Saturday, May 13, 2006

Please, May I ?

Okay, the ARC thing wasn't really the issue over at Smartbitches. It really was the feeling of readers being attacked by a writer. I get the same feeling whenever I read an author's opinion on buying books used. It makes me wonder why they feel the need to talk directly to me about it when it isn't really my problem. I certainly don't like to be 'taken to task' for it!

All that said, I think what got lost in the bedlam of the comments was something that I found more shocking than anger over ARCs. I mean, I have talked about what I thought over on other people's blogs but that was before this was posted.

Part of a comment by PC Cast:

And, yes, my original rant was cut and pasted from a private email from me to Sarah. I'm cool with Sarah posting it, but had I known she was going to I can tell you I would have cleaned it up and made the focus of my anger more easily identifiable - the people who callously profit from an author's work without even bothering to review said work.

Sarah's comment:

Hey y'all - so no one thinks that any email to me or to Candy is public fodder the minute you hit 'send', I want to apologize to PC. I thought she was fine with my posting her email as written, so while this debate has been most curious and certainly strong, it was based on an error on my part. I want to alleviate any suspicions that I handle email thinking primarily of site content and flammability - I assure you I do not.
So, PC, mea culpa. I'm going to toast myself in penance over a pile of burning eBay ARCs. K?


Uh, wow. Am I the only one who finds this a bit shocking. Yeah, I get that people could use your private e-mails but doesn't this feel a little bit like getting a knife in the back? I think Sarah probably thought that readers would have jumped onto the 'down with selling ARCs' bandwagon but instead readers were shocked and appalled at the venom that flew out of the rant. At this point, do you look at the person intent rather than the result?

In the end, I'm wondering if it was a break down in communication that led to something being posted without clear consent or ipeddlingdalling is the order of the day now that things have become messy.

So what do you think? I have a writer friend named Megan but I know for a fact that if she sent me an e-mail about something that was bothering her about the publishing world I wouldn't post it to a public forum. If it was something that I felt strongly about and that I felt needed to be brought to people's attention I would ask permission and even then I think that most writers would like the chance to re-write because a casual e-mail has a different voice than an actual statement.

So once again, I have wandered off the path of what was actually being discussed and ended up somewhere else.

What a frickin' surprise.

But I cannot leave without wishing all the mother's out there a Happy Mother's Day! Hope you have a wonderful day.

Whenever Bob gives me a bouquet of flowers I will get my digital camera out and take close-ups of the flowers. This picture is from the bouquet I received on our anniversary. One of these days I hope to put some of them in frames so I can hang them in one of our bedrooms.

Until then, I hope you enjoy.

8 comments:

Kristie (J) said...

I noticed that too. That's why as well as agreeing she has a right to be pissed about the ARC thing, her rant didn't bother me as much as it apparently did others. More important still it wouldn't affect my decision to buy her books.

Alyssa said...

I was one of the readers who was initially offended.

Then I went to PC Cast's blog and saw that she had blogged about the issue much more rationally. Once I saw Sarah's addition in the comments, I came to much the same conclusion you did.

I'm still not thrilled about the way Cast expressed herself, but the fact that it was a private e-mail changed my thoughts about her. Though the two books of hers I have are probably going to sit TBR a while longer . . .

Suisan said...

I got the impression that PC had given premission to use the email, since she ahd blogged about it too. But once the readers started flaming she put in a comment that said, hand just under her collarbones, eyes closed, chin to the sky, "If I had but known the hurt feelings my innocent comments were likely to generate, I would have edited the email for public consumption."

I don't believe that Sarah posted it without her permission. I do believe that Sarah had to post after PC tried to CYA to reassure readers that their emails would remain private.

Just my take.

I have something of a talent in looking for double meanings.

Megan Frampton said...

I would be really upset if someone posted something to a public forum that was meant privately, even if it didn't affect my professional (yeah, right) life.

I mean, anyone would, right?

I don't have an opinion either way about what happened in this case, I didn't follow it closely.

Megan Frampton said...

Oh, and hey, thanks for saying we're friends and all! That is neat.

sybil said...

I over check... with anything emailed to me before blogging or quoting it.

Because I am a nosey cow, so people say things I want to know! And I won't take the chance of shooting myself in the foot.

Saying that, I know sarah and candy are really good about keeping their mouths shut. As well as I know they will open it larger than the grand canyon, as will I, when they think they can.

So what does that mean? Ten to one sarah was had a really good reason for thinking she could cut and paste. I don't know cast, don't read her and really wasn't offended by the whole thing. I choose to think it was miscommunication and most on.

sybil said...

MOVE on... not most on

CindyS said...

I'm starting to think that many are right here and that there was just a miscommunication and yeah, when the ship started sinking Cast started throwing up flares.

Not having any clear facts and only speculation I better leave this one alone. Oh, wait.

CindyS