Trust and Secrets in Romanceland
by Sunita
When I closed VM and started this blog I said I wouldn’t write about Romanceland anymore. And for the most part I haven’t wanted to. But Wendy’s post about the broken nature of the community struck a deep chord, one that writing a comment at her post can’t fully address. If you’re interested, read on. If you’re done with thinking about Romland, skip this and come back to read the next post.
When DA Jane told Romland that she was also author Jen, I was obviously at ground zero for the announcement. It’s hard to avoid the feeling that the Jane/Jen revelation created a seismic shift. Not for everyone; some readers, mostly people who aren’t deeply invested in Romland relationships, will keep right on reading Dear Author and/or Jen Frederick’s books. They don’t care much about the connection. Other readers won’t. Authors and longtime members of Romland seemed to fall most frequently on the sense of betrayal side. Writing communities in this genre are a combination of professional development, friend circles, and expertise exchange, and the friend/bonding component appears to be stronger here than in many other professional settings with which I’m familiar. That, combined with DA’s loud and sustained emphasis on disclosure and reader-only spaces, led to a deep sense of resentment even among Romland people who didn’t personally encounter Jen Frederick.
I think that what the DA announcement did was put the final nail in the coffin of the idea and the reality of widely-followed, reader-run sites. if Dear Author is an author-run site (which it now turns out to be), then there are no water-cooler-type review and discussion sites in Romland which are are not author-directed zones (or industry-directed, in other cases). To a great extent I think this is a reflection of the way Romland has changed over the past decade. There is little incentive or ability for someone who is only a reader to own and operate a major review and reading blog, forum, or website. It takes an enormous amount of work and time, and you need to generate a lot of content to stay in the online public’s eye. At the same time, any site that does attract readers is also going to attract authors and industry professionals, partly for the conversation, but also because selling books is a difficult task and the word of mouth praise of readers is golden. So a reader-run site with a growing reach is going to face huge pressures to be coopted. Whether that’s by taking ARCs, featuring authors, running giveaways, or transitioning from reader-blogger to industry-blogger is going to depend on the individuals, but the incentives for cooptation are enormous.
Neither of the two major romance sites people in my circles talk about, DA and Smart Bitches, is run primarily by people who are just readers, and this has been the case for years. [AAR has contributors who are not authors, but for the majority of its existence it has also had strong personal and professional ties to authors, some disclosed, some not, and that’s all I’m going to say about that.] The reader-plus features of these big blogs are a fact and we have to accept it. Well before Jane created Jen, she edited a romance anthology, appeared at book conventions representing bloggers, and was regularly quoted in the media. Sarah Wendell has not been “just” a reader at least since Beyond Heaving Bosoms was published and probably before that. We lost big “reader” blogs in Romancelandia quite a while ago, we just haven’t wanted to admit it. That doesn’t mean the non-reader-driven blogs aren’t valuable and fun for a lot of people, but that part of the landscape didn’t change when Romland found out Jane was Jen. The DA announcement was the culmination of a long process, not a departure from it.
I agree with Wendy that the changes in Romland are due to a combination of factors, some of which aren’t about romance at all. I also agree that there is a real sense of threat felt by readers and writers which wasn’t there before. Stalking, harassment, and abuse are more prevalent than they used to be, and while most of us haven’t faced threats that rise to the level found in other communities, ours are bad enough. It completely undercuts the idea of Romland as a refuge from the rest of the world, or a place where we can pursue and share our common interests apart from the fraught issues we deal with in the rest of our lives. And the big problem is that these don’t feel like isolated events. The Hale episode would be easier to dismiss if we didn’t have other, less violent examples of romland people going after each other prior to and subsequent to it. There is little sense that we can speak freely in Romland space. Everything is public and every potential breach is screenshotted by someone. It’s worse than always speaking in public, really; it’s more like speaking in public with an endless, never-erased video running while you do it. No wonder blog posting and commenting are down and Romance Twitter is more anodyne. Who wants the grief that follows even a minor fuckup?
There is one other aspect of Romland, though, which Wendy didn’t mention and which I think is critical to the way we interact with each other. In Romland, more than any other community I can think of, people create not just pseudonyms but personas. When Jane disclosed she was also Jen, there were people who felt duped and humiliated, and I can understand that feeling.
But I was surprised that people didn’t talk more about the fact that such simultaneous personas are not at all unusual. I’m not talking pen names, I’m talking full-blown personas, with separate social media accounts and blogs and biographies. I can think of any number of people off the top of my head who have done this in the past or are doing it now. Some people make the connections between their personas known, but plenty do not. I have more than once talked about things with a Persona 1 not knowing that they were Persona 2, in cases where Persona 2’s activities were relevant to our discussions. And there have been other cases, ones where I’ve felt uncomfortable carrying the knowledge that someone is deploying multiple personas to review and contribute to discussions but unsure that it is my responsibility to reveal it. (To whom? And why?)
Sometimes the decision is easy, because I don’t reveal information given to me in confidence and I don’t reveal anything that comes through a privileged channel like DA. But sometimes I find out on my own, without any insider knowledge. What then? My default has been to channel Sergeant Schultz of Hogan’s Heroes: I know nothing, nothing. I don’t know what other people do with their privileged information, but I doubt it’s much easier for them. Keeping secrets is exhausting, and knowing that your community operates with a culture of secrets means knowing that people are not necessarily what they seem. It may be true in a benign sense, or it may be a secret that would change the way you look at them. The point is that you don’t get to decide, and also, the playing field isn’t level, because some people operate as multiple personas and hide that info, some do it and are upfront, and others only have one persona.
We have a culture of pen names in Romanceland for good reasons, which is common knowledge. But we also have a culture of secrets around identity, and we are much less upfront about that. It’s hard to build community-wide trust when you’re not sure who you’re talking to, and that uncertainty has grown over the last decade. I’m not sure what can be done to make things better. Maybe something different will rise from the ashes, or maybe we’ll continue to fragment into ever-smaller and more private spaces, replacing generalized community trust with individually determined trust relationships.
I am aghast that this is, apparently, common practice.
As you say, pseudonyms and pen names are common enough, and I have no problem as long as there is disclosure, and readers can find the information relatively easily–say, link to the alter-ego’s author page or what have you.
But what you are talking about, having two or more full blown personas without disclosure? It is that Jane did that and that apparently a number of people knew from the beginning while the rest of the world was, yes, duped, that fractured my trust in her. It is the fact that to this day the blog pretends to be by readers that finished off the job.
For years some people have scoffed at the notion of a romance community online, while some of us clung to the idea that it was possible for readers to connect as readers and to create bonds of trust.
So much for that notion.
LikeLike
Two or more full-blown personas, personas that present an identity that departs in critical ways from the private identity, personas that contribute in ways that the other identity/persona could not (or not with the same credibility), etc. etc. Yes.
But I think it’s worth emphasizing that this is not an author-reader dichotomy. There are readers, as well as other industry people, who keep such information private, or help to keep the multiple personas separated and legitimate. And the practice is at least partly a consequence of readers’ expectation that authors who write about certain issues have identities that fall within certain boundaries. How many women romance readers do you know who don’t want to read romances written by men? I know quite a few. I’m not saying it’s our fault, but rather that reader preferences and industry incentives make these kinds of personas more likely. It’s complicated.
In addition, the need for full-blown personas is greater today than it was even a decade ago, because of the proliferation of author-driven publicity efforts. It’s not enough to write a book, you have to have a presence on Facebook, Twitter, blogland, etc. You are supposed to interact with your readers. Men like Leigh Greenwood or Roger Sanderson just kept quiet about their gender when they wrote in previous decades. Now that would be much harder.
LikeLike
It is, actually, the idea of two full personas that bothered me the most. My pen name is merely my ‘tag’, my ‘handle’, whatever. It is also _me_, wherever I am on the internet, and with whomever I engage. Whether I call them “John” or “Joe” (or whatever) does’t matter — it’s the genuineness of the person beneath the name that I (generally) take for granted. “A rose, no matter what the name…”? the person is who they is, no matter what they choose to call themselves, and I’m fine with that.
But when John has three kids, and Joe is a bachelor; when Joe works construction and John’s a federal court judge…or when John is a racist and Joe is liberal-minded…I’m not sure when those divergences from reality become a sticking point for me, but they DO. Do I respect “Joe’s” desire to keep his family from the spotlight…I guess I do, but. It feels wrong to me. Conversely, if John claims three kids and has none — he’s claiming an experience I would expect to inform his work that he doesn’t have, and that’s a very legitimate “work-related” issue to me.
So again, I’m not sure where/when those divergences from reality become problematic for myself, let alone for other people, and I’ve had to decide what to do — not just as an author, but as the 17 year old I was when I first found myself online and using “Drew” as my handle so people couldn’t find my rather unusual (at the time and place) real name. When had we become close enough to trust them with my real name? Or did I bother, since I was who I was, no matter what they called me?
And that’s the line I’ve had to draw for myself — to be myself, no matter what name I hang on myself to do so. And maybe it’s unfair, but it’s the standard I hope for from the people I interact with.
I have another pen name ‘reserved’ for non-romance works, and although I reserved a twitter account for it…I can’t get over the feeling of dis-ingenuousness to use it. especially if/when that persona crossed paths with someone who knows Dayna. Much as I want to reinvent myself for marketing purposes, that’s not how *relationships* work (or how they should work, at least, imo.)
(delurking complete)
LikeLike
Welcome!
I briefly considered having multiple names online, and I did wind up with VacuousMinx, but I’ve always made the connection clear. Even then, there were people who didn’t realize VM and Sunita were the same person. Like you, I felt uncomfortable using a different name on Twitter than I use on other platforms, even though Sunita has been a sufficiently unusual name in the west that it would be easy to put info together about me.
I go back and forth on how much embroidering of a persona is OK. Especially in the romance genre, fantasy is such a big part of what we are here for that fantasizing an author persona seems more understandable. Obviously, something that is in opposition to your actual self AND that provides you with an advantage over other authors seems wrong. But everyone’s lines are different.
LikeLike
And the practice is at least partly a consequence of readers’ expectation that authors who write about certain issues have identities that fall within certain boundaries.
Oh, yeah.
For all of the emphasis on ethics and disclosure, there are also some pretty strong ideas about who can legitimately write about what (women writing Romance, gay men writing m/m, etc.). And until those kinds of expectations are interrogated, unpacked, and challenged, I think there’s a very real temptation to create a persona that fits the expectation, rather than a direct challenge by way of honest self-representation (and I’m NOT talking about people having complex identity issues – I’m talking about the conscious and/or intentional invention of a persona). Which, of course, helps facilitate the illusion of “authenticity” (which is such a problematic construct, but one that’s often invoked) and perpetuates the conditions that appear to discourage honest self-revelation.
One of the things I have recently come to understand is that “the community” (whatever that is, because I think it is different for different people) has a lot of unspoken (and sometimes contradictory) rules for How Things Should Be. Disclosure is easy for someone like me, because the risks are low if people know I do some freelance editing. Because there’s no strong prohibition against that. But for authors (especially high profile authors) who still want to review, for example (and I’m NOT talking about Jane/Jen here), it’s not always so easy. There seems to be a lot of pressure against doing both, which continues to frustrate the hell out of me, but I can’t argue with the reality of it, because I’ve seen it over and over. And so I get why some choose to create completely separate identities to allow for both activities, even as it facilitates the illusion that people are who we think they are (and only that thing), and perpetuates the conditions that seem to necessitate the separation. Unfortunately, it also makes it that much harder to interrogate all of these unspoken expectations and rules, not only because people don’t realize how common these personae are, but also because those who have them are understandably invested in keeping them.
LikeLike
I don’t know why that bit you quoted didn’t jump out at me more. Yes, in my comment I said something about a ‘father of three’ being able to inform his work in a way that a non-father can’t, and yet, I also totally agree with this:
“there are also some pretty strong ideas about who can legitimately write about what (women writing Romance, gay men writing m/m, etc.). And until those kinds of expectations are interrogated, unpacked, and challenged, I think there’s a very real temptation to create a persona that fits the expectation, rather than a direct challenge by way of honest self-representation ”
The idea of constructing a persona that lives up (down) to the expectations of who should/can write about certain experiences feels so wrong, on so many levels to me. And yet, I can understand it, even if I couldn’t do it myself.
I have set aside work on my “pseudo Ancient India Steampunk” story because I am afraid of being seen as co-opting a culture for my own purposes. (Which ironically doesn’t happen when I use Celtic or Norse mythologies in my stories; and that’s what my writing IS — my own way of interpreting mythologies, of exploring stories so that they make sense to me, and I can …well, EXPLORE them) And all too often I see people say “I’m not saying white people shouldn’t write POC” after tirades that pretty much indicate the exact opposite. It is frustrating and exhausting to know that I have to brace myself for the backlash before putting down a single word. (Maybe I’m a cart-before-the-horse person)
Anyway. Yes to what you said.
LikeLike
Yes, I read your comment after posting mine and was nodding along. Another issue is that we all end up operating within double standards, sometimes without even being aware of them (e.g. taking at face value faces that aren’t “real” in the way we want them to be).
LikeLike
It’s so tricky writing in another culture’s mythology, especially one that has been subject to stereotyping and/or contempt. I read an excerpt of a book set in an AU pre-Aryan South Asian civilization (basically Mohenjo Daro) and it bothered me that the author had given this civilization a caste system, when that was something that was emphatically thrust on them by the invading Aryans. Similarly, the recent “discovery” that the word thug originates in India gave new life to the “Kali-worshipping cult” myth that the British (and Indiana Jones movies) fueled. In both those cases, the problem for me was that people weren’t doing their due diligence. But knowing all the ins and outs of a complicated culture is hard.
LikeLike
This too, touches on authenticity being more…necessary, even within the fiction being written — it used to be you could write, for example, a book about doctors that was COMPLETELY divorced from what being a doctor really is, and people would understand it was the fantasy of doctor-ness that the writer was writing. The fantasy of living in a bygone era, without the reality of “washrooms were really just trenches alongside the walls that drained when the weather was right” interfering with that fantasy.
This might be too tangential for this conversation, but it feels to me like it’s part of a bigger… mood…(gah, that’s not the right word but I can’t think of the one that is right!) of authenticity. Perhaps it’s the availability of information? But it does seem to me like people are less willing to read these inauthentic works anymore. (I’m not entirely sure that’s a good thing, either, but that’s definitely tangential!)
LikeLike
I mostly try not to intrude in spaces where people are enjoying a fantasy about something I have knowledge or experience with. But I think that with situations like the above, what complicates things is that the fantasy world reinscribes some of the stereotypes we would prefer to see eradicated. Those stereotypes are often what people see first when they’re seeking information, and they don’t know they’re stereotypes. So the repetition isn’t intentional, but cumulatively it keeps a problematic narrative going and gives it weight.
LikeLike
I think it used to be easier to critique research and representation. But then 50 Shades hit the scene, and The Great Shame Wars began, and the line between criticizing a book and criticizing readers started to blur. And now, even when there’s no intention to criticize readers, there’s an over-sensitization that can make it more difficult to separate criticism of reader and criticism of text. However, I still think it’s important to point these research issues out, precisely because without challenge, they can so easily become accepted and replicated lore.
LikeLike
I was trying to write a reply to Sunita, when Robin’s reply came to my email. I think…I miscalculated the regurgitation of “fantasy doctors” (to continue my original example). I KNOW it’s done in history (and am perpetually stabby at the conflation of ‘fantasy history’ with ACTUAL HISTORY, particularly when it’s used to reinforce the idea women have it SO much better today than they ever did before in history when…yeah, notsomuch.) I know there’s the “historical effect” where authors who have read widely in their genre just accept the historical inaccuracies and perpetuate them, but for whatever reason, it hadn’t clicked for me how that same process perpetuates stereotypes. So, while I like the idea of ‘fantasy doctors’, my stance on them wobbles in the face of them reinforcing a stereotype ABOUT doctors. (because while it doesn’t seem to matter to me if the way a hospital is run in reality is different from in fiction…if it leads people to thinking that doctors are paperwork inept slobs, for example…yeah. Damn, I hadn’t really thought through how slippery-slope that is, and I will need to do more thinking upon it.)
LikeLike
Romland seems invested in author personas to a greater degree than many other genres, and I’ve never been able to figure out why. Is it the intimacy of the topic? The fact that we’re mostly women and we want to extend and receive trust as people (and friends), not just as professionals and their market? It’s the double-whammy of identity and authenticity. There was a recent reveal in SFF that an author had been writing under a gender-neutral penname. The author was known to be a friend of the pen-named persona, and there had even been interviews involving the two of them. But SFF readers didn’t seem outraged at all when they discovered who it was, and if they had been “taken in” by the persona (several people thought it was a woman, maybe the author’s wife), they didn’t hold that against the author.
LikeLike
This is a good point. I think you’re on to something that it’s the intimacy of the topic – but I also think it springs out of the Us Vs. Everybody Else Mentality. Romance (and fiction written for a female market in general) has been sneered at for so long – that I think it’s easy for us to build up these trust relationships within our genre of choice when other readers in other genres may not. “My job sucks, my husband and I are on the skids, my kids are misbehaving, but…..this author/other reader/blogger/reviewer/whatever ‘gets’ what I’m going through. They ‘get’ me.”
LikeLike
Oh yeah, that’s a great point, and it also helps to make sense of the drumbeat that romance writing and reading is about female empowerment (which it is sometimes, but not always). And let’s face it, romland can be a warm and welcoming place. That’s why we stick around and contribute to it.
LikeLike
I think it’s a confluence of factors, but if you look at the genesis of the Rom community, there’s an artificial intimacy between readers and authors that’s deeply entrenched. The “Dear Reader” letters in which authors are supposed to make a personal connection to their stories; the impulse to refer to authors by their first names (this STILL throws me); the way so many authors start out as readers who are active as fans, etc.
When I first came online 12+ years ago, the community was in the “criticism isn’t nice” phase, and while there may not have been such a strong presence of multiple personae, there was still a strong sense of that artificial intimacy and fan community in Romance – more emphasis on “emotional authenticity” perhaps, where readers were expected to identify personally with authors (and vice versa) through the books. Now we still have resistance coming from that direction (Hale, Rice, etc.), but we also have it coming from a more activist perspective, where authenticity has become wound up with authority issues, such that the legitimacy of a text can be accepted or rejected based on the perception of *who* the author is (whether it’s accurate or not). Which also results in over-identification of author and book in a way that can inhibit critical discussion (out of fear of saying “the wrong thing” as some have described it).
LikeLike
Oh, those reader letters, which are still going. I remember you talking about them years ago and I really didn’t understand why they bothered you so much, but I definitely get it now.
Sometimes we have these risible situations where one person’s go-to authority figure is deployed against another person’s go-to authority figure and it becomes the Authority Cage Match to see which ideological position will remain standing. It makes me want never to comment on a book, or anything, again.
LikeLike
Was that KJ Parker, by any chance, Sunita? I know that name, in particular, sort of reveled in its “who am I”-ness. People postulated theories, but the not-knowing was part of the ‘game’. I think the up-frontness of KJ Parker of being a pseudonym mitigated potential harm–people knew they were speaking to someone who was probably already known to them.
So, if you’re clearly a Performance Artist (ie: KISS — speculation about who was beneath that makeup did them well, or Lady Gaga, for example) it’s a different thing than if you’re Taylor Swift, who’s pretty out-there open about using real life as fuel for her work. Certainly, I’d hold Lemony Snickett to a different standard of Twitter experience than I don’t even know who to chose as an example here. Maybe James Frey before he was outed? A biographer?
(Then again, I came to KJ Parker very late in the game, as a quick google suggests the name was a 17-year secret, and I only came to his work…I want to say five years ago. So perhaps it didn’t start as ‘honest’ as I’m giving credit for now.)
I also know a few SFF authors who’ve said their pen name is just their pen name. It took Rachel Caine three or four before she had success as Rachel Caine, and she said she’d just sort of drop one once it was clear it wasn’t working for her. It makes me feel, at least, that SFF authors are less attached to their pen names than romance authors are…but I’d also suggest SFF is strangely behind on the whole of technology (ebooks and social media) so perhaps giving them 3 years or so to adapt will change things.
And I do think the romance community, at least as far as authors are concerned, is much more connected than others. I started in the SFF writing community and they were…less than friendly. (It seems to me this is changing, but SFF authors…you’re in once you’ve sold. To an appropriate house. For the right amount of money. Romance writers? You’re in once you pick up the pen.) So on that level — we’re pretty much hanging out at the water cooler on social media …while interacting with readers/reviewers, and it gets very hard to keep up The Brand v. The Person. I could probably be much more marketable if I acted the part of an Author People Want to Know, but then there would be a very big disconnect between me and The Author Me. (and I don’t have the energy for that)
(omg, I’m so sorry for the length and number of comments today.) This is why I normally lurk.
LikeLike
Please don’t apologize, we like long comments here!
I agree that pen names in other genres seem more uniformly acquired for practical reasons and don’t seem to have as much identity stuff attached to them. And yes, I was talking about KJ Parker, about whom I know very little (I don’t read Tom Holt either). You’re right that the obvious pen name aspect made a difference. I was just struck by the fun people had with it. Similarly, Sarah Monette adopting Katherine Addison has been very straightforward and seems clearly to have been spurred as much by publisher demands as by her own inclinations (probably more the former). Which raises another point, that pen names can be foisted upon authors, who then have to develop some kind of persona around them in order to market them. Wasn’t it Mills & Boon who required a pen name and then kept control of if if the author left the publisher, back in the day? Not unlike Hollywood requiring actors to change their names during the era of studio hegemony.
That’s what makes it so complicated to me; the structural and institutional reasons for pen names are woven together with personal choices, and it’s sometimes hard to tell what the motivation is (or why the persona is being deployed as it is).
LikeLike
I should probably just write my own post, like you, but will try not to make this tl;dr:
1. When I first found Romland (2009?) I loved it. It reminded me of an academic children’s lit listserv I was on where profs, students, librarians, teachers, writers, editors all added their different perspectives to a great, rich discussion. But slowly I realized the difference: the multiple roles/interests. Because the listserv was academic, people did not promote there (OK, some announcing of new academic books). But in Romland, some people were also there to promote. Even where people don’t have fully formed alternate personas, many have multiple roles you only gradually become aware of. My sense is that promotion has also very much increased in my Romland time as more people self-publish, etc. The Jane/Jen disclosure did feel like the culmination of a change, not an abrupt breach. I no longer take people at face value.
2. I miss the diversity of small blogs. There are some good new ones, but I don’t think they make up for the number lost as people move on to new roles–writing fiction, writing for bigger venues, etc. Some key spaces for discussion beyond reviews have disappeared or are much quieter. Big spaces,especially as they become less “pure reader” spaces, can’t make up for the quirky corners. I guess that’s kind of a tangent–except those did seem to me like voices I could trust/know. This is a different kind of authenticity, maybe; a big blog with advertising and posts on industry issues feels less authentic to me? I read the Sunita here somewhat differently from the Dear Author Sunita, not because I think either is inauthentic or that you have a persona but because the audience is different. I like blogs that feel like they are talking in a personal way to a small audience, and there seem to be fewer. And that’s partly because many people are retreating from the threats and kerfuffles to protect their reading pleasure. So the conversation becomes more impoverished and there’s less reason to join in and it’s a vicious cycle.
3. Trying for not TMI, but I’ve been slow to realize how personal my romance-reading is to me. I am pretty reserved and as sex has (it seems to me) become a bigger part of a lot of books and of the conversation about them, I have found romance harder to read. Reading about sex was part of what drew me to romance but I don’t really want to share the way I feel about that with others and I found that the talk became noise in my head that could be hard to shut out in my own personal sex life. So where reading romance had once felt sexually empowering it now feels more–intrusive? I totally get that this is a weird personal thing but the intimacy of the topic has affected me. I do not want to be thinking about the author’s Twitter feed or some online conversation about female fantasy when I’m reading a book, especially when I’m reading a sex scene. Or when I’m having sex. Romland taught me not to think of the genre as trashy or shameful but sometimes I feel I was freer when it was my dirty secret. To talk about these kinds of things does require trust and lately it’s seemed very hard to raise some topics (not just sex) without being attacked on one front or another. I don’t trust most people to engage in thoughtful discussion any more, and that has made me reluctant to blog and affected my reading pleasure.
LikeLike
1. Today we are in a world in which many romance readers who are active online have ties to people in the industry. If they’re not good friends with some authors, they beta read, or edit, or organize blog tours, or have an author-friendly (as in promoting) blog, or get a lot of their reviewed books via ARCs. None of these things are bad, and if they were all clearly disclosed, I don’t know that the conversation would change in bad ways. It would be more transparent for those who feel like they’re in the dark right now, that’s for sure. I regularly find that things I think are common knowledge are not, and that adds to people’s uncertainty.
2. DA Sunita is definitely not identical to VM Sunita or RWV Sunita, although they share a lot of characteristics. It’s not about being the same everywhere, it’s about allowing people to make the connections so that they can place your various online presences in contexts that make sense for *them*. Some people may not care that I’m connected to DA, others care a lot. It’s hard to write to a small audience when you know there are lots of blogs that have big audiences; you wonder if anyone is listening. But it’s so important that people do it, because that’s how they discover and refine their own voices. The big blogs become big because they are distinctive, and the small blogs that are valued have the same attribute, they just appeal to a smaller group. I lost a chunk of regular visitors when I switched blogs (maybe because of the DA change, maybe just because I changed blogs). But I know that I need six months at a minimum to figure out what I’m doing *here*. People will come, or not, that I can’t control. But I can control what I write.
3. I can completely understand that feeling. It’s not that it was a dirty secret, as it turns out, it’s that it was a *secret*. You got the empowerment but lost the secret part. And you’re right, talking about intimate things requires trust for some of us, and when trust is eroded we draw inward on intimate topics. In terms of blogging, I think the only thing to do is write what you want to and when the conversation isn’t great, you chalk it up to a mismatch. But there is always churn in commenters, and you have to remember the lurkers, the ones who are reading and nodding along with you whom you can’t see.
LikeLike
I’ve had multiple internet monikers / pen names over the years myself. For the most part I try to keep my real life name off the web. I took the Janine Ballard name when I joined DA and Jane and Jayne asked me to take a J-name (it was a schtick back then). Before that I posted at AAR as yahoo groups LFL and I still use that. My yahoo groups friends know I write for DA and I mention the Janine connection in my signature line at AAR, but I haven’t always. I also use LFL at a vegan cooking forum where I haven’t mentioned the DA connection because it doesn’t seem relevant over there. When I published my short story I did it under the pen name Lily Daniels for reasons having to do with the genre (it’s erotic). That’s listed in my DA bio.
I don’t know that any of these count as dual identities in my mind, but they may be that in the eyes of others. It’s certainly confusing even if it’s not my intention to mislead. But while it is true that I could have simplified and posted everything under my real name since the beginning, then I’d have to deal with real life consequences like potential stalking from Hale-like authors or family members following my online ramblings. For various reasons the latter isn’t something I want to invite. My feeling on this topic is that I’m not going to judge people for having a dual identity when I don’t know all their reasons for it.
In the early days of DA, I got the courage go public about my fiction writing from fiction writer / reviewers HelenKay Dimon, Alison Kent and Stephanie Feagan at the now defunct Paperback Reader blog. But then HelenKay Dimon posted about getting threatened by another author’s enraged husband, and Stephanie Feagan mentioned she had to close her blog do to a flame war that broke out — over her reviewing, I believe. The Paperback Reader blog has since disappeared and there aren’t many authors who review openly these days. If we want more authors to review openly, then we need to foster a climate that encourages it.
LikeLike
Janine, you’ve been a model of disclosure from the beginning, at least so far as I can tell (and I’ve known you for a while and in multiple venues, so I feel like I have grounds to say that). In fact, there were times when I thought you didn’t need to disclose your critique partners and friends every single time, but now I think overdoing is way better than not enough.
I agree with you that there are many reasons why people (not just authors, but online participants generally) choose to have multiple presences, and many of them are structurally rather than personally motivated. Monette, for example, was told she had to use a new name as a condition of publishing The Goblin Emperor. So when readers talk about her “debut” work, not knowing her Monette books, how is that her fault? The problem is that the practice of multiple personas opens the door to abuse of the system. It’s a dilemma with no easy way out. Similarly, authors reviewing will only become accepted when there are a critical mass of them who are able to buck the system and review honestly (and under their own names) without suffering blowback. And we seem to be a long way from that point.
LikeLike
I know from things people have said that my frequent disclosures can come across like name dropping or bragging about the friends I have. Also, there have been times when I’ve wondered if it would present a problem for an author friend to have it known that I’m friendly with them — would they lose their connections in the industry over it? People make it sound like disclosure is easy, but sometimes it poses difficult dilemmas. There have also been times when I’ve found the best option was to recuse myself from reviewing, rather than to disclose.
You’re absolutely right that multiple personas open the door to abuse of the system. I wish I knew what could be done about that, but it seems like that horse left the barn long ago.
After I wrote my earlier comment, I realized that of the people I know with dual personas, some have been stalked and have experienced real life consequences resulting from that. For some people it’s a choice between posting under a false identity or being silenced altogether.
“Similarly, authors reviewing will only become accepted when there are a critical mass of them who are able to buck the system and review honestly (and under their own names) without suffering blowback. And we seem to be a long way from that point.”
A very long way, yes.
LikeLike
@Dayna: (We ran out of nested comments) Yes, that’s exactly it. If you build a fantasy US/CAN/UK/EU hospital and staff it with fantasy doctors who deviate from RealDoctorWorld, people won’t readjust their ideas of RealDoctorWorld in response. But if you do that with some place and people they know much less about, it is more likely to stick as useful information. It’s not because people are racist or bigoted, but because we sort information and look for shortcuts. We tend to have lots of information about default/majority groups, so the outlier information doesn’t get used in the same way. But for less well known topics, we collect info where we can find it, and we don’t have the knowledge or experience to evaluate it.
It works the other way too, i.e., people in countries we don’t know much about who don’t know much about us do the same thing. When I was in graduate school and told people in India I lived in Chicago, they asked about Al Capone and the mob.
LikeLike
As a Canadian, I have to say it’s been eye-opening how little the rest of the world knows about my country, especially since I am (Canada is) so immersed in American (and to a lesser extent UK) media.
And the rest of your comment is almost entirely why I tend toward specfic/steampunk (when reading and writing)– because I think those genres lend themselves to examinations of culture and religion and racism and conservatism and *waves hands to include ALL THE THINGS* at a remove that both emphasizes their real-world counterparts and distances us enough from them to LOOK at them in a way that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. Incidents like 9-11 that carry so much emotional resonance…I couldn’t write about that. But about a cultural/international/religious intersection of ideals and policies that result in a catastrophic event in a world that’s not our own…that’s another thing entirely. (and I like when those genres intersect with romance, because that tends to allow for more examination of the personal/interpersonal and emotional responses to the same. Whether or not its capitalised on is…another matter).
And that’s where my original support for “fantasy doctors” came from — the idea that sometimes you need not-real in order to appreciate/examine reality. That sometimes narrative …trumps research, I guess.
LikeLike
“the idea that sometimes you need not-real in order to appreciate/examine reality.”
Fascinating point well-made for looking at historical events through a steampunk lens to give an alternate-reality twist to historical events and thereby being able to tackle those events and everything surrounding them head-on.
LikeLike
I’m WYSIWYG: what you see is what you get. You read my Twitter profile and you pretty much know what is important to me and that my name’s a pseudonym. I bring my whole, real self to the handle. If I’m talking about something on Twitter, my R/L self is also very concerned about those topics.
My only stipulations are that I do not discuss politics or politicized religion in my professional spaces, because they’re incendiary topics–I reserve those for my personal Facebook page. I have different sets of friends (with one exception) on my personal Facebook page (I have met all of them face-to-face at some point in my life) and on my professional Facebook/Twitter (I have met most of them online only).
In my non-R/L role, I am Keira Soleore everywhere with the same avatar as part of a conscious branding scheme. It is a point of integrity for me to be authentic to who I am. No part of what I tweet or blog about deviates from who I am. Now, I may not have completely disclosed all of my R/L persona–but that is the point of a pseudonym as it protects the R/L person–but whatever I have disclosed is true to me.
Taking on a whole new persona for a pseudonym sounds exhausting. And to keep up social media for the real person and the fake person must make for crazysauce. It’s also unethical in my books.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a good point about branding, and I think it’s one that many authors and other people in the industry do very successfully. And if you approach your social media presence as a professional enterprise, you may be able to avoid the over-identification that others feel. For people who come into Romland as a getaway, a hobby space, or a safe space, there can be a tendency to load meaning on to relationships and activities that can be more than the community (and other people) can support. And I count myself in that category at various times. I think it’s also why you get professionals who have reader and pro platforms, because some of them really want to be able to talk and vent and participate the way readers do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This, all of this–down to the same handle and avatar everywhere, as well as my reasons for using a screen name in the first place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been a reader, a reviewer and a blog owner (at various times and some of those more active than others) in the online romance community/ies since about 2007. I am in agreement the initial sense of solidarity (for wont of a better word) in the broader and the smaller genre (for eg, m/m and erotica) communities because ‘WE LOVE ROMANCE SO THERE’ has been impacted by a number of incidents and reveals. I have to say, though, I saw the Jane/Jen situation as just one in a long line of occurrences and nor, I am very sure, will it be the last.
One of the things that has struck me over these years has been what I view as a growing sense of entitlement in the relationship between readers/authors, etc. I don’t know whether this is due to a so-called intimacy or trust or honesty or authenticity between the two (and maybe it’s all those things and more), but I do absolutely believe this has led to a certain amount of expectation in the relationship. This varies from: if you receive an ARC you review it within a certain time period; if you blog in a sub/genre you promote everything about it including participating in blog tours; if your friendly with an author you give them a good review; to, if someone is mean to me as my fan you need to go over there and abuse the shit out of them.
Maybe I was oblivious to these expectations when I first started to be involved in the community/ies, but I do think the blurring of lines/boundaries/spaces between reader and author in particular because of social media, the need for self-promotion/marketing and the like has created a privilege and an entitlement that just wasn’t there. Increasing connections has changed the way we interact with each other in the online romance community/ies and has changed the pedestal upon which we tend to put people in authority (ie authors, large review blogs, publishing companies) on.
The pedestal is there (as it is in many authority/power dynamics), however, it is a lot more slippery than it was as a result of the fuzziness of spaces. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but at the same time I think there needs to be an awareness of the privilege and entitlement that goes along with it and I don’t think this has necessarily been examined within the romance community/ies to date.
I sometimes wonder too if the feel good, ‘it’s *sigh* romantic’ nature of the genre has meant we tend to gloss over or view the reader/author relationship through rose-coloured glasses?? I don’t know. Again, I don’t think we have necessarily looked critically at this dynamic. Do we really want to, though? Or do we just want, or expect, a happy ending?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also feel as if it’s changed, and it’s not just looking back through rose-colored glasses. As Robin said above, we seem to be circling back to the old “don’t be so critical” message, just couched in slightly different terms. Bloggers who were rah-rah for authors a decade ago are now happily hosting author promo events and blog tours, so the medium is different but the message is the same: support the genre and the authors. And sometimes authors are anointed as thought/identity leaders for the genre, and in some cases they become the objects of massive reader-crushes, which make separating the book from the creator even more difficult. I definitely get the feeling that in some sub-genres, readers have pulled back from reviewing critically because they just don’t want the grief that goes with it (from fans as much as or more than authors).
When the Jane/Jen thing was at its peak, one of the blog posts being linked and praised a lot was entitled “Our Dear Author.” The irony (for me) was that it was written by an author who rarely engaged at DA (mostly to link to it for her own posts). However much she lurked and read, she wasn’t a regular part of the conversation at the site, and even in her post she remarked that part of her loss was that she wouldn’t find potential readers there. I’m sure she was sincere in lamenting the loss of a reader-driven platform, but it seemed part of the general confounding of what authors want and what readers want.
LikeLike
Jill Sorenson just did something similar over on Wendy’s blog (after calling out people for unfollowing on Twitter), and while I understand that people feel ownership in some of the community spaces (which is a good thing – I’m not trying to criticize that), and thus understandably feel betrayed when something happens like the Jane/Jen revelation, I’m trying to understand what they think DA’s responsibility is “as a leader” — which is a position that others bestowed on the blog and on Jane, not one she sought/seeks/sees herself as having (and there sure as fuck wasn’t an election) — and what, exactly is supposed to have changed in all of a month (I frankly need way more time than that to figure out fucking anything). It was Jane’s blog long before she wrote as Jen Frederick, and it’s still her blog. That definitely hasn’t changed, and I’m not sure what they think is supposed to happen now, given that it’s HER blog, and she’s hardly over there begging people to stay.
Also, if DA and SBTB are so “corrupt,” then why the hell would anyone be looking at those two blogs for leadership to begin with? I’ve honestly never understood this “leadership” thing anyway, but I figure that’s partly because I’m authority averse and also that I view DA from the inside, so my perspective is different. But what I do know is that there are plenty of people who speak loudly and authoritatively in this community but who *most definitely* do not speak for me – isn’t that how it’s always been, for all of us? Like when was “the community” ever a united front?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right or wrong, success brings on a presumed leadership role. So while DA or SB may or may not have gone asking for that role? They inherited it by way of success.
What I expected to change? I don’t rightly know. Because honestly (and I did blog about this in a previous post) – I really don’t expect Jane to do anything. She’s going to do what she feels she should for both the blog and her writing career. People who loved DA then, and still do, will continue to visit. The tin-foil wearing hat DA-is-the-devil people – still feel that way. Status quo.
What makes me sad is those of us in the middle. Because while I totally understand why Jane wrote under the pen name and why she kept her writing a secret – I do not understand how/why any mere mention of Jen Frederick ever, EVER, made it on the blog. DA preached disclosure and the idea of reader spaces to the entire community. They made us believe in that. And it turns out? Disclosure is apparently only good for some of us and not all of us. It’s hard to not feel hoodwinked even if the intention wasn’t there.
I feel like there’s been a loss of voices in the community. Who knows? Maybe they aren’t gone. Maybe this is just a matter of blogging is dead and everybody needs to sell their soul to Facebook and/or Twitter. Or maybe people just don’t have the energy to comment on anything anymore for fear of being doxx’ed, stalked, or it erupting into a huge-a$$ flame war. I’ll be honest – I almost didn’t leave this comment. Which is telling, I think.
LikeLike
You’re absolutely right that the handful of instances when Jen Frederick’s books were featured at DA should not have happened. DA fucked up. There should have been zero instances.
Disclosure is an ongoing problem in Romland. Your disclosure page is very clear, Wendy, and you are specific about where you blog and who pays you. Many other bloggers are not. At best they’ll say something like “some sites pay me for my work.” Some people really want to know if a reviewer gets an ARC, and the FTC agrees, so that is stated by almost every reviewer. I really want to know if a blogger is cashing checks cut by a publisher. That’s less commonly specified (again, you do, and I appreciate that).
I noticed recently that there is an industry veteran who is blogging for an industry site. Nowhere in the short bio is there disclosure about the blogger’s industry history, only a brief reference to a job held years ago (not the current job, not the previous job). To put it mildly, it’s an extremely incomplete bio. The sad thing is that it’s not unusual. The structure and practices of romland create minefields for readers AND industry types. If someone’s industry/author status is made public, it can be seen as helping the industry person publicize herself. It it’s not, it’s an omission that prevents the reader from having information she might want in order to evaluate the contribution.
LikeLike
I do not understand how/why any mere mention of Jen Frederick ever, EVER, made it on the blog. DA preached disclosure and the idea of reader spaces to the entire community. They made us believe in that. And it turns out? Disclosure is apparently only good for some of us and not all of us. It’s hard to not feel hoodwinked even if the intention wasn’t there.
But who is “they”? Many times in the past month MY posts were attributed to Jane and used to punch her, as if DA is the borg. It’s not. For the most part, I can’t even tell you what my fellow bloggers are reviewing, and Jane has never told me not to write or review anything. Furthermore, I take responsibility for my words. I have always believed in disclosure. Although I have intentionally not discussed my own reactions to the revelation, in part because they’re still evolving, and because I haven’t wanted to speak out of any untempered emotion – in any direction.
What I will say, though, is that what’s changed for me most in the wake of Jane’s revelation is that I now believe that my faith in simple disclosure was pathetically naive. It was naive because so many of the responses to the revelation have convinced me that Jane could never have gained the success she did as an author while still running DA (your view may differ, but that’s been my take away), and that’s seriously fucked up. It was naive, because knowing everything I know about this community (most of which is privileged information that I will not disclose, for the same reasons Sunita cites), I should have known better. And it was naive because I finally really understand that disclosure is easiest to make and to demand by those of us who don’t really have much to lose by it, or for whom it’s not a great personal or professional risk. I haven’t yet figured out what all that means, and I get that it’s a different revelation than others have had (and it was part of a long process during which I had many different reactions and thoughts and feelings), but it’s where I am now. It’s a different kind of loss of faith than the one you describe, but the initial faith was likely built on the same illusion that Sunita describes her post.
LikeLike
Taking Sunita’s comment about clear disclosure to heart, I’ve updated the disclosure page at my blog to state that I’m paid for my writing by Heroes and Heartbreakers and was formerly paid by Dear Author.
LikeLike
I find the corruption charge infuriating. You want to call DA and SB corrupt for mixing financial interests and not being consistent and transparent, fine. But then let’s call out *everyone else* who fails consistency and transparency tests. Because there are a lot of those. *That* was the point of my post. Not that DA shouldn’t be held to account, but that holding DA to account and closing one’s eyes to transgressions all over Romland is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. It’s an institutional problem in the industry.
And as long as people are shocked, shocked that such things can happen, and as long as they kill the messengers who bring them the bad news (not talking about Jane here, but what has happened to other whistleblowers), it’s not going to get better. It’s not just about the “leadership,” whatever that is. The rank and file has to take some responsibility for the institutional problems that have emerged over the last decade. We’re supposed to be adults.
LikeLike
I just want to add to your excellent comment, Sunita, by pointing out that many of these potential conflicts require no special information to discern. Just paying attention is enough to at least provoke questions.
LikeLike
I apologize for calling out someone for unfollowing me. That wasn’t cool, you’re right. I’m embarrassed and very sincerely sorry.
LikeLike
I so agree with this Robyn. I think the romance community is bigger and broader than just our own spheres. I actually met avid romance readers a little while back who’d never heard of Dear Author. My mind boggled but then I realised that my perception of the world is very much based on my own interactions and it’s really not the same for everyone else. I think this is the case even for those who have been in Romancelandia longer than I have. We look at the people we usually talk to and it’s easy to make the mistake of thinking everyone is feeling that way.
I notice it in my Twitter stream when it comes to politics too. I tend to follow people who have similar worldviews and I have to remind myself every now and then that it’s a carefully curated and selected group and it’s actually not representative of the rest of Australia (apparently and alas).
LikeLike
Nothing profound to say: just commenting so I can follow new comments! If profundity strikes, I’ll be back 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] On Monday, Sunita posted her reaction to that post. […]
LikeLike
I’ve come late to this conversation! If I may, a few brief points, which have undoubtedly been considered, if not covered, by previous participants. My main pastures are international literary mainstream and SFF. The latter has always adjoined Romland (the protestations of “hard SF” aficionados notwithstanding), if only because “romance” has a larger meaning that encompasses sagas and lais.
— The fusion of writer/editor/reviewer/publisher roles is not new. In fact, it was close to default before the twentieth century. What is paramount is clarity, transparency and professionalism. Prominent example: Virginia Woolf.
— Noms de plume have also been traditionally customary and necessary in hostile environments (politics at all scales). However, a person who uses personae to undermine others and the domain is using the frame put there in good faith and for good reasons to power-monger. Prominent example: Requires Hate/Benjanun Sriduangkaew.
— Personally, I’ve done everything (my science, writing and editing) under my own name and a single instantly recognizable handle (Helivoy) because I want to make it plain I own all my words, even/especially when I’m told that women/ethnics/etc “don’t do X”. As one of my fictional characters says, “I never tell lies. If I did, I would have to remember them.” And, I should add, I don’t want to be blackmailable. But clearly this stance depends on personal circumstances and general environs. I wouldn’t use my own name as a satirist in a junta-held nation.
LikeLike
Hi Athena! *waves*
I think it would be a really bad outcome if pseudonyms were to be treated as suspect. People not only have the right to use them, oftentimes authors aren’t the ones making those decisions. And your point about the need for pseudonymity and protection in non-democratic regimes is a really important one. Facebook, Google+, and other platforms have made that so much more difficult, to the extent that I worry that activists will be forced to avoid necessary platforms in order to protect themselves, which then reduces their ability to communicate and act collectively.
LikeLike
Reading the comments, it occurred to me one of the relationships I didn’t mention in my early post was the one between reader and reviewer. As with the reader/author dynamic, I believe the reader/reviewer association has become increasingly loaded with expectation. This is evidenced here with the discussions about disclosure, transparency and leadership.
Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but at there same time we are having a dialogue about the roles and actions of the so-called authority figures in the online romance community/ies I think we should also be having one which critically examines the way readers view reviewers. In particular the expectations readers project on to reviewers, the reasons why these assumptions are made, and the sense of reader entitlement that comes along with it.
Robin wrote “And it was naive because I finally really understand that disclosure is easiest to make and to demand by those of us who don’t really have much to lose by it, or for whom it’s not a great personal or professional risk.”
This, to me, is the heart of what privilege is about and, like it or not, it can often be a two-way street.
LikeLike
Those are really good points, and I agree that whether or not a person, blog, or website asks for leadership, once you get it and don’t reject it, you have to at least take it into account. I think that’s what people are saying here; like Robin, it’s hard for me on the inside to see myself as being accorded any kind of leadership role, but DA as an entity was, so I’m incorporated into that. Increasingly, the internet isn’t just about being judged by your words (or pictures), but about what those words etc. get you. It probably tracks with the increased monetization of the medium as a whole, not just romland.
In thinking about Wendy’s post and the comments there and here, one of the things that occurs to me is that DA and SB were important as large, independent review sites in part *because* the landscape was becoming more and more commercialized and commodified. It’s unnerving to be left without a non-commodified space, or to have only small blogs in that space. The thing is, though, however independent I am in my writing at DA, or H&H bloggers are when writing there, I’m contributing to an author-run space, and they’re contributing to a publisher-run space. And that’s a different world than we were in when DA and SB took off.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine how much TIME it would take to maintain multiple personas. Time and effort, and keeping them straight? Totally aside from it seeming weird to me.
LikeLike
I have the same reaction as you, but I wonder if for people who enjoy it, it’s not that different from the fantasy characters they develop on the page? I really don’t know, but at least some of the people who deploy multiple personas seem to enjoy them.
LikeLike
First, the disclosure! I write historical fiction–or historical romance, depending on who you talk to–this is entirely up to readers–and TV as Donna Thorland. I write PNR as DL McDermott, because one of my publishers asked me to keep the two separate. I primarily interact online as myself, because I don’t have the time to manage two personas.
I also miss reader-driven spaces because I feel like there was a time when the conversation was much less driven by ARCs and new releases and what publishers wanted us to read and much more driven by a desire to identify themes and motifs in the genre and unpack them to figure out why they have power. To me, that was the real lure of the reader-driven blog. Those insanely long comment threads where readers brought up books you’d never heard of that shared something with the text being discussed and you ran off to try to find a copy for yourself. The thrill of tackling woman-centered narratives with the same tools normally reserved for the predominantly male cannon we were taught in school. We do that a lot less these days, but I’m not convinced that it’s because Sarah and Jane/Jen became published authors. I became a published author during the same window, and those conversations are still the kind of genre/lit/nerdery that I love to lose myself in.
I think there are other forces at work here that we’re not talking about. There’s been tremendous audience fragmentation in all areas of entertainment in the last ten years. We’re not all watching three broadcast networks anymore, and we’re not all reading the same books anymore. Ratings that would have gotten a show cancelled a decade ago now make a hit. Print runs in the mass market are half (some say 1/3) what they used to be. Not because we’re watching less television or reading less romance, but because we’re watching more channels and reading more kinds of romance. And the genres that fueled a lot of our discourse–historical and PNR–are on the wane in print (but gaining traction on television), while contemporaries of various kinds are on the rise. I’d love to join a conversation that looks at what Fifty Shades has in common with Pamela and HPs, that breaks down what kinds of plots dominate New Adult in the same way that we once did that for historicals, but so far one hasn’t emerged–or maybe it’s out there now and I just haven’t found it yet!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, so much this. It’s not dissimilar to what…. I forget his name someone that I believe Sunita linked to here who wrote about the Hugos and how when they first started it was a realistic goal for people to have read most of the books and nominate from a position of knowledge but now the genre is so broad that it’s just impossible to do that. Add in other media competing with reading – it changes the landscape.
LikeLike
And I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m just so much busier now than I was two years ago. My mom died and I got a new job, and I feel like I’m going a million miles a minute and am still behind. I’ve been working on a piece on Twilight, 50 Shades, and Transcendence for months now, and if I finish it before the end of May it will be a miracle. I definitely miss the hardcore book talk but am as guilty as anyone else in not contributing much to the conversation these days.
Re. other factors, what about the fact that NetGalley started distributing ARCs to bloggers, rather than just a narrow set of professional reviewing outlets? I think that changed the landscape a lot, too, because all of a sudden, readers were participating in the review culture in a more ‘institutional’ way. Which, on the one hand, expanded the selection of blogs, but it also connected readers to publishers and authors more directly.
LikeLike
Those are such great points. I agree that the audience has fragmented throughout entertainment areas, and the platforms have fragmented as well. When Buffy and Angel were on, for example, you originally went to the alt.tv boards to find the best conversation. The producers and actors would even show up there occasionally (and Tim Minear put an easter egg in an episode). Then TWOP showed up and some people migrated over there. Others stayed, but the change in the group made a difference to the conversation, so more people just drifted away. And that’s just one example.
There is so much discussion of TV shows and movies these days, not just in terms of like/dislike but in deconstruction of the themes, etc. But if you tweet 100 times on Age of Ultron themes (never mind actors behaving badly issues), you probably don’t have time to tweet about the latest romance you read. There are some books that garner that kind of attention, but not many (and I’m talking about attention in bookland, not overall social media attention, where clearly TV and movies dwarf everything). When I was on Twitter I muted just about every TV/movie hashtag (sorry Donna!) and still got a lot in my feed.
I also think that reviewers are affected by the requests/demands publishers quite understandably put on ARC recipients. If you take an ARC you feel obliged to review it in the release week, or at least close to that, and that both drives the conversation and takes up your reviewing/talking energy. I think we underestimate how much effort even writing a GR review takes. A decade ago you had a handful of reviews and a lot of people who’d read the book and wanted to talk. Now many of those readers will have GR, Amazon, and/or blog reviews where they’ve said what they want to say. That makes a difference to the kinds of conversations that will go on in the comments (you see it not just at blogs and review sites but also at GR reviews).
LikeLike
I’ve got to admit that I love talking SALEM on Twitter, but I was a fan of the show before I started writing for it. And I don’t blame you one bit for muting TV hashtags, but I hope that romance readers are finding their way to SALEM. I’m biased, of course, but I think that Joe Doyle as Sebastian Marburg is the sexiest TV villain since Spike from Buffy.
LikeLike
[…] Sunita on “[t]rust and secrets in Romanceland”. […]
LikeLike
Following on Willaful’s comment upthread, I’ll add that I changed my DA bio information a few weeks ago to state directly that I don’t accept ARCs and that all my reviews since January 2015 are of books I’ve acquired myself (or been given by friends/family). There was a period during which I was compensated for blogging at DA, but I’ve chosen not to accept compensation for the last couple of years (for totally personal and idiosyncratic reasons).
LikeLike
[…] post on the fracturing of the Romland online community last week, and Sunita followed it up with a second post. I don’t have anything material to add to their posts or the thoughtful […]
LikeLike