Is there any way to bring back Live Journal comments?
A fine question my good reader.
Um… not that I know of unfortunately. You have to save those with screen shots usually. In fact I have this folder where I keep all sorts of “feel the love” type things.
If I could bring back a certain comment though it might be the one that Karen Scott mistakenly called “The Comment Of The Week”.
Karen, I have to strongly disagree. That was not the comment of the week Karen. In fact that was not the comment of the month or even of the whole year. That comment was around the world with two snaps and a Back Off Bitch! That comment came with an extra helping of “beads” to read when it ran the fuck out. That comment was the freaking Pulitzer Prize of all comments I have read so far! That comment came with a standing ovation followed by an AMEN!
IF I could bring THAT comment back it would look something like ooooh maybe THIS…
In response to this Ann Somerville’s Journal post.
lvanhine posted the following on January 17, 2009 at 4:20 am.
I am pretty much an outsider and an occasional reader of DA. I don’t belong to, nor am I represented by any publishers involved in any of the discussions to which you took part. In fact, the only somewhat direct contact I have is that my epublisher got a positive review from you at Uniquely Pleasurable a short time back for another author’s work (not mine.) I don’t know your work very well, except for what is put out on the net, but there is a long history of comments, blog posts, and self-disclosures here from which any casual observer can draw a conclusion. And here is what I see, for what it is worth, and you can take it or leave it.
I have no difficulty at all in seeing the point of view of your editor, your publisher, and those who complained at DA. Why? Because “combative” doesn’t even scratch the surface. You have made every discussion topic about you. You have taken a posture of clear-eyed truth-teller when in actual fact you lead with name-calling and derisive sarcasm. A typical post by you is a quote with a sarcastic addendum, chiding someone on not understanding the stupid bint’s original point. This may be a clever mode of discourse but it is not an engaging one – it is hostile in the extreme. If someone posts a blog entry expressing their own opinions about anything about which you also have an opinion (your participation in the discussion and opinion threads at DA is astonishingly high.) you retort on your own blog as if they are accountable to you and that you own the territory on which the topic was raised. i.e. the “Beautiful Cocksucker” debate. It isn’t your story, it isn’t your risk as an author, your name isn’t on the work. But you owned the debate, and derided everyone and anyone who voiced an opinion that differed from yours. Those who agreed with you, came here.
You’re always there. You’re often the first commenter. It’s all about your opinion. You have spoken of other publishers, and the authors who are published by them as “creepy”, “unprofessional”, “uneducated.” It really makes no difference whether you have cause to maintain that any individual or publisher or editor is creepy, unprofessional, or uneducated, because you haven’t stopped there. You use your blog to name-call other authors who, until Samhain severed its connection with you, WORKED FOR THE SAME PUBLISHER and were in effect your colleagues. The most astonishing thing you did was call on the thinnest of justifications for publically calling out an author you do not know personally, (but whom other publishers and authors DO know personally) with the bizarre accusation that he’s a woman pretending to be a gay man – in order to increase sales. Why would you, a romance author, go to all of this trouble to pick so many bones with so many people whose work does not reflect on your own, whose actions do not impinge on your own, and whose personal life is wholly none of your business?
You do not seem to understand that you have crossed the line, and won’t acknowledge that you have no right to cross the line. You pick fights that you have no stake in. You have vaulted over the line of libel, and mocked anyone who dares sign their email address to an opinion which differs from yours, and who can expect within hours, Australian time, they can expect to be called “a cunt” “a stupid bint” and “a vicious liar” in your blog afterward, while you take a posture of wounded doe.
From my perspective, if I had made such a footprint in “Romancelandia,” one of the smallest islands in the entire troubled and poorly trafficked areas of a diminishing-profit publishing world, I would expect to get dumped by the publisher whose authors you have libeled, if only for its own legal and ethical integrity. The authors I mention above I am sure you know about since you have made libeling them something of a full-time job (for no reason except the flimsiest ideal of “standing up for what is right”), except that you are not right. Your publisher made a business decision to acquire Linden Bay Romance, and you state in your lengthy justification of yourself that they are among the “creepiest characters in the genre.” HUH? Who are you to sit in judgement of a stable of authors that your publisher has spent money to acquire and to continue in a relationship with? Don’t you know that as a Samhain author, you were making a direct threat upon their reputations and upon the viability of your own publisher? And for what reason? To defend yourself against some sort of “campaign” that you perceive someone has against you? Didn’t you understand that you can’t shit in the same place you eat? You can’t be that dim, really. This is not about free speech, nor about the right to an opinion. It’s about abusing writers who make up a community and a series of businesses. Your publisher has every right to reject any manuscript it receives without providing a reason. Unfortunately in your case, you gave them every reason to reject your work in future -they can’t afford to have a homewrecker on their books, or the authors whose work they want to publish, will go elsewhere. You can’t be so blind as to not see that.
If there is a campaign of some kind against, it isn’t evident anywhere. If the people you have decried as creepy vicious horrible people are so creepy, vicious and horrible, there should be some evidence of it, since you claim you have been publically as well as privately damaged. Yet, I don’t see it. I have seen some indignation in response to your ridiculous claims. The author whose GENDER you questioned posted not a single word against your ridiculous assertions at DA, and I can only conclude it is because your only claim to the right to destroy someone’s reputation is unfounded, and the product of your imagination. He did the professional thing and ignored your rants. I have seen anger in response to you – but that is understandable considering just how deeply you cut others.
I am an outsider. You have never reviewed my books, and I would not submit them to you, because it’s evident that you are a law unto yourself. Being a law unto yourself is not how communities function, and members of a community who believe that truth itself is their only guide, can grow (and in this case, you have grown), dangerously out of touch with the human, social, and business elements of the industry in which you have worked and apparently still seek to work.
It isn’t about whether you publish commercially or give your work away for free. I give a lot of my work away for free because I write for the sake of the writing. I understand that. But I also understand that in a business relationship, there are ethical standards, and the authors in this mini genre of M/M romance cannot afford to have a viper in their bosom, and congratulations to Jane Lidde and the editors at Samhain for determining that their community’s and their business’s health is of greater value than your right to attack and tear down anyone who falls under your gaze and is found wanting, or worse – disagreeing.
You don’t own this genre, and yet you have pretended to somehow be its conscience. That is hubris. I hope you find publishers, and that you continue to write, because your efforts are better turned toward fiction writing. The saddest part about your saga is that you did not realize that your sword of truth posture and your campaign of “speaking truth” is equally fictional.
Tags: eBook Commentary
Laurie wrote,
I’ve officially had enough of all the grudge wanking and will be removing this blog from my feed at livejournal. I used to read things here that actually interested me.
Link | January 21st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
P wrote,
So the artist formerly known as Tritorella couldn’t hold it together for a new reincarnation?
http://jacquez.livejournal.com/616333.html
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
TeddyPig wrote,
Laurie,
I have kept most of my reactions in email regarding this whole mess. I think this comment alone summarizes everything I have said here and there or might have said about the various stages of the Annplosion. I am sorry if you find it uninteresting.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 am
lisabea wrote,
Aw. This is a personal blog. Folks do their own thang and if TPig wants post nekkid pictures of hot men swallowing bananas (yes?) or some info on ebooks and publishing or if he wants to follow the AS(s) train wreck to its bitter conclusion, that’s his prerogative. Win some, lose some.
Iz gud pig. Evil? Why yes. But still a gud pig. I thought it was a good post, TPig. Rock on.
Hey, btw, we should do a thing. We haven’t in months and months.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 7:14 am
Seneca wrote,
I enjoy gay romance but I have refused to buy any of Ann’s work because I can’t stand the way she acts online. I’ve seen way too many of her comments at Dear Author and other places to want to spend my money on her.
Since so many readers AND her editor have said the same thing, then don’t you think she would ‘get it’?
I guess not.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 am
kirsten saell wrote,
Well, I thought Ivanhine’s comment was well thought out and, all things considered, more circumspect than it might have been. And Ann’s response to it was a “you’re entitled to your opinion, but I reject your assessment of the situation.” So obviously she’s not prepared to listen, or to examine her own behavior and perceptions.
You know, the thing that annoys me most about this is her repeated claims that I’m running some kind of “active campaign” to silence her. Honestly, I bite my tongue on so many issues because they don’t affect me deeply enough to be bothered tangling with her. But when I do agree with her, I frequently say so. When I don’t, I also say so. When she offends me, I say so. How is that an active campaign?
Gah! Very frustrating.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Jen wrote,
As a completely nosy lurker who missed the original blog posts, I’m glad you reposted! And now it turns out AS is Tritorella/Honi Soit from the dS fandom too? Why hasn’t this made its way to FandomWank yet?
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Louise van Hine wrote,
@Teddy,
I’m sort of new to this whole interlocking metabloglandia here. I personally thought it was a good comment but I’ll take all the kudos too – I could really use it during the week my huge year-long project got cancelled and forced me back into job-search mode.
@Kirstensaell – did you see that in one of her rants, Ann made a cryptic reference to you, and I really couldn’t figure out what her point was (authors working for the same publisher calling each other names?) I certainly never saw any posts by you that could fall in the category. But she is rather conspicuous by her rather massive insult footprint.
@Jen: After I had been told that Ann had once been a denizen of “some fandoms” I had managed to track her back to the Tritorella nick that was mentioned in LJ somewhere because Ann had posted to an LJ page with her Logophilos LJ id accusing people of holding her responsible for misdeeds centuries ago in other fandoms. The link at jacquez puts a lot of the pieces together, but I didn’t see any references to which anime fandoms she had gone off to. It sounds like Ann is too addicted to fandom wank to function as an adult in the real world of publishing if you ask me. As Kirsten said, she dismissed me out of hand without even addressing my argument, and that seems to indicate a closed mind. She couldn’t even entertain the idea that I was a total stranger and not a minion from a shadow conspiracy that apparently everyone else in the world besides her diminishing handful of friends belongs to. Most of the conspiracy, interestingly enough, are all former friends who had tried to advise her with this same counsel.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Louise van Hine wrote,
oh yeah I forgot to add, I’m lvanhine.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Cat Grant wrote,
Ann’s problem can be summed up in three words: borderline personality disorder.
Look it up. She’s a classic case – and believe me, after living with a borderline mother for close to twenty years, I know what I’m talking about.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Ally Blue wrote,
Louise, very eloquent and well-put. I haven’t gotten involved in any of the, er, discussions, but I’ve read some of them, and whoo boy. It got pretty ugly out there. You summed up my thoughts on the matter pretty well. I suspect a lot of folks have probably been thinking these things all along.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
kirsten saell wrote,
@Louise,
Sorry to hear about your project–only thing that sucks worse, IMO, than being stuck in a crappy job like I have, is having to look for one.
As to your question, I know why Ann thinks I have it in for her. If you haven’t read this already (and you have an endless supply of time and patience), you can go here and see why:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/09/18/fan-fiction-33-content-around-books/
After the comments were closed, the discussion started up again here:
http://karenknowsbest.com/2008/10/02/azteclady-speaks-when-other-cues-are-missing/
She clearly saw me as leading a charge to silence her. And well, I will admit I do wish she would just chill out sometimes and speak to people as if they are human beings. Most of the time (i.e., when she’s not calling other authors/bloggers/innocent bystanders talentless cunts or accusing them of all manner of homophobia, racism, Islamaphobia, sexism and misogyny, in order to bully them into silence), I have no problem at all with what she says–just with her inability to accept that other people may have–and are entitled to have–opinions that differ from hers.
That cryptic comment of hers was her way of equating my criticisms of her online manner to what she’s said in regard to Erastes and Josh Lanyon. I have to admit, when I saw the comment, I was pretty freaking pissed. She must have deleted it awfully damn fast for it to have not made it into Google Cache.
@Cat,
Yeah, I know there are some serious issues going on with her. It’s not just a matter of someone with a low bullshit tolerance who isn’t scared to speak her mind. I just don’t know that there’s anything to be done about it. At least, not by us.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
West wrote,
I’m with Seneca- I will not buy AS books because of her attitude, which I’ve seen on several blogs. I wouldn’t care if she were Suzanne Brockmann, Alexandre Dumas, and Josh Lanyon all rolled into one.
I’ve personally felt her “wrath” on several topics for daring to disagree with her. And the one thing I’ve noticed? She can’t keep up a polite, respectful, well-spoken argument to save her life. She always has to insult, deride and belittle those who don’t automatically agree with her. After I noticed this happen a few times, my first thought always became “and this woman’s a writer?”.
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
@Louise van Hine
Sorry to hear about your project going south.
I hope some publisher who reads this picks you up because you are obviously not only intelligent but also thoughtful in what you say and how you say it. A good combination if you ask me.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 am
Grace wrote,
Thank you, Teddy, for posting this. I think Louisa’s comments very eloquently stated what others who visit DA have thought. If there was ever a case study in how not to conduct yourself on line, especially under your professional name, Ann Somerville is it.
@ Louisa
Well said, and an excellent argument for why it’s so important to your career and the product you’re selling to the reading public to use circumspection when facing the virtual public. All aspiring and published authors should read this.
Like others, I tend to express my approval or disapproval with my consumerism. In the case of AS, I would never buy her titles, no matter how original or well written, simply because of her incredibly outlandish behavior on line. Unfair? Probably. Unusual? No. Many people don’t feel the need to show up to the party with a bullhorn attached their face shouting their disapproval to all and sundry. They just withhold the one thing a publisher would like to see from a consumer regarding the product they’re peddling – cash. With that being said, I wasn’t in the least surprised Samhain dropped her.
@Kirsten
I’ve always admired your posts on DA and other places. They’re reasonable, measured and remain calm, even in the face of illogical ranting and name calling.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 am
Louise van Hine wrote,
@everyone – thank you for the comments, Kirsten for the additional background. Without context one might think she actually had a reason to complain…
@Teddy: I am looking for any and all help to get more of my work into print. I have a ton of books which are in the queue just waiting, including a long m/m series featuring a gay detective. We’ve got room for one more don’t we?
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 am
veinglory wrote,
I think the Ivanhine post is fair comment. But whether I agree with Ann or not I am sick of having to drop yahoogroups and blogs because people like to respond to behavior they don’t like by doing it themselves. Speculating someone might be female is dubious, speculating they might have a psychiatric condition is IMHO worse–in both cases they truth of the matter (whatever it might be) is beside the point.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Cat Grant wrote,
@kirsten You’re right, there isn’t much we can do, other than steering clear of her altogether.
You can’t win an argument with a borderline. In their minds, they’re right, you’re wrong, and that’s all there is to it. They see every issue as a case of black and white, with absolutely no shades of gray. They view other people as either all good or all bad. They can turn on even the few people they like at a moment’s notice.
It’s sad, seeing such an obviously talented and intelligent person self-destruct in public like this. I suspect Ann has a long history of lost jobs and broken relationships, as most borderlines do. Unfortunately, most of them never gain the kind of self-awareness they need to pull themselves out of their endless emotional tailspin. They simply can’t understand that the problem lies with them, not the rest of the world.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
TeddyPig wrote,
Emily,
I have to admit that I do know that Ann has brought up the issue of mental health before while going off on someone else at Dear Author…
As for people having mental health issues, you’ll find a good many people do – including myself. ~ Ann Somerville
So I am not saying it is right to do so but it is understandable that people bring it up. It is not like she never has herself.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Cat Grant wrote,
@veinglory – The truth is beside the point? In that case, I think you’ve missed your calling, Em. With that attitude, you’d make a great politician.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
veinglory wrote,
As it is I make a pretty good psychologist.
If the point to have respectful discourse it is more important that people do right, then they prove thet are right. That they don’t cast the next stone, not who cast the first one.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
veinglory wrote,
@Teddy — so if I mention my mental illness (sexuality, nationality, religion) that makes it fine to use it as ammo based stereotyped understanding of what everyone in that group does? Sorry, if that is the code of conduct then I agree with Laurie.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
TeddyPig wrote,
How does something you seek to cure equate to nationality, sexual disposition or religious belief?
I have problems with organized religion mind you but I would not equate it to mental illness. I have been HIV+ since 1990 but that is just part of my life experience not “who I am” or “what I am”. I do not blame my behavior good or bad on it nor do I hope anyone else does.
I do though think Ann has acted irrationally.
I just don’t assume illness is really part of it but that is my opinion.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
(a different) Laurie wrote,
I’m so glad you saved all these comments TeddyPig. It’s easy for people like Ann Somerville to act self-righteous and indignant, and then when their poor behaviour is pointed out, they try to run and hide as Somerville did by deleting her post. This isn’t a case of shodenfreud on my part, although I did find some justice in her being cut from Samhain after she was publicly rude to the publisher’s authors and head editor. It’s a lesson about good behavior and treating others with respect no matter where people stand on issues. To quote Ivanhine, “Didn’t you understand that you can’t shit in the same place you eat?”
I just hope she takes this lesson to heart and learns from it. Not only will she be a happier person, but she will find more success because her writing is actually very good. While divas can get away with rude behaviour as long as they bring in the money, she’s not that good a writer for publishers like Samhain to take a risk on for the sake of profit.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
kirsten saell wrote,
@Emily,
I don’t actually think the truth/accuracy of Cat’s assessment is “beside the point”, although I understand why you find public speculation of that sort distasteful.
But I do know if I had been aware sooner of the possibility of a mental illness at play here (and not just asshattery), it would have changed the way I dealt with Ann online. Instead of engaging her when she crossed my path and offended the everloving crap out of me, I think I would have mostly ignored her. In fact, as my perceptions of her have changed, I’ve certainly tried (not always successfully) to stay out of any discussions of which she’s been a part, that I don’t feel passionate about, or that I don’t have a personal or professional stake in.
And regardless of whether the label is accurate, Cat’s assessment isn’t going to be news to anyone who’s been around here for a while.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Cat Grant wrote,
For the record, there is a difference between a personality disorder and mental illness.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Which is a good thing because I for one am a personality disorder.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Cat Grant wrote,
You’re one of the people who put the “fun” back in “dysfunctional,” Teddy. ;)
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Louise van Hine wrote,
I tend to think he puts the “func” back in, myself. It isn’t very often that people who are virtually strangers to me say things about my little Sunday morning missive like:
That comment was the freaking Pulitzer Prize of all comments I have read so far! That comment came with a standing ovation followed by an AMEN!
That was definitely funky.
It is true that Ann put into a comment on DA that “I too suffer from mental illness” in an attempt to reach out to fellow troubled author and publisher Kira Takenouchi. So taking her at her word could not be considered “speculation.” And if she didn’t want others to factor this revelation into their reception of her public persona, she probably shouldn’t have overshared so spectacularly.
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm