Dear Author/Jane Litte/Jen Frederick

Captcha · Mar 26, 2015

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I've just been quietly stewing for a while but I'm not getting anywhere on my own, so I thought I'd raise the topic here and see if anyone else is similarly confuddled.

For background...

Jane Litte, the owner of the Dear Author review blog, has told the world that she is also Jen Frederick, bestselling (apparently) romance author.

Her post is: http://dearauthor.com/misc/a-letter-to-the-da-readership/

Litte is known for being occasionally acerbic and pulling no punches in a variety of milieus. She has used the Dear Author blog to write exposes of various goings-on in the publishing industry, including quite a few based on authors behaving badly. DA is a pretty big operation with quite a few people writing for it, and I'm not going to go back and parse all the past entries to see what Jane wrote and what others wrote, but I assume she had some level of control over whatever was published, and the blog has gone to some extremes to declare itself "for readers", sometimes treating authors as, if not the enemy, then at least the other camp.

So, now it's come out that she's an author. She apparently hasn't reviewed her own books, but apparently she HAS used the author identity to enter various closed spaces from which she was previously kicked out under her other identity. She has joined author loops where authors feel they can speak freely without mentioning that she is the power behind a blog that is often fairly critical of authors.

And, of course, she's at the centre of the EC lawsuit insanity, and was, as a blogger, supported by many authors (including me, for about $20 worth).

I'm not sorry I contributed to the defense fund. SLAPP lawsuits are bullshit and I'm happy to help stand against them.

And pen names are standard publishing procedure, and I can't blame someone else for using them when I use them myself.

But I found myself nodding along to a lot of what was said in an anonymous post at The Passive Voice, http://www.thepassivevoice.com/03/2015/jane-littejen-frederick/.

I don't think this is a travesty, but I don't think it's okay, either. I think.

Anyone else got thoughts?

amergina · Mar 26, 2015

Yes, but I require a stiff drink, a lot more rumination, and privacy before I'll be stating any of them.

Other than EC's SLAPP lawsuit is bogus and I hope DA prevails there.

ElaineA · Mar 26, 2015

I think you've captured my feelings on it, Captcha. There's this whiff of something...if not tainted, then slightly off. I don't have a problem with pen names or with her being a writer. It's the failure to disclose. She just wields so much power. It's not just that she has it, it's that she uses it.

The fact that she was forced to unveil by the lawsuit rather than of her own volition rubs me the wrong way. The appearance of impropriety just can't be discounted, IMO. But it's not so egregious it can't be mended with an apology to her readership and the writers she's made uncomfortable, along with a bit of a hiatus from the blog. Go write the next manuscript...Isn't that always the advice for surviving a stretch of bad news?

stephsco · Mar 26, 2015

Wow, this is the first I've heard! Thanks for pointing to the article. As I read it, I thought her approach sounded reasonable, though you mention the author having access to closed author groups using her author identity, and I can see where other writers might have that concern since she is then under an author ID that is unknown to others that she also has a big platform blogger ID.

My other thought is--there aren't rules for this. This comes down to ethics, and judgement. No doubt, even if Jane says she didn't abuse power, there will be people who believe she did. Or believe they can't be CERTAIN she didn't, and therefore trust is broken. Probably no one right answer here. A very curious situation though. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

Captcha · Mar 26, 2015

stephsco said:
My other thought is--there aren't rules for this. This comes down to ethics, and judgement. No doubt, even if Jane says she didn't abuse power, there will be people who believe she did. Or believe they can't be CERTAIN she didn't, and therefore trust is broken. Probably no one right answer here. A very curious situation though. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

I think that's a good point - it's not going to be black and white, right?

It's especially hard to figure out b/c Jane and DA have created some pretty strong responses in a lot of people, both positive and negative, and when I'm reading people's attitudes to the current situation I think they're at least sometimes coloured by previous interactions/attitudes. In both directions. Like, people who've traditionally liked DA are using this as a way to like them MORE, and those who've traditionally disliked them are finding themselves disliking them more.

I've traditionally been fairly neutral toward the blog, so maybe that's why I'm feeling a bit stuck in the middle now!

Bubastes · Mar 26, 2015

If another author did this, how would JL/DA respond? I suspect the author would be slapped with the Badly Behaving label and raked over the coals. There's a whiff of hypocrisy here that doesn't sit well with me.

I think the EC lawsuit is a wholly separate issue and I still support DA on that. But this new development gives me the icks, especially after re-reading some of her blog posts calling out authors for lack of transparency or other bad behavior.

ETA: Some interesting blog posts here.

https://herhandsmyhands.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/i-hate-eating-my-words/#comments

http://wendythesuperlibrarian.blogspot.com/2015/03/little-miss-crabby-pants-ruminates-on.html

amergina · Mar 26, 2015

I have to say, the comment thread on Sarah's post over at SBTBs is probably the most balanced set of comments I've seen.

My heart goes out to several of the folks there.

Viridian · Mar 26, 2015

Bubastes said:
If another author did this, how would JL/DA respond? I suspect the author would be slapped with the Badly Behaving label and raked over the coals.

Really? I'm surprised you feel that way.

Captcha · Mar 27, 2015

Bubastes said:
If another author did this, how would JL/DA respond? I suspect the author would be slapped with the Badly Behaving label and raked over the coals. There's a whiff of hypocrisy here that doesn't sit well with me.

I think the EC lawsuit is a wholly separate issue and I still support DA on that. But this new development gives me the icks, especially after re-reading some of her blog posts calling out authors for lack of transparency or other bad behavior.

ETA: Some interesting blog posts here.

https://herhandsmyhands.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/i-hate-eating-my-words/#comments

http://wendythesuperlibrarian.blogspot.com/2015/03/little-miss-crabby-pants-ruminates-on.html

Good links - thanks.

It's kind of interesting to see the way people's reactions are changing over time. The initial celebrations, and then the... wait. Wait a second...

Pisco Sour · Mar 27, 2015

It's kinda like finding out that an influential reporter who writes for the NY Times, one who is vociferous in her written criticism of, say, senators, for example, is actually secretly a senator herself and hasn't told anybody. All a bit slimey, but perhaps I am biased. Dear Jane/Jen reviewed my new adult contemporary romance (terrible, vitriolic, condescending etc.) and to find that she is also a new adult romance writers feels...ick. But I guess she didn't disclose her romance writing because she wanted to save her books from the sort of acid she dispenses herself? Otherwise, why not be frank about it?

Deb Kinnard · Mar 27, 2015

And over at the Passive Voice, Tina Engler is trying to insist this is all about EC...it becomes boring after a while, and she's reminded repeatedly this isn't about EC at all. It's like a third toddler interfering in a fight between two others, and squealing, "And last week she did THIS to ME!"

I'm neutral save for Engler, who IMO ought to just shut her pie hole and let her legal team handle it all. Did Jane/Jen take advantages most of us authors don't possess? Yeah, probably, but I've no dog in this hunt.

Viridian · Mar 27, 2015

Pisco Sour said:
I guess she didn't disclose her romance writing because she wanted to save her books from the sort of acid she dispenses herself?

That seems pretty reasonable to me. Attacking someone's work just because they left you a critical review is disgusting and unethical.

veinglory · Mar 27, 2015

http://wendythesuperlibrarian.blogs...-miss-crabby-pants-ruminates-on.html?spref=tw reflects on the some the more specific problematic stuff

beckethm · Mar 27, 2015

I'm having trouble deciding how I feel about this. On the one hand, I can see why people might think Jane's dual role as author and reviewer could create a conflict of interest. I can also see why authors who interacted with her in closed loops might consider it dishonest that she didn't disclose her blogging identity.

On the other hand, it appears she went out of her way to avoid promoting her books through her blog, thus denying herself the benefit of a massive platform that she built. It's also hard to fault her too much for maintaining a degree of anonymity in those author loops, when it's standard practice in the publishing world and on the Internet in general for people to use pen names and usernames that mask their "real" identities. (In that context, I haven't heard anyone allege that she participated in discussions about Dear Author under her pen name; that would strike me as blatantly deceptive.)

In retrospect, she probably should have disclosed the fact of her authorship as soon as she signed her first book deal, and in the interest of transparency, she probably should have issued some kind of disclaimer when reviewing books issued by her publisher. Beyond that, though, it's hard for me to see what she could or should have done differently.

ElaineA · Mar 27, 2015

I guess for me it boils down to the fact that she seems to be exempting herself from behavior she has taken a very public and active stand against. And that I have yet to see any real admission of her having crossed that line. I think if you're going to be a torchbearer, you should probably stay above reproach as best you can. (She did at least passively promote her books on the site by making one available on a Daily Deal or something, and by letting a book be listed on a "Top books of the year" list.)

I don't have any stake one way or another (not published, not a user of DA or SBTB, not writing NA). For me it's just disappointing on principle, which, whatever. It's not going to affect me. But I kind of hate the fact that it leaves "Romancelandia" looking like a high school hallway in a Lindsey Lohan movie.

Pisco Sour · Mar 27, 2015

ViridianChick said:
That seems pretty reasonable to me. Attacking someone's work just because they left you a critical review is disgusting and unethical.

'Critical review' being the operative words! Because lying--and Dear Jane/Jen lied about my book, in that she completely invented a scene that doesn't exist!--is also pretty disgusting and unethical. Just saying. She also got other facts wrong in her review of my NA romance, which made me scratch my head and wonder if she'd actually read it? Now, Dear Jane/Jen will have her supporters and hey...whatever. Like I said, I totally see why she would hide that she writes new adult romance: because some people actually would write a bad review of her books because of her vitriolic arrogance. I am not one of them. I never respond to reviews, good, bad or troll, but I do understand that some writers would be upset enough to do so. I do, however, think it's cheeky to review in her genre and not disclose, but I'm sure she'll recover. People like her always do.

veinglory · Mar 27, 2015

Some of you may remember the last big blog conflict of interest thing: http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/2011/10/making-progress/

absitinvidia · Mar 27, 2015

Courtney Milan has introduced another wrinkle: Because Jane/Jen participated in private author loops/forums/mailing lists, those lists might now be open for discovery in the EC lawsuit.

In other words, people who thought they were discussing these issues with other authors in a closed forum, who were NOT aware that Jane was a part of the forum, might suddenly get called to testify (as an extreme example).

If this is true, I don't see how Jane should not be condemned for staying on these loops without disclosing her identity. There's no excuse for that.

veinglory · Mar 27, 2015

beckethm said:
. Beyond that, though, it's hard for me to see what she could or should have done differently.

IMHO if you involve your books in your blog by advertising them, having them reviewed and praised and mentioned a glowing examples of whatever etc then disclosure is a good idea. If you don't disclose then just not having the books on your blog might be wise.

absitinvidia · Mar 27, 2015

beckethm said:
it's hard for me to see what she could or should have done differently.

Warned anyone who spoke to her as Jen the author that anything they said regarding EC could be discoverable, as it was in fact being said to Jane Litte? (Based on comments I'm seeing on various loops, it would appear that she did not do so.)

Captcha · Mar 27, 2015

I think it also would have been a good idea for her to have been completely upfront about the situation with the other people who write for her blog. I'm really feeling for Willaful, (https://willaful.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/full-disclosure/) who apparently had no idea about the connection and has quit writing for DA as a result of the disclosure.

And there are now questions around the integrity of Kati, who put one of Jen's books on her Best Of 2014 list - if she knew about the connection, fair enough, the questions SHOULD be asked. But if she didn't know and is just being dragged into this because she enjoyed a book by somebody? That's unfair.

Sarah at SmartBitches apparently DID know, (http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/2015/03/answering-questions-jane-littejen-frederick/) so I feel like she's responsible for her own decisions.

But Willaful? Damn. That wasn't right.

Captcha · Mar 27, 2015

Holy smokes. I just read the BRIGHT YELLOW warning label that was posted when Alexis Hall was writing reviews for DA, based on him being a published author.

http://dearauthor.com/book-reviews/review-slave-to-sensation/

I never really knew what happened to the AJH reviews at DA (I suspected he was dumped b/c his reviews were so much more popular than the regular reviews!)... does anyone else know?

Please tell me he wasn't dumped b/c Jane said it was inappropriate for an author to be writing reviews on her site...

ElaineA · Mar 27, 2015

Captcha said:
Please tell me he wasn't dumped b/c Jane said it was inappropriate for an author to be writing reviews on her site...

Does the reason he was dumped matter? Clearly the standard was set with the banner.

(Also, it appears that the DA method of investigation was not lost on others. *sigh* How was this not predictable?)

Captcha · Mar 27, 2015

ElaineA said:
Does the reason he was dumped matter? Clearly the standard was set with the banner.

Well, the standard of the banner was that author-reviewers should be disclosed. But if they actually dumped him because he's an author, then the standard would be that disclosure or not, authors can't review at DA. So I feel like it would be one step further down a pretty twisted path.

Deirdre · Mar 27, 2015

I've also got some commentary about this in three posts: http://deirdre.net/tag/dear-author/ including some other links not posted above.

Dear Author/Jane Litte/Jen Frederick

Captcha

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.

stephsco

Captcha

Bubastes

bananaed

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong

Viridian

local good boy

Captcha

Pisco Sour

Deb Kinnard

Viridian

local good boy

veinglory

volitare nequeo

beckethm

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.

Pisco Sour

veinglory

volitare nequeo

absitinvidia

A bit of a wallflower

veinglory

volitare nequeo

absitinvidia

A bit of a wallflower

Captcha

Captcha

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.

Captcha

Deirdre

practical experience, FTW