Re: "No conclusions, just further ruminations".

Posted by Carolyn on April 16, 2002 at 14:09:25:

In Reply to: "No conclusions, just further ruminations". posted by Corey on April 16, 2002 at 12:51:06:

: I think you mean RUINations, don't you?

: Someone mentioned to me that there was an issue here and I came to visit.

: Before I read Robin's response I was shocked Laurie, that you would post the initial message as you did without even contacting Robin. How unprofessional.

: And further disappointed that so many authors and fellow readers are willing to accept at face value what one source (and a romance-clueless one, at that) has to say.

: The romance genre gets enough grief from people outside of it. I would think that those of us within it would be willing to do a little more research and checking before hanging someone who has contributed so much to it.

Exactly, except flip it around. The genre gets grief, so I would think a professional and former president of the RWA would know how to handle interviews more ablely and cautiously, and be more savy or careful with her media public relations. It was her publicity event, not just something she did for the good of all of romance. This is *her job*. It's not ours. There's this 'you all need to take things with a grain of salt' type of attitude that is annoying. The onus is not on the readership of any published article to 'dig deeper' or 'do research' or anything else to make sure the professional giving the interview is seen in the right light. That's her business to make sure it is done right the first time. The onus is on her; if she was uncomfortable beforehand or duing the several hours of the interview, she should have taken steps, as someone mentioned. If she's been this seriously misquoted, then she can demand a retraction. Personally, I find enough of what she said in the interview off-putting that, whatever the context in which it was said, it's hard to dismiss that much on misquoting/context problems.

While I'm on the subject of professionalism, I'd like to point out LLB's only professional duty was to her readership here. Posting a publicly printed article from a high-level author in the field, on the subject of romance, is *exactly* her business. But as far as contacting the author beforehand--why should she? One has to assume if the author did the interview, she meant it for public consumption. By saying she should have contacted the author, you seem to be implictly acknowledging there was a problem with what the author said. But it wasn't LLB's responsiblity, just as it's not the article's readership's responsiblity, to bend over backwards trying to work out what she might've meant.

I think people are missing what some people have such a problem with. Overall, it comes across as someone who spoke against the genre, or elements of it, because it was now expedient to do so. That might not be exactly what she meant, but that's what it seems and feels like--a slap in the face to a genre that she's earned a livelihood working in, and to readers who care about the genre. I would've expected better from a past president.

Follow Ups:

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : I think you mean RUINations, don't you? : : Someone mentioned to me that there was an issue here and I came to visit. : : Before I read Robin's response I was shocked Laurie, that you would post the initial message as you did without even contacting Robin. How unprofessional. : : And further disappointed that so many authors and fellow readers are willing to accept at face value what one source (and a romance-clueless one, at that) has to say. : : The romance genre gets enough grief from people outside of it. I would think that those of us within it would be willing to do a little more research and checking before hanging someone who has contributed so much to it. : Exactly, except flip it around. The genre gets grief, so I would think a professional and former president of the RWA would know how to handle interviews more ablely and cautiously, and be more savy or careful with her media public relations. It was her publicity event, not just something she did for the good of all of romance. This is *her job*. It's not ours. There's this 'you all need to take things with a grain of salt' type of attitude that is annoying. The onus is not on the readership of any published article to 'dig deeper' or 'do research' or anything else to make sure the professional giving the interview is seen in the right light. That's her business to make sure it is done right the first time. The onus is on her; if she was uncomfortable beforehand or duing the several hours of the interview, she should have taken steps, as someone mentioned. If she's been this seriously misquoted, then she can demand a retraction. Personally, I find enough of what she said in the interview off-putting that, whatever the context in which it was said, it's hard to dismiss that much on misquoting/context problems. : While I'm on the subject of professionalism, I'd like to point out LLB's only professional duty was to her readership here. Posting a publicly printed article from a high-level author in the field, on the subject of romance, is *exactly* her business. But as far as contacting the author beforehand--why should she? One has to assume if the author did the interview, she meant it for public consumption. By saying she should have contacted the author, you seem to be implictly acknowledging there was a problem with what the author said. But it wasn't LLB's responsiblity, just as it's not the article's readership's responsiblity, to bend over backwards trying to work out what she might've meant. : I think people are missing what some people have such a problem with. Overall, it comes across as someone who spoke against the genre, or elements of it, because it was now expedient to do so. That might not be exactly what she meant, but that's what it seems and feels like--a slap in the face to a genre that she's earned a livelihood working in, and to readers who care about the genre. I would've expected better from a past president.