I’ve spent enough time in Romlandia to see that there are kerfuffles that seem huge and all-consuming but then, after all the ink is spilled and spleen is vented, they’re quickly forgotten. And then there are things like the Big Reveal Jane Litte dropped last week. The effects of that little revelation keep spreading, and I suspect we haven’t heard the last of it yet.
As someone who has observed, participated in, and written about books and this community for years, my first instinct was to dive right in, and start reporting with a timeline. But my gut kept telling me to stop and weigh my words a bit. A mentor I’ve long trusted always told me to listen to the gut and I’m glad I did this time.
My first reaction on hearing Jane’s news was, “Okay, good for her,” but then more facts started coming out. And as I tried to put together all the facts, I started to see problems. And I’m not the only one.
Right out of the gate, Wendy the Superlibrarian put words to the vague unease that settled over me soon after the announcement, and I found her blog enlightening. In it, Wendy indicates that the whole affair “looks squirky.” It does indeed.
And the more I think about it, the more I’m bothered by the lack of disclosure. As reviewers, we work hard to build up a position of trust with readers. I know that Jane isn’t the first blogger to get a book deal but there’s something different about this one. Given that she wants to keep her blog going while also writing her books, I can understand wanting to keep identities separate.
What I’m less understanding about are some of the apparent conflicts of interest that others have noted, including those that Sarah from Smart Bitches addressed in a Q&A with Dabney Grinnan from this site. If you haven’t seen Sarah’s words, they’re well worth a read. I say that not because one of my colleagues interviewed her, but because I do think she has been courageous and open in facing up to what she knew and how she handled it.
The Ethical Issues
And the ethical issues?
For instance, Jane (who obviously knew full well that she was also Jen Frederick) decided to give her author persona some publicity by having “Jen” donate a Kindle Fire to DABWAHA. I would expect participants thought someone other than Jane herself had donated the prize. The sponsorship/donation does look more than a little bit misleading.
And then there’s the issue of the guest post recommending one of Jen Frederick’s books. I don’t know for certain and to my knowledge the post’s author hasn’t said anything on the subject, but I do doubt that the guest poster knew Jane Litte/Jen Frederick were the same person. However, again this is a situation where Jane would have obviously known and yet she ran the item anyway.
Then there’s the column written by Kati, a regular reviewer at Dear Author. In listing one of Jen Frederick’s books as a best read of the year on Dear Author, Kati did disclose that she beta read for Jen Frederick, but nowhere did she mention that Jen Frederick and Jane Litte were the same person. I haven’t seen any public comment from Kati as to whether she knew Jen Frederick was also Jane Litte, so it’s unclear that she knew she was recommending a book written by the site owner at the time she wrote the column. The more trusting part of me hopes that maybe she didn’t know the two were the same, but even so, we get back to the ownership problem. Jane owns the blog and ultimately, it’s problematic that she ran the column without addressing the ethical issue.
And speaking of addressing issues, the daily deals go out under Jane’s byline, so one can presume she knew she was pushing her own book by posting it in this column. And that she did so without disclosing that she was urging readers to go buy her own book definitely looks problematic.
Do I think that authors always need to publicly disclose their private lives or even other pseudonyms? Not necessarily. One can write books and still have some privacy, and it’s certainly not unheard of for authors to use more than one name or even to review pseudonymously. However, when one operates a reader-focused blog which runs articles advocating for transparency and ethical reviewing, readers expect that the bloggers will be open and honest with them. If Jane Litte decided to write books under another name, fine. However, doing things such as using one of her own reviewers as a beta reader and promoting the books on the blog without disclosure of their true authorship robs the blog readers of the chance to make an informed decision.
And under those circumstances, it’s not surprising that some readers feel betrayed. After all, the community at that site trusted Dear Author to be a reader space and it turned out that things weren’t entirely as they appeared. Azteclady captures that sense of betrayal (and a good deal of the timeline) here, and like her, I suspect more than a few in the community are in a place of being “angry and extremely sad at the loss of that trust.”
Do I think bloggers shouldn’t also be authors? No. However, I do think they need to be up front about it with their readers. For instance, longtime readers at AAR probably know that former reviewers Marianne Stillings and Megan Frampton, among others, went on to publish books. They actually wrote about the experience here on the site. We’ve reviewed them since, but we do have a policy in place whereby if a reviewer publishes books, then we don’t review that author for at least 3 years(used to be 2 years) and after that time, only reviewers who never worked at AAR with the author in question do any reviewing.
I say this not to toot our own horn, but just to give an example. Balancing the interests of author, reviewer and reader is difficult and this is just one way of doing it. I’m sure other sites have dealt with the same issue and have their own protections in place. The larger effect of what has been happening with Jane Litte/Jen Frederick didn’t occur because of any one act. As you can see from the examples, it was a lot of little decisions that brought things to the point where, taken together, the cumulative effect just does not look right.
The Author Loops Issue
Probably the most controversial of these decisions would be that of Jane/Jen to participate on confidential author loops. These loops are understood to be author-only spaces. And when Jen Frederick started participating, authors thought they were dealing with author Jen Frederick. They had no idea they were also dealing with blogger Jane Litte.
I first learned of Jane/Jen’s presence on the author loops via The Passive Voice and in the article posted by the anonymous author, a sense of betrayal comes through clearly.
Folks on those loops had a certain expectation regarding with whom they thought they were dealing. I’ve never been on the loops, but from the descriptions given by authors I’ve spoken with at conferences, one gets the distinct sense that they are spaces for writers to blow off steam, share news and encourage each other. In short, they can speak freely in a way that they probably wouldn’t if they knew reviewers, publishers or the public was reading along.
Because of this, the idea that Jane/Jen held herself out only as Jen Frederick on author loops and let authors take her at face value just doesn’t sit right with me. When I try to put myself in the shoes of the authors, I can understand the anger and sadness I’ve been reading around the web. This comment from Bree is a particularly heartbreaking example of what’s been floating around out there.
And then there’s the other unintended consequence of all this that Courtney Milan outlines in detail at Comment #210 over at Smart Bitches. That’s right. By playing author Jen Frederick over on the author loops, it appears that other people’s communications may possibly become open for review by the parties to the Ellora’s Cave lawsuit in ways never intended by anyone posting there. I am not a defamation/libel attorney, so I don’t want to play libel expert on the internet, but I do find Milan’s analysis sobering reading.
One Last Issue
So yes, I definitely have a problem with how Jane/Jen handled matters. And there’s one last thing that bugs me that I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere – Doesn’t the timing on Jane/Jen’s announcement seem awfully convenient?
I do know that civil lawsuits can drag on for quite some time. The discovery process alone sometimes months. In her Big Reveal, Jane states that she is making the decision to disclose her Jen Frederick penname because of the Ellora’s Cave lawsuit. Fair enough. I haven’t seen the discovery-related documents exchanged by the parties to the lawsuit, but I could see where this might happen. However, I can’t help wondering why she chose now as disclosure time.
I’m not a huge believer in coincidences. And doesn’t it seem like a mighty convenient accident of fate that Jane/Jen would feel compelled to make her authorship disclosure right before her back to back April and May Jen Frederick book releases? I’m certainly not privy to any factual knowledge there, but yeah, something doesn’t smell quite right to me either.
Oh and since I’ve been speaking of full disclosure: All About Romance isn’t my only writing gig ever. At my old job, I wrote a couple of articles on scintillating topics such as ethical issues the arise when representing a client with diminished capacity. As I already told a fellow blogger privately, I can promise you that you won’t see those ever promoted on AAR, not even as sleep aids.
– Lynn Spencer
Author’s Note: Also in the interests of full disclosure, for those who are not already aware, Dabney Grinnan of this site was a past reviewer at Dear Author from January 2012 through September 2013. However, she did not co-write this piece nor has she provided any information about Dear Author.
I enjoy spending as much time as I can between the covers of a book, traveling through time and around the world. When I'm not having adventures with fictional characters, I'm an attorney in Virginia and I love just hanging out with my husband, little man, and the cat who rules our house.
Are you going to dredge this up every time Jen Fredericks publishes a new book? If you have a problem with Jane/Jen…..don’t review her books!
No, just this first time. We wanted to make it clear we understood the concerns many of our readers have around this issue.
I like DA. I’m glad it exists. It doesn’t review books I want to read – I only get books tangentially from there through other readers. I’m also glad Jane wrote her books, (more books, only good) though they don’t sound like my sort of thing either.
I did contribute to GoFundMe because I thought it was important, not so much to financially contribute, but to register my support for Jane. I’m almost sure I’d have done so even if I’d known about Jen/Jane, but I’d have thought through the issues differently. I was contributing to a hobbyist, a reader, a one-of-us, not an industry professional.
It makes sense to me that as an outsider to any industry (as I, as a reader, am to the publishing industry) would be very careful before aligning themselves to one side or another in a lawsuit between two people who both worked in that industry. I’d have looked to see if the situation was complicated by commercial considerations.
So I think before accepting any money, it would have been best practice to explain the situation. But that’s with hindsight, and I know at the time people were clamoring to contribute, and my gut feeling is that there probably wasn’t anything shady about it.
Azteclady, I agree with the points you made regarding DA comments policy and direction and the Ellora’s Cave lawsuit. Blackjack1, your points about what constitutes a useful review are spot on. I also agree with your approach of reading multiple reviews if possible. I have found that some reviewers have the same tastes in books as I do and some don’t so I give more credence to reviews from those reviewers who I know look for the same things in “”a good read”” as I do. In addition reading reviews allows us to avoid particular tropes eg “”the big misunderstanding””, situations eg sexual violence or character types we dislike eg I have grown to intensely dislike TSTL heroines and Alphahole heroes.
Bronte, you sum up my experience and thoughts in your comments. I haven’t read a Jen Fredericks book because I’m not really into NA but like you I’ve bought books recommended by reviewers I like and been disappointed e.g I’ve read one Eloisa James and thought it was ok but not as good as the hype. I will read the reviews of her other books and give another of her books a try before I make up my mind whether I want to read her backlist. Whether she ends up an occasional read, an autobuy or avoid buy author for me, I appreciate that a reviewer drew her to my attention. I can’t remember what reviewer sparked my interest to try a few urban fantasy/ paranormal authors but I am so glad I tried all the authors various reviewers recommended: Ilona Andrews, Jennifer Ashley, Kerri Arthur, Kelley Armstrong, Kresley Cole, Laurell k. Hamilton, Patricia Briggs, Carrie Vaughan etc and some are now auto buys for me, some are occasional buys and some (probably those whose names I’ve forgotten ) are never buy agains. In summary, I look to sites like DA, AAR, SBTB, WSL etc to keep me up to date with new books coming out, news in the world of reading, publishing and romance, plenty of reviews and blog commentary to get me thinking. I prefer sites to declare any financial /pecuniary interests and friendship/ collegial ties but in general I have found it is a mistake to only rely on one site or one reviewer. I hope all sites dedicated to our interest in reading and romance continue to prosper.
Jane is an attorney and she knows that everything comes out in a deposition. Since depositions are akin to fishing expeditions, Jane has known since the lawsuit was filed last fall that it was only a matter of time before her Jen Frederick pen name would be revealed. She hasn’t really offered a good explanation as to why she waited until AFTER the deposition to publicly announce it. As others have noted, she could have done so when the conflicts of interest first began to have an effect on the running DA, but for whatever reason, she delayed.
I also agree that Jane’s statement didn’t really go far enough. There isn’t any acknowledgment that the site is far tougher on the transparency of others than the people involved at DA. This is a problem because Jane is very vocal about the need of transparency in others and has used the site to fight this battle. It’s as if DA is waiting out the storm and then it’s business as usual. Unfortunately, when you take on the mantle of keeping authors/publishers honest, you have to be extra vigilant in making sure you’re adhering to transparency. DA would have lambasted anyone else that did this and the commenters would have supported the position.
As noted above, the closed author loops are also troubling. Jane knows that several authors have blocked her, especially after the Romfail hashtag controversy on Twitter, so it’s very weak when she states that she doesn’t keep track of things like this. By using a new identity, Jane took away another person’s choice on whether or not to interact with her. She knew the full picture about any prior hard feelings, but the authors on the closed loops didn’t have the same requisite knowledge.
Jane/Jen also blurred the line on friendships. Bloggers such as Holly at the Book Binge said they were friendly with Jane over the years, saw each other at conferences and exchanged emails. They were then approached by email by Jen, developed a friendly relationship with her and were never informed that Jen was also Jane. There is something troubling about this and hopefully Jane has reached out to these people with a better explanation.
Finally, for the last few years there has been a change in the reviews at DA. I thought it was because Jane liked reading NA and motorcycle romances, so the emphasis was now on these type of books. I used to go to DA as the go-to place for historical and contemporary reviews, but these books no longer seem a priority. Now we learn that the shift isn’t only because Jane is a fan of NA, but perhaps because Jen also writes in NA. This might be totally coincidental, but because of the lack of transparency, there is an appearance problem.
I agree about the selection of books reviewed. I read historical romances primarily and DA’s reviews do not seem focused much on them now. As a result, I don’t think I’m their target audience, and so I do not go to their site as much anymore.
This.
Another one in the couldn’t care less camp. I bought a Jen Frederick book that was advertised in the daily deals. It was ok. Didn’t buy another single title from her because I while it was ok I wasn’t going to pay more than 99c for it. Do I begrude that? No. There are reviewers that I agree with and those I don’t. Some are hit and miss. For example I bought Tessa Bailey’s book “”Chase me”” on Dabney’s recommendation. Spent $3 on it. Couldn’t get more than a 1/3rd of the way through. Do I blame her? No. I lived and I learned. I thought the review sounded fun and bought it based on that. My point is you can be biased or unbiased in your review and it still doesn’t mean someone is going to ultimately enjoy the book.
I also didn’t contribute to the go fund me. She could have been richer than sin just with her background in law. My sister’s a senior associate and I know what she makes. Jane Litte could have been a partner for all I know or care. She could have inherited a million dollars from her parents. I don’t know and I don’t particularly care. Either you thought the case had merit and you wanted to contribute to the free speech clause or you decided you didn’t want to. Simple as that. Authors cry poor all the time so I don’t see why having an additional source of income makes a difference in this story. The author loops are slightly different in my opinion. I can understand why people are upset about that however the cynical part of me wants to say “”its the internet, have none of you heard that people lie on the internet? Or do you believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny as well?””
My decision is to continue to read DA. Its just like here in that I don’t always agree with the reviews, I take what’s written with a grain of salt and at the end of the day funnily enough, I believe I am intelligent enough to make up my own mind about what merit a review of a recommendation has. Funny that.
I agree with your post. I’ve sort of followed the threads about DA and still find it to be mostly insider politics that don’t really affect me as a leisure reader of romances and romance reviews. I do regularly read reviews and look for a reviewer’s opinion, but more importantly, I’m looking for review that are intelligently written and that substantiate opinions with evidence from the texts they are reviewing. I may even read multiple reviews of a book before deciding to buy and read any given book. I expect bias in all writing and use my critical thinking skills to assess and come to my own determinations. I hold all reviews accountable to the same degree, here at AAR and elsewhere. Nothing I’ve read yet changes how I come to buying decisions.
I come at this as a reader, too, but I dont reach the same conclusion. I lurk and very occasionally comment at a number of sites and like youall, I read more than 1 review before I pick a book to buy.
There are things here at AAr I agree with and things I disagree with, and I’d say that about any site I visit. However, the DA thing is just different to me. It’s one thing to post reviews that a reader might or might not agree with but I think that when you start hiding your relation to the books you’re featuring, then you’re doing something more than just reviewing. I didn’t buy any JenFred books but the whole thing makes me feel a little used.
Still not sure whether I’ll read there again or not. But for now, I can’t trust.
I guess for me I expect bias, and bias might well include a reviewer knowing or even befriending an author and perhaps giving a inflated review of a book. Given all of that, I still expect a reviewer to prove to me through their writing why they have assigned a grade and then the burden is on me to determine the validity. I also read multiple reviews of any one book and so if something is off, I might detect it elsewhere. I think though this blog here might do a public service and alert readers to proceed with caution when using DA. I feel that I already do and so in that sense, I doubt it affects me much.
Another one in the couldn’t care less camp. I bought a Jen Frederick book that was advertised in the daily deals. It was ok. Didn’t buy another single title from her because I while it was ok I wasn’t going to pay more than 99c for it. Do I begrude that? No. There are reviewers that I agree with and those I don’t. Some are hit and miss. For example I bought Tessa Bailey’s book “”Chase me”” on Dabney’s recommendation. Spent $3 on it. Couldn’t get more than a 1/3rd of the way through. Do I blame her? No. I lived and I learned. I thought the review sounded fun and bought it based on that. My point is you can be biased or unbiased in your review and it still doesn’t mean someone is going to ultimately enjoy the book.
I also didn’t contribute to the go fund me. She could have been richer than sin just with her background in law. My sister’s a senior associate and I know what she makes. Jane Litte could have been a partner for all I know or care. She could have inherited a million dollars from her parents. I don’t know and I don’t particularly care. Either you thought the case had merit and you wanted to contribute to the free speech clause or you decided you didn’t want to. Simple as that. Authors cry poor all the time so I don’t see why having an additional source of income makes a difference in this story. The author loops are slightly different in my opinion. I can understand why people are upset about that however the cynical part of me wants to say “”its the internet, have none of you heard that people lie on the internet? Or do you believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny as well?””
My decision is to continue to read DA. Its just like here in that I don’t always agree with the reviews, I take what’s written with a grain of salt and at the end of the day funnily enough, I believe I am intelligent enough to make up my own mind about what merit a review of a recommendation has. Funny that.
I’m with you in not believing in coincidences. It’s just too many “”mistakes”” that all somehow work out in Jane’s favor for me to believe in coincidences or good intentions.
I’m also stuck on how many people knew. Jane said that she contacted 200 bloggers as part of her marketing strategy. How many of them did she reveal her identity to? I know of a couple, and while probably not all of them I’m sure she told a good number. Which makes her claim that her reason for not disclosing was because she wanted to keep her writing career separate from DA a flat-out lie. She used her connections as Jane Litte to get an it. How many bloggers respond to random review requests from completely unknown self-pub authors?
allegedly ,i found she sneaky,she like a spy. ironic since they are so big in romances. not very smart ,human mmmmm, not exactly that nice . too bad she didnt disclose when she went after them people back then, that too early nah. who knows how long she would have kept this charade up? what she doing in private loop s thingy. spying was it? what was she up to exactly?
The question on a loop in my mind now is, who knew what, when?
Yes, it’s none of my business, but not knowing the answer means that now I’m giving an ever widening circle of people the side eye, because they had/have closer contact with Jane Litte than I for the time period in question.
So the problem here is not just that I will have trouble trusting most of what Jane Litte says, anywhere, but that will also have trouble trusting people I’ve ‘known’ online for just as long.
And I’m sure there are plenty of people out there wondering about me as well.
“”We are not the Borg”” was the huffy response of some of the other contributors to DA when commenters discussed how the JaneLittle/Jen Frederick secret has impacted the site’s reliability overall. It was the most disappointing and inadequate response I could think of, all the more since there has been not a single follow-up post to Jane Litte’s original revelation. The minimum they could have done is face up to a similar Q&A for each contributor as Sarah Wendell did at SBTB. Yes, many would probably have roasted them, but a Q&A might nevertheless serve as a start to making amends. Badly handled, DA. Very badly handled.
When DA changed the comment policy (and later when the template changed) I was very vocal saying that it is Jane/Jen’s site. She doesn’t owe anyone else anything–even her co-bloggers. By the same token, we owe nothing.
I hope she prevails in the lawsuit–I’ve said everywhere that I believe what Jane Litte wrote in The Curious Case of Ellora’s Cave blogpost was more than substantially true, and therefore there is no defamation–but otherwise, I now know better where that blog stands.
Or doesn’t.
I agree. I wish the people involved would just do as Sarah has done and own up. I respected her for it. And I’m finding that because some people haven’t connected one way or the other it’s making me give them the side eye more than it would just knowing one way or the other. Like Meljean Brook, I adore her books, and I doubt that’ll change knowing she knew. But because there’s been no statement, I keep fretting. Same for the other posters at DA. Though that’s a little less personal because to me, they kind of are the Borg.
I am an author and a blogger and also ran a site (HeroesandHeartbreakers.com) until a few weeks ago (and as Lynne mentioned, I reviewed for AAR eons ago*, and then quit writing reviews when it seemed my author career was going somewhere). For me, I have always been strict about my transparency, and H&H–while it did cover my books–did not offer me preferential treatment, and we ran a disclaimer when we did cover something I wrote.
At first I thought it was pretty cool Jane had been able to publish under another name and had considerable success. Then, as more of the deception was revealed, I grew increasingly uncomfortable with it. As I said elsewhere, I don’t think there would have been any time Jane could have revealed herself without some backlash. But I think doing it earlier than this would have been advisable.
I wish I didn’t know how many people were in on this secret before the big reveal–it feels as though it was a conspiracy to keep it quiet, and that makes me uncomfortable. I bet there are more people than have piped up to say, “”Hey, I knew too”” than have done so already. It makes it feel even more like a Cool Kids Clique than it did before.
I very much have a problem with her joining groups that would not have allowed her to join if they knew who she was. In my case, when I joined the Avon Authors Loop, I was very clear about who I was and what I did.
I also very much have an issue with the hypocrisy of the AJH situation while also being an author writing about books on a site without disclosing. “”Do as I say, not as I do”” was applied here. If DA was less of a ‘transparency over all’ site I wouldn’t take as much issue.
I don’t know, I feel as though our admittedly tiny insular intersection of the romance genre and the internet have been betrayed. I feel like a chump and as though I shouldn’t trust people when they say things.
I am certain my thoughts on all of this will change, which is why I am reluctant to plant my flag in Opinion-land. But this is what I feel right now.
*Fun fact: I gave Sabrina Jeffries a B- on a book and the Liz Maverick contribution to an anthology a D-, I believe. Those two ladies are two of my closest friends now.
Retired lawyer here. Obviously this is speculation, but the timing works. I don’t believe the revelation was timed for Jen Frederick’s new books; I know, from Sarah’s comments on the podcast, that Jane was deposed (as in asked questions under oath) in the EC litigation the Saturday before the big reveal. It is my belief/assumption that she had to reveal her identity as Jen Frederick in that deposition and realizes that EC will use it in the litigation. Depositions are not usually filed with the court and made public; all that paper would get overwhelming, so judges usually order parties not to file them unless the judge orders otherwise. But this is too juicy a piece of information for EC not to use. Which leads me to another point about the GoFundMe campaign. In addition to the people for whom the knowledge that Jane had another successful career would have killed the impulse to contribute, this is all going to muddy the water in the defamation case, inevitably leading to more protracted litigation than would otherwise be the case. Who is bearing the burden of that? It can be argued (and I would argue) that since it’s Jane’s decisions that put her and DA in that position, Jane and Jane alone should bear those costs. It’s possible some of her friends and supporters would feel differently about that, but I’m not sure the GoFundMe campaign should be expected to pay more because of her mistakes. Not only has Jane been revealed as a hypocrite who applied much tougher standards to others like AJH/Alexis Hall — who, from what he shared with me, had told Jane about his pending contract/publication/whatever, which Jane, for whatever reason, decided not to disclose to DA readership at large but use to boot him off the site, and who of all the reviewer/writers on the site analyzed books from a more similar perspective to mine and was more helpful to me than any of the others (though Willaful came close) — she has been revealed as someone who does not live up to the rules regarding conflicts of interest applicable to law practice when the events occur outside of her law practice. If she had a secret connection to an entity adverse to her own client (the most analogous situation to this one) that she failed to disclosed and get her client to waive, not only would the client or court boot her off the case but she might well face other consequences. If I were her defamation attorney, I would not be pleased at this news. Given the terrible position in which she put Sarah Wendell (and, depending on what she knew about who she was beta reading for, Kati as well), I would also not be happy with her as a friend. (I do not believe Jane would have listened to anyone’s qualms about her behavior had anyone tried to call her on it.) Also, I had a Twitter convo with Milan over the discovery issue, and she is absolutely right. I’d forgotten that discovery is not limited to that which supports the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery, but to “”nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense—including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.”” Fed. Rule of Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1). Author loops are not privileged information. In fact, this whole things raises the question whether Jane wrote the article because of information she was privy to on author loops. Then there are the logrolling issues with respect to Meljean Brook, which are important because disclosure would have solved those, too. (For the record, I consider Jane’s reviews to have integrity and for her appreciation of Brook to have nothing much to do with the coverage Brook got — I think Brook got that on her own merits — but now that’s open to question.) In closing, as I said on Twitter today, Jane did about everything wrong that one could in this regard. As I said on Twitter last week in connection with her choice to keep her author persona under wraps, while understandable, by doing so she elevated her own interests above those of her blog’s readers. Despite all that, I’m not going to avoid the site — it’s too useful as a source of information about what’s going on in publishing and new romance… Read more »
The AJH thing was bizarre. It wasn’t like it was a secret that he was a soon-to-be published author. There was a massive promo campaign for him on twitter, with his editor and bloggers who had read the ARC constantly talking about it several months before publication. There was also some snark about DA doing author promo under the guise of “”man new to the genre writes reviews.”” Everyone knew what was up, so that yellow box of shame implying that AJH having a book coming out soon was new information to Jane was eye-brow raising.
It’s interesting how we all read things differently.
First, as I am not on twitter, AJH’s status as an author (published or not) was news to me. But reading the first paragraph of the yellow box of shame:
it reads to me that Jane/Jen admits to knowing about his author’s status from the get go and deciding to go ahead regardless.
Of course, the rest of the text there is…well, baffling, in light of recent events. Quid pro quo, indeed.
You’re right. I misremembered that. Reading it again it’s even weirder to me, though. So, she knew from the beginning, worried about conflicts of interest, and then waited several months and reviews later before disclosing in a way that shifts blame from her to AJH.
Exactly. Weird to hell and back.
well here’s what I know for sure, and I hope you’ll understand that to be more specific would be to upset people who don’t want any more drama.
I’m a member of a very large group, which can be discovered easily with a Google search, and isn’t a group that a reader would be particularly interested in. A “”how to write and get published,”” if you like. You have to join and be approved in order to see the posts.
If the owners had known that Jen was Jane, she would not have been allowed there. Things have been said on that forum about the blogs. They had no idea that Jen was Jane. People had felt safe on that forum, and while most people know to moderate what they say, especially on huge forums like that, newbies might not have done.
Now the owners are furious, and the members no longer feel safe. As soon as she made her big announcement, Jen was ejected, but it was a shock, especially when for so long Jane has advocated transparency.
When you say “”ejected”” do you mean she’s now blocked? I’m curious as to how that was handled.
Yes, Jen/Jane was unsubbed and blocked.
Just curious/nosy: is it one of those loops that a current member has to vouch for a new author? And if so, did the author(s) who recommended her also get blocked?
Not sure on that one. The group I cited wasn’t the only one, though.
I think that was a different, much smaller author loop. I don’t know how they handled the situation, but I do know that this whole thing, and especially an author vouching for Jane/Jen to get her onto a loop to which she would have normally not been admitted, has had a ripple effect across various different author groups. It has really shaken up the community.
One thing I always loved about romance authors is how very welcoming they are to newbie authors and how very willing established authors are to help others. Jane/Jen’s duplicity has dealt this community spirit a considerable blow, and I fear many authors will not only be a lot more careful about what they say on loops, but probably also much less willing to help along new authors. And that’s another thing that really makes me furious about this whole affair.
If at any point after the release of her first Jen Frederick book, Jane Litte had said, “”I am also an author”” and then truly and absolutely not promoted her books at Dear Author–either in a sales post, a guest post or a ‘best of’ list by one of her own reviewers/beta readers.
If she had not interviewed her co-author and promoted their collaboration in the podcast with Sarah.
If she had said, “”This author has designed covers for my books, so I cannot interview her or review her books, so I’ve asked someone outside of Dear Author to do so.””
If she had said any of those things, many of the readers who are upset by this would have a helluva lot less cause to be upset and feel betrayed.
As far as joining authors’ loops, I’m still puzzling why she even felt it was necessary for her to do so. She had Jessica Clare/Jessica Sims/Jill Myles encouragement and help, and several years of close friendship with Angela James, and I’m sure there have been hundreds of authors who have written to her (as Jane Litte) about the trials and tribulations of publishing, both with a company and on their own.
But, once she decided she needed/wanted to join those loops? She absolutely could have said, “”I’m also a well known blogger”” and let people decide whether or not they wanted her to be part of each loop, and what to say there once she did become a member.
The co-author podcast interview – I knew I’d forgotten something!
And seriously, it’s just now striking me how sad it is that there are so many conflicts involved in this controversy that it can be hard to remember them all.
There’s also the fact that Meljean Brook posted in summer 2013 that she did the covers for her friend Jen Frederick, which makes the first two words of this post by Jane kind of interesting.
But that’s none of my business.
It gets really sticky on this stuff, the more that comes to light. Because you can’t know what the other person knew. It makes me feel miserable, and I’m only tangentially affected. I can’t imagine how people more invested must feel.
This! Yes! So glad you mentioned AJH. He wrote some very funny, spot on reviews. Loved them and was sad when he was forced out. I remember the honking big disclaimer (was it highlighted in yellow?) that she put up before his review.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Jane Litte is a HUGE hypocrite. I guess I am startled she’s been so blatant about it.
Maybe it’s because we’re entering into a new presidential election cycle, but political cliches are the way that I’m processing a story that has more legs than a centipede.
First, the Watergate hearings. The question that still resonates decades later, “”When did you know.”” That’s what I want to ask author/cover designers and bloggers/beta readers et al. It’s disconcerting to say the least, not that friends don’t help friends, but that the strands of promotion and persuasion are inevitably woven together–even if it’s just in an onlooker’s mind. Sort of the opposite of Caesar’s wife.
Second, the senior George Bush who was accused of (as I recall) being born on 3rd base and thinking he’d hit a triple. I definitely feel the reach and admiration many feel for the good things provided by DA is being used to tamp down criticism–we’re being asked to extend understanding to Jane’s unique circumstances.
Lastly Clinton–the cover-up was more of a problem (not interested in re-visiting the situation, making an analogy) than the situation. I agree w/Bookbinge and others who said a much earlier revelation might have had some blowback but nothing like this.
I doubt this will ever be “”water under the bridge”” because there’s too great a contrast between do as I say, not what I do.
I’m not an author, blogger, etc.–just a casual reader of the reviews posted on DA. So while I get how many folks feel betrayed in this situation, I’m not that invested.
But…I remember when Alexis Hall (AJH) began reviewing on DA. I loved his reviews. He quite cleverly reviewed a lot of “”classic”” romances recommended by various and sundry folks. And then one day, there was apparently a kerfuffle, and he was (it seemed to me) abruptly banished from DA’s string of reviewers. I searched in vain for discussions, a blog, something that explained what he had done that was so egregious that he was no longer welcome as a DA reviewer (because “”no longer welcome”” is the way it came across to me).
I take it Hall was “”outed”” as being an author, or about-to-be author. (I believe he was just getting ready to publish Glitterland?) As best I can tell from the scant info that was posted about the situation, his transgression was that he had not disclosed that he was an author while he reviewed books on DA. At the time, I thought that being dismissed over this was silly, because AJH was pretty much reviewing romance “”classics””. I didn’t think–even if he was an author, as it turned out–he posted anything improper or reeking of “”conflict of interest””on DA.
Anyway, for me, the idea of Jane getting on her high horse about lack of disclosure, etc., when she herself was not disclosing, is unsettling, to say the least.
I don’t have much to say about Jane/Jen, but imagine if I’d done what she did. The folks currently defending her good intentions would be roasting me alive.
So it goes.
That thought occurred to me, too. Not with regard to you specifically, but just with other bloggers in general.
All she had to do was be up front and honest! Seriously, why is that so hard? Is there such a thing as an honest review or am I just being naive? I had stopped reading their essays and letters a long time ago (too pc for my taste and poorly written) but I always trusted their reviews. Now I don’t and I probably won’t read them anymore. I feel sad.
How many times have I seen authors lambasted, raked over the coals, excoriated by Jane Litte and her bloggers for just such misleading practices? She’s been such an outstanding advocate for honesty in reviewing practices and disclosure of conflicts of interests. She really has lost moral credibility with me.
Disclosure: I’m an author and a blogger. All under my own name. I am/was an ex-Ellora’s Cave author, although I made the decision to ask for my rights back well before the Dear Author column, and at the time it was a commercial decision. I do have one pseudonym. If I was ever outed, it would cause me no embarrassment, just a little inconvenience. I don’t post anonymous comments, but I can totally understand why people did so in this case.
Right from the start when I began reviewing over at The Good, The Bad and The Unread, I said I would not review books that were published by the same line that I was published with, and I wouldn’t review author friends without disclosing the fact upfront. In various arenas, I explained that “”it kept me honest,”” in other words, I wouldn’t be tempted to let my worlds collide in any way.
More importantly, it meant that the readers knew where I was coming from, what my biases were. They could make appropriate adjustments. For instance, I like my historical romances to have history in them. As a result, I’ve had to back up some of the more unusual aspects in some of the historicals I write. I can only say that attitude has helped me, rather than hindered.
I still review occasionally for “”Heroes and Heartbreakers,”” but I spend more time there talking about other things, like TV shipping. But if people read my reviews, they know what I like and what I don’t like. They can take my reading tastes into consideration.
The Dear Author approach is, therefore, deeply problematic to me. It makes a lot of the reviews worthless (to me). I unsubbed last week, and I don’t miss it at all. It was then I realised that it was partly because of the emphasis on Young Adult and New Adult, which I don’t read.
One interesting tidbit. In the early days, Dear Author reviewed quite a lot of my books, most of them favourably. As soon as I signed with Ellora’s Cave, they stopped reviewing anything I wrote, from any publisher (I’ve always written for more than one). Now for all I know the reviewer who liked my books left, or they didn’t like the books I was writing, and I’m sure that’s what they’d say.
I knew you reviewed for The Good, The Bad and the Unread, and since everything was under one name, I’ve always felt like to a certain degree I know who I’m dealing with when I read reviews there.
Re: your tidbit – that is interesting!