Posted by Natasha Kern on April 19, 2002 at 16:51:44:
In Reply to: Re: P.S. To my previous message posted by LLB on April 19, 2002 at 15:37:10:
I should have clarified my connection to this which I unfortunately assumed was obvious. I am Robin's literary agent.
If you are referring to the mention in May RT of virtual accusations of plagiarism directed against Christine Dodd by an on-line site (by people who apparently don't know what plagiarism even actually is!)RT concluded that any similarity to another book was purely coincidental. This hardly seems like something to be proud of in terms of great investigative journalism. Another round of false accusations. I am hoping this isn't the mention of copyright infringement you are referring to.
At least print journalism, whatever its failings, has some standards above the level of rumor and gossip. I cannot fathom what your motives are in contacting the Idaho Stateman. In that regard, I stand by what I said. The valuable lesson here is not about dealing with the media but in understanding something about a) your site and b) the romance community at large. I feel pretty enlightened myself but in this instance have no information that would allow me to speak on behalf of Robin.
This wasn't a "controversial issue" like: should Palestinians have a home land, with opportunities for debate on each side! It was a question of misinformation or disinformation. Either Robin said or did certain things or not. Her actions or statements or integrity or attitudes towards romance are NOT a matter of "your opinion" versus "my opinion!" This is why I posted something about the truth instead of everyone commenting about things they could have no knowledge of, and at best uninformed opinions about it.
I was not addressing an issue of "manners" but of intent. As in literature, in real life motivation is paramount. Is the person at the scene of a burning building there to try to save someone, add fuel to the flames, or simply enjoy watching firemen risk their lives? The action may be: bystander. The reality for everyone can only be known in their own heart.
Anyone can disagree all they want to with my point of view which is: we are all capable of acting from our highest selves at any time.
No one can disagree with the facts which I believe were presented for the first time in my post since I'm the only one who knows them. Again, facts are not a matter of opinion. In contemporary America where opinion polls carry more influence than actual actions and facts even in political or economic realms, it is a difficult distinction I realize.
My further point of view is: It would be worthwhile for all writers to spend more time understanding more about this industry. I have noticed that other loops/boards also have discussions about issues where virtually no one knows what publishers are doing or why things are the way they are in the industry but everyone has an opinion about what might be true. If these discussions were conducted in a more professional manner, perhaps professionals would feel more like participating and everyone might learn something. At least RT has continued to take steps in that direction which is why agents and editors are increasingly willing to participate.
Natasha
: Natasha -
: You may "gather" what you will about the purpose behind my bringing this article to the attention of AAR's readers, but it has nothing to do w/increasing hits. We receive approximately 2.1 million hits per month at this site, and this number grows steadily but constantly as we strive to bring romance readers information about the genre, including reviews, commentary, interviews, and discussions based on items in the news.
: Earlier this year we basically "broke" a copyright infringement story in terms of being the only romance outlet to follow through the piece from beginning to end - even RT mentioned us in an article they ran in their print publication in April.
: You also mention "flaming" in your post; a good number of posts really walked the line, and most of them that went over the edge were ones attacking both myself and AAR - they were left online because to have removed them would have smacked of censorship (and because I'm a big girl and can take care of myself).
: We encourage all posters to act like grown-ups and to use the manners their mothers raised them with. We don't always succeed, but in a controversial issue as this, I don't want to be the "posting police." Even when my own integrity, honesty, and professionalism was impugned, I decided to leave those posts online and feel that only once did I let my anger get perhaps the best of me.
: As far as I'm concerned, AAR has acted both honorably and with sound intentions. As a columnist, I keep my eyes and ears open for news regarding the genre and authors in the news. If RLH was misquoted or had her remarks taken out of context in a feature article, the opportunity has been offered to the newspaper to make that correction. If perhaps she said things that she didn't believe would be interpreted as they were, then she'll have learned a valuable lesson about interacting w/the media.
: Given that AAR has given RLH mostly good reviews - including a DIK Review, which is our highest honor - in the past (both for her secular and religious writing), there is no hidden agenda, no axe to grind, and nothing going on here except a discussion of an article that upset many readers (and authors) in its interpretation.
: RLH has defended herself admirably here in terms of tone; it's some of her supporters who have probably damaged their reputations (and, by association), hers by the tone they took in an issue that she was capable of responding to (and did) all by herself.
: I've said before that authors negotiating themselves through the Internet need a degree of skill that is difficult to achieve and that sometimes it's simply better to leave things as they are. I'm not sure what your connection to RLH is, but I know you've now posted four or five times and essentially said the same thing. Enough is enough at this point - if you have nothing new to add to the discussion other than to say that those who disagree w/your viewpoint are being petty, than you probably should stop.
: As for me, until I hear back from the Life editor at the Idaho Statesman, I won't be posting on this topic again.
: LLB
Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comments: