty percent of the people leaving comments are obviously using an alias and who knows if the ones with real-sounding names are using their own names?

What exactly is the significant difference between anonymous comments and pseudonymous comments, and why is one morally superior to the other?

0

Yeah, I always thought that looked like an interesting way to go, but it is actually a submission method, not just random postings of novels and stories on line. (grin) I don’t know. Maybe I’m just helplessly behind the times, but I keep thinking that posting things you hope to sell later is just not the best idea in the world.

I do intend, however, to have a blog for stories I have either already sold or think would just be fun to share — but I’m doing it with the full understanding that these are stories that will not be going out in submissions later.

Maybe I’m crazy. (Well, yes….)

0

0

I’ve read many articles that say just the opposite, that publishing online is frowned on by publishing companies.

That said, there is at least one publisher that has no problem with publishing online, provided you follow their rules. Baen Books. (www.Baen.com) Baen is Science Fiction and Fantasy. I’m a huge Lois McMaster Bujold fan. She recommended Jenny. Now I’m also a Jennifer Crusie Fan. I bought ‘em all, some of them twice.

Anyway, they have a bulletin board – Baen’s Bar (http://bar.baen.com/) and there are several “conferences” there, such as Slush Pile, Universe Slush, and 1632 Slush where you can post a story you’d like published in whole or in part.

Many stories posted in the 1632 Slush have been picked up for publication and published in Anthologies dedicated to the “1632 Universe.” I can’t vouch for the other slush piles. Many of the stories are unrepentant romance despite the overall SF&F coating.

Baen also encourages authors to place the first story in a series in the Baen Free Library, where the eBook may be downloaded free of charge AND free of encryption (“DRM”). The publisher has found that the free exposure of the author and his or her stories results in More Sales of “dead tree” books. (http://www.baen.com/library/)

You can find Eric Flint’s “1632″ there, and read it for free. Yes, it’s science fiction. It’s also three wonderful romances.

0

Kim

0

I have learned a great deal from this thread and the original post. It’s plain that people have very differing views on what’s happened and why, and what’s good behavior and what’s bad on both sides. It’s been interesting to read.

0

0

So, let me get this right – it’s ok to call her and anyone who reads her blog names because they couldn’t possibly be worthy of anything but contempt. Sheer brilliance there. That makes about as much sense as this entire ridiculous argument.

Truth – If you want to call names, go right ahead. I will not stoop to that level. With any luck this entire SILLY and POINTLESS argument will die a natural death. I, for one, have had enough.

Peace.

0

Kim – One’s blog is indeed one’s forum. Snark has every right to post her opinion there, even if it includes being “silly” and “pointless” enough to toss around labels like “nitwit.” (You ARE the one who brought up name-calling, aren’t you?) But if she’s going to stoop to that level, she should be prepared for some negative reaction. And so should her Snarklings.

You want truths as opposed to half-truths? Truth: You reap what you sow.

0

That’s not to say all of them are new to writing, or that all of them are rude or clueless in their own ways — but there is a strong current, I think, that encourages it.

I’ve also been thinking more and more about the new Cult of Rudeness that seems to be popular these days. I don’t get it myself, and I’ll probably blog on that later today, just to get it out of my system.

0

However, I’m having a difficult time trying to read the disrespect in Ms. Stuart’s statements. She indicated she disagrees with her publisher on some business issues. Had she raked the publisher over the coals, or indicated the publisher had “shoddy” business practices, I could see it. If anyone is deluded in thinking that Publishing is the only industry in which the bottom line (profits) is king, think again. Seems to me Ms. Stuart simply stated the obvious and indicated that as a writer, it is of concern. Perhaps I’m simply a nitwit. It doesn’t concern me in the least; I am in pretty fine company.

As for the anonymous Ms. Snark blog, I have a difficult time understanding why any fledgling writer would never question “her”. Anyone can start a blog and claim to be an authority in anything, if they present their expertise anonymously. Anyone reading and following this blog should do so with a packet of salt, rather than “clue cake”.

To the readers who remain so loyal as to issue death threats via electronic means (as indicated in a previous comment), that is a crime. The Police and other authorities would and should follow-up.

Deb.

0

0

Agreed. We should quit calling names. Miss Snark can begin by retracting and apologizing for “nitwit,” which I believe was the first salvo, was it not?

Yeah. I won’t be holding my breath. Blue is SO not my color.

0

Then I read Sarah Yoffa’s post.

I remember the mistake she’s talking about, the one that she didn’t actually mention in her comment here. And I remember commenting on it. Most of the people who did were absolutely aghast at it and I think their comments reflected that. In fact, a few insisted it HAD to be a joke.

This little mistake was that Ms Yoffa posted on her blog a way to have an editor at Tor notice her manuscript and want to request it. She posted the first chapter or so on her blog, invited people to read it, and then suggested that these readers post a comment on this Tor editor’s blog telling her why she should want to read this manuscript.

Spam Tor.

And she wonders why the snarklings did a collective WTF???

And the post came down within hours. An apology was offered, but instead of saying ‘I screwed up’, it was everyone else who took it the wrong way. A left-handed apology, if you will.

Yes, sometimes the commenters are not all warm and fuzzy. They can be cruel. And not all of us agree with everything and everyone who comments, or even with the posts themselves. But if you’re going to slam, as Ms Yoffa did, also admit to WHY it was that all of us rotten, Mean Girl snarklings were commenting on. And most of us were saying, it will be one of the worst things you could do. Maybe we should’ve kept quiet and let Ms Yoffa shoot herself in the foot and piss off an editor (this editor did mention the entire incident on her blog and her tone suggested she was not happy with the idea. From what I understand, the editor in question left a rather pointed comment on Miss Yoffa’s blog.) In that case, as one of those who said ‘what the hell is she thinking’, I apologize. Sarah, I’m sure it would have gotten you results. Just probably not the one you wanted.

As for the crapometer, if you submit without knowing exactly what you’re submitting to, you reap what you sow. Maybe you should look into then avenues to which you submit your ‘precious baby’ instead of simply hitting send?

Anne Stuart is well within her rights to say (or post) what she wishes. I think it’s great that she has a friend like Jenny Cruisie to defend her. But I also think it’s great that people can dissent and disagree, but I hate all of the name calling going on. It’s silly and pointless. I will sign my name to this and what will be, will be, I guess. I just don’t like half-truths being tossed out as whole truths.

0

0

0

It doesn’t work that way. Scintillating writing, ladies and gentleman, scintillating writing.

0