# Catfishing Readers on Social Media- super skeevy or no big deal?



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

This thread is *NOT* about having a pen name that is the opposite gender.

This thread is for opinions specifically on male authors building trust relationships on social media "as a woman" in order to get readers to "talk steamy" and "share their sexual stories" in order to sell more books/get inspiration for your erotic writing.

Do you think this is "no big deal" or do you find this serious violation of trust?

**Cassie makes a good point. Widening the scope to "Pretending to be of any specific class you are not and actively INTERACTING with readers _as if you share their experiences_ in order to gain their trust."


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

First, I think this thread is going to be locked unless you cleared posting it with the mods as was mentioned in the other thread.

Second, I think this is a broader issue. In that other thread comments were also made that the author who owned up to interacting with readers under pen names also mentioned being a straight man who interacted as a gay man and made reference to a pen name that was for a black woman. So I think this is a broader issue.

And as for my personal opinion, I think it's fine to have a pen name of a different gender and maybe even to put up a photo or bio that's different (although I'm not a fan of doing that). When you start to interact with your readership claiming to be like them (female, gay, etc) and to share your "experiences" with them when those aren't valid (I believe the example owned up to was talking about your book boyfriend), that is breaking reader trust in my opinion.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

I have a few books our under Cara Vance.  I'm happy share this here as I make no real secret that "she's" me.  

That said, I'm aware that even if I were to post it in big neon letters for the few sales I get under her name, not everyone will be aware.  I don't see the harm in, say, returning a fan letter thanking someone for liking her books and signing it "Cara".  I consider that a harmless maintaining of the illusion.  Same with the occasional Facebook comment on her page.  

But there's definitely a line I draw. Maintaining a fan page or twitter profile is one thing.  Creating a full on user profile for her would probably start to make me feel iffy.  Infiltrating groups meant to be women-only under her guise, without disclosure, would definitely set off my creeper alarms.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

boba1823 said:


> Genuine question, though: What is there for an author to gain from substantive one-on-one interaction with fans - i.e. more than replying "Thanks for the support!" on a FB comment or the like?
> 
> I can see the value in a decently sized reader survey, or the feedback from beta readers who might identify major issues with a manuscript. But otherwise, I would think it risky to generalize any insights derived from interacting with a handful of readers.


A handful today ... several hundred tomorrow ... thousands the day after that. These things tend to snowball.

Also, engaged fans are awesome. You can meet some seriously cool people this way and word of mouth definitely doesn't hurt.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

I really wouldn't want to risk my long-term career with something like that. Let's say I was pretending to be a man (enough people here have met me in person to know I'm definitely a woman), and I was writing a male-sensitive genre like I pretended to be some CIA analyst who had served in specific conflicts.... and my books blow up.

And then it comes out that I am NOT who I said I was.

That is just not a PR nightmare I want to deal with.

I'm not saying people can't have pen names etc. But I am along the lines of Rick . . . minimum representation on pen names that are NOT remotely accurate for who I am, signing emails with the pen name etc. but running reader groups or other personal interactions where I am actively lying about my life.... that's a bridge too far for me. I wouldn't feel good about it and I wouldn't want the risk of the bad PR when it all came out I was lying.


----------



## ET (Oct 23, 2014)

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about doing this for "research"--not for hand-selling books.

For example, I write crime novels. Whenever I meet someone with a background in law enforcement, I always find myself picking their brains. I am legitimately interested in their stories; however, I am also gathering "material". 

Okay, I get it.

The one problem you may want to consider, though, is that men are notoriously dishonest when it comes to reporting their actual sexual experiences.

Where sex is concerned, men typically over report; women typically underreport.

Therefore, the stories that you will get from this process will likely be nothing more than some overheated male fantasies. 

Now, let me tell you about what happened last weekend, when the Swedish women's volleyball team showed up at my front door...


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

The second you create a penname that isn’t you, you’re creating a fictional character no different than any character in your books. That character behind that name might be modeled after you, but it doesn’t have to be. How many authors have created a bio that wasn't "them"? How many have put up a persona behind their books that wasn't a genuine reflection of them as a person?

My books would be quite strange if every single person in them was me. My pennames would be strange if every person behind them was me.

My pennames and fan interactions would be quite strange if every message I sent was me.

Being that penname is similar to an actor becoming the character they are playing on screen. Tom Cruise isn’t a world traveling secret agent. I’m not upset that he presents himself as such in my entertainment. 

As a reader, I have no expectation that an author must be exactly the person they represent themselves to be. Pennames exist, by definition, to allow authors to write books without having to be the name behind the work. They are, and have always been, a small deception. A way to write a book anonymously, while still being able to build a brand and a persona (and name) for people to celebrate and connect with as a reader.

Given that reader expectations can be sexist (there are readers unwilling to read a romance novel written by a man, as one example, or a MM reader would probably be less likely to  read a MM book written by an openly straight author as another example), the penname and character created for the purpose of publishing and promoting those books is often chosen  reflect the market expectations. 

This doesn’t just extend to huge changes. Authors choose same-gender names that don’t necessarily reflect their reality. A person named Ralph Farmby might pick the name “Blake Stone” or some similarly big bad dude name to help sell their big bad suspense thriller. Pretending to be someone else is part of being an author writing under a penname, whether the character being played is similar, or wildly different than the actual person writing the book.

But let’s get to the heart of this. What is a “catfish”?

The urban dictionary says this:

A catfish is someone who pretends to be someone they're not using Facebook or other social media to create false identities, particularly to pursue deceptive online romances.

Notice that last part? Particularly to pursue deceptive online romances.

Pretending to be a woman, for example, for the purposes of building author -> reader relationships isn’t any different than attempts to build those author -> reader relationships that every single author that has ever written a book has attempted to do. Readers want to get to know their authors. They attend book signings. They get excited to communicate with their favorite author. The author behind the penname has expectations to meet, and a successful author will meet the expectations of their fans.

Selling romance novels to your fans is not an attempt to “romance” those fans. Lets be honest about this. Catfishing is talking about a very specific style of personal gratification that the person behind it is going for (I'm trying to keep this discussion PG for the sake of this forum, but you know exactly what "cat fishing" is, and why people view the practice as "creepy and skeevy". 

Or perhaps a better way to put this is... you could operate a penname in a successful way and not be a catfish.

You could also be a genuinely creepy catfish who writes books and seeks personal “romantic” gratification out of the experience, of course, but to act as if a person who writes under a penname (whether their “deception” is big or small) is trying to catfish people for some kind of “creepy” reason is projecting outrage on a situation where (in what I believe to be many/most cases) nothing outrageous is taking place.

Pennames are fantasy. They are fiction. Making fantasy/fictional characters that please and delight an audience is part of being an author.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

ET said:


> For example, I write crime novels. Whenever I meet someone with a background in law enforcement, I always find myself picking their brains. I am legitimately interested in their stories; however, I am also gathering "material".


I don't think research is the issue so much as misrepresenting yourself. ... ie. you reach out to law enforcement claiming to be a former FBI agent, when you're not.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

SaraBourgeois said:


> I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


sensible observation


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I asked my lgbtq son about how he'd feel if he found out the male author he was talking to was pretending to be gay but was really straight and was pretending to be lgbtq to mine readers for info for his books or simply as publicity / fan interaction.

He said that was super creepy, and that he'd boycott any author who did that. He said it was exploitative and deceptive.

I understand using pen names of the opposite gender in order to overcome reader biases that they may not be conscious of possessing. It's a whole other kettle of fish to interact with your readers in an intimate way while pretending to be a member of an identity group that you do not belong to.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

SaraBourgeois said:


> I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


Yup.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

SaraBourgeois said:


> I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


Absolutely.

Frankly, I'm sick of being mansplained about how I am wrong to feel the way I feel and that I should just chill out and not be hysterical because some man has done something that was creepy or inappropriate.

But that may just be me...


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I have a few books our under Cara Vance. I'm happy share this here as I make no real secret that "she's" me.
> 
> That said, I'm aware that even if I were to post it in big neon letters for the few sales I get under her name, not everyone will be aware. I don't see the harm in, say, returning a fan letter thanking someone for liking her books and signing it "Cara". I consider that a harmless maintaining of the illusion. Same with the occasional Facebook comment on her page.
> 
> But there's definitely a line I draw. Maintaining a fan page or twitter profile is one thing. Creating a full on user profile for her would probably start to make me feel iffy. Infiltrating groups meant to be women-only under her guise, without disclosure, would definitely set off my creeper alarms.


This. Pen names -- of your or another gender -- are a long and storied tradition. I myself am about to start a male pen name. I've got no beef with it and consider it simply part of the packaging/marketing of a book that tends to have readers who prefer an author or one or the other gender.

But once you start TALKING to people, and asking them personal stuff, and exchanging confidences (all of which are made up on your end, of course), you're entering into a relationship. Don't lie to people you have relationships with. It's douchey. And the idea that it's less douchey if you're doing it to get rich instead of to get off is just ridiculous.

If you find yourself saying "They'd be mad at me if they knew the truth," you're probably doing something wrong. And it's VERY interesting to me that 95% of the time, the people arguing about where the line is are the ones who are clearly on the wrong side of it.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


Can we have that in big red letters for those at the back who are hard of reading, please?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

boba1823 said:


> Why do people want to interact with fans anyway? Sounds wretched to me.


This made me laugh and laugh, seriously. Thanks for that. 

I love interacting with readers. My reader group on FB is, IMO, the best reader group in the universe, and we/they talk about EVERYTHING - kids, husbands, book recommendations, tv shows, hot guys (i write romance under that pen name), meme-sharing, otters .... it's just wonderful. I think romance readers in particular are such a generous and engaged and welcoming and enthusiastic group. I hate to see them exploited, because they are just so genuine.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Again, you can be a creepy person who operates a penname in a creepy way to catfish people on the other side of an internet conversation.

Or, you could be a not-creepy person who operates a penname in a not-creepy way.

JK Rowling had a male penname and bio, and represented herself as a man on a book, and I don't think she was trying to be a creepy catfish in that instance.

I respect that there are people who find the idea of a man writing as a woman "creepy" in general, even if no "creepiness" is actually taking place (I'm using this as an example here because clearly that has been the situation that causes the most contention). 

If I saw a guy outside my children's school every single day with a big pair of binoculars, I'd probably find it creepy. If I found out that guy was an avid birdwatcher and that the school was the roosting place of his favorite type of bird... I'd probably have a "creepy" vibe about that guy deep down, even if I knew 100% that they weren't trying to do anything untoward.

That's just human nature. It's not "normal" for a dude to be peering at a school with binoculars. It's not "normal" for a guy to be writing romance under a female penname. I get it.

Don't think that I haven't learned something from this conversation and from the conversation yesterday.

When I talk about my own catalog in the future, I'll be discussing my new penname "Buck Johnson", and books that I write from my uniquely manly perspective.


----------



## C. Gold (Jun 12, 2017)

I'm a firm believer in telling the truth and I disagree with misrepresenting who you are. I feel it's best to use gender neutral names if you are worried about reader bias. But, I'm not going to judge authors who use opposite gender names simply to sell books.

However, when you try to misrepresent your race with fake pictures, I'm going to get annoyed if I find out I'm supporting another majority author when I was specifically trying to help out minorities since I'm a firm believer that we need more diversity. I feel minorities have it hard enough without majorities stepping in and flooding the market with books that may or may not be a good representation of that minority culture. This might explain why some books are so race-neutral I forgot that the characters were supposed to be minorities.

Finally, I feel it's inappropriate if you are using a fake identity to gain trust of readers in order to get information you know deep down they probably wouldn't share if you weren't faking your identity. This is super skeevy to me. I know we aren't supposed to trust anyone on the net, and everything we say is completely public so don't overshare, etc., but it's hard to keep that in mind when interacting with someone you respect and interact with. By socially bonding, it leads to trust, however unwise that might be. If the author's lie was ever revealed, it would completely destroy the trust and respect and make me wonder what else about them was a lie. I would no longer want to read their books and would curse myself for being so gullible.


----------



## whatdanwrote (Oct 18, 2012)

I have no problems with pen names. I don't really mind if someone creates a pen name of a different gender, but I would personally at least do something gender neutral, and not specifically say I am a man or a woman. That being said, I would also not create such a pen name if I intended to interact with people as that person, ie I would just be publishing the books for fun and not have a huge online presence. 

But when you start to interact with people and pretend to be something you're not, it's really offensive. I had someone do that, they created a female pen name and were in a closed Facebook group with me. They asked me to collaborate on a story they were doing on an online writing site. We were characters in our own stories and this person wrote their character as a woman. About a year later, they just sort of dropped the bomb that they were in fact a man. Others in the group didn't have a problem with it, but I just thought it was creepy and weird. At that point, what you're doing is lying to people.


----------



## 91831 (Jul 18, 2016)

bobfrost said:


> Being that pen name is similar to an actor becoming the character they are playing on screen. Tom Cruise isn't a world travelling secret agent. I'm not upset that he presents himself as such in my entertainment.


I am not wanting to embroil myself in this topic, but I don't think this is the same thing as taking on the persona of a pen name. We know Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise and not say Jack Reacher.

If you're _being_ Jill Snow while interacting with fans and they don't know you're really Bob Frost, then that's not the same as the above example. Especially if you've used pictures of someone else as the pen name to add layers of reality to Jill.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

As has been mentioned above, there is a long history of people using identities that are not their own for the purposes of their writing life. I don't think anybody would seriously argue that that is a bad thing. It's like arguing that stage names are bad and Frances Gumm shouldn't have changed her name to Judy Garland, because that's, like, deceptive, man. But when you start allowing people to trust you and interact with you in a way you know full well they wouldn't interact with you if they knew your real identity, that's when it gets dubious, and anybody with any sense at all should know that.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Yeah, I’m aware that many (far from all)  MM authors are openly female. I’m also aware that a huge portion of MM readers are female too. I remember being very surprised by this when I first wrote a book for the genre. 

I was saying it would be difficult for an openly straight man to become a bestselling MM romance author. 

Could be done, but it’s swimming upstream.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> Again, you can be a creepy person who operates a penname in a creepy way to catfish people on the other side of an internet conversation.
> 
> Or, you could be a not-creepy person who operates a penname in a not-creepy way.
> 
> JK Rowling had a male penname and bio, and represented herself as a man on a book, and I don't think she was trying to be a creepy catfish in that instance.


There is a big difference between using an opposite-gender pen name for publishing because of reader bias against authors in that genre and interacting with your fans in an intimate way, exchange personal tidbits with them that are totally fabricated on your part. So please, don't conflate the two. Social media makes the second possible in a way it wasn't previously. That new intimacy is possible as a result of the internet and means there has to be a different kind of etiquette. There is an etiquette and generally, it is that cat fishing is a bad thing.

Rule of Thumb: If your readers would be upset / furious to find out you aren't really Sadie McSade of the Beat Me series BDSM romance novels, who loves to talk about being a sub and having a hot Master, don't do it.

I think a lot of female romance readers would be happy to know that the author is a male. Many women readers crave the fantasy that men really do feel the way heroes feel in romance novels. That's the fantasy they want. If they think a man is writing the book, it makes the hero seem more legitimate. My readers always say that they love my series told from the hero's point of view because they like seeing things from the man's perspective.

You could market yourself that way and probably do very well without having to deceive the readers you interacted with.


----------



## passerby (Oct 18, 2015)

C. Gold said:


> If the author's lie was ever revealed, it would completely destroy the trust and respect and make me wonder what else about them was a lie.


There's a lot of food for thought in that observation.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


Yep.

I asked my readers. They vote: super creepy.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

I'm kind of confused why anyone would talk about their sex life on the internet with an author he/she has never met. I'm honestly curious. I'm a big fan of keeping professional business pages and not going there regardless of if you're a man or woman. How would anyone think this was ever a good idea unless the author was a sex therapist and actually helping people with some hangups?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I'm kind of confused why anyone would talk about their sex life on the internet with an author he/she has never met. I'm honestly curious. I'm a big fan of keeping professional business pages and not going there regardless of if you're a man or woman. How would anyone think this was ever a good idea unless the author was a sex therapist and actually helping people with some hangups?


But you don't write romance. Romance readers do talk about sex in closed or secret groups. Especially in groups created by authors of steamy romance. It is fun and even helpful because women typically do not talk about sex (at least women over 40) in detail, and this is one place they can share. I also often get women writing to me and saying some scene I wrote or my take on communication around boundaries or whatever was helpful. I'd feel crappy receiving that confidence if I were interacting as a woman but actually a man.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> But you don't write romance. Romance readers do talk about sex in closed or secret groups. Especially in groups crater by authors of steamy romance. It's fun because women typically do not talk about sex (at least women over 40) in detail, and this is one place they can share.


I've written both paranormal romance and romantic suspense and would never consider it.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Anyway, I understand the perspectives here and I think everyone knows how I feel about the matter. I'll stop now before I step on any more landmines! 

Buck Johnson, signing out.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

I can't explain to you why -- my Psych minor was 20 years ago and I've forgotten more of it than I remember -- but romance readers (and as Rosalind said, particularly readers of steamy contemporary romance) do seem to enjoy reader spaces where they can interact with other readers and with authors around issues of sex and sexuality. 

There are those who will make fun of me here (they did in the other thread), but I think forging or allowing that connection when you're just in it to make a buck is a violation, and that saying "they should know better than to confide in someone on the internet" is a kind of victim-blaming. We don't know these people's stories, or why they want/need to explore those issues in those spaces, but it is a real fact that they do and it's gross to exploit it dishonestly.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I've written both paranormal romance and romantic suspense and would never consider it.


Let me clarify. I do not ask about readers' sex lives and would not. But they do talk about things freely because they feel safe. If I asked a question, it would be something like, is x sexual practice sexy to read about or gross? We also often discuss issues of consent and communication.

I suspect authors and readers of erotic romance get into it more.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

MyraScott said:


> This thread is for opinions specifically on male authors building trust relationships on social media "as a woman" in order to get readers to "talk steamy" and "share their sexual stories" in order to sell more books/get inspiration for your erotic writing.
> Do you think this is "no big deal" or do you find this serious violation of trust?
> **Cassie makes a good point. Widening the scope to "Pretending to be of any specific class you are not and actively INTERACTING with readers _as if you share their experiences_ in order to gain their trust."


There is a huge difference between the original thread topic and the broadened one. The first one is about provoking a conversation that with social media being eternal could easily come back to haunt an author if they made it big. The second is about gaining trust undercover and condemning that would be a further nail in the coffin of the already dire state of contemporary investigative journalism. The original topic is closer to setup journalism that eventually comes back to haunt the journalist and their media outlet.



sela said:


> I asked my lgbtq son


LGBTQ is an unusual angle to take in a context where some want to police who goes into women only spaces, which runs counter to supporting T and Q. B are also used to being policed out of some G and L spaces. Warning: there are worms in that can. There is also the real life equivalent of someone pretending to be lesbian known as pretendbians.

Anyone with much experience of social media knows that there is little you really know about those who are interacting with and that if you make a wrong step there are plenty of pretend-angrians ready to haunt you.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Being creeped out is like being offended. Everyone has a different gauge. The fact that Person X is creeped out by Person Y doesn't make Person Y creepy. It just means Person X is creeped out.

My gauge...

Interacting with readers via a fictional profile? I don't find that creepy.

People sharing details about their sex lives with strangers online? Now, _that's_ creepy.


----------



## mostlybree (Jan 11, 2010)

I am pretty horrified by this because I believe that interactions of a sexual nature should rely on informed consent. Even talking about sex with someone else online.

You are taking away someone's ability to consent in an informed fashion when you lie to them about who you are.


----------



## MyCatDoesNotConsent (Sep 11, 2017)

Я не согласен с новым TOS


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Anarchist said:


> Being creeped out is like being offended. Everyone has a different gauge. The fact that Person X is creeped out by Person Y doesn't make Person Y creepy. It just means Person X is creeped out.
> 
> My gauge...
> 
> ...


Women bond by sharing, being vulnerable, and protecting others' vulnerability. Women, especially of a certain age, often do not talk about sex in any detail (including things like how often they have it), even, sometimes particularly, with their husbands. Partly as a result, many women do not have very satisfying sex lives, but don't know how to make them better. Sometimes talking about it online, or reading more realistic romance, may be one way to start getting there. Since I started writing romance, women have shared many many more details with me both in my personal life and as readers. I have become a safe place, since I write a kind of hot but consensual sex that they particularly enjoy reading about. I get letters from women in their 80s about sex. Not nasty letters. Just saying, thank you, or I shared this chapter with my husband, or whatever.

It's this sharing and vulnerability in a space that felt safe, like a reader group that is heavily moderated and one of their go-to spaces online, or writing to an author who represents herself as a happily married mother, talks about her husband, and may write about a woman who hasn't had great experiences with sex exploring some new territory sexually, that would make this feel like a violation.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Anarchist said:


> Being creeped out is like being offended. Everyone has a different gauge. The fact that Person X is creeped out by Person Y doesn't make Person Y creepy. It just means Person X is creeped out.
> 
> My gauge...
> 
> ...


This is pretty much me. I honestly don't understand why this is a thing. At all. Not even a little.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

mostlybree said:


> I am pretty horrified by this because I believe that interactions of a sexual nature should rely on informed consent. Even talking about sex with someone else online.
> 
> You are taking away someone's ability to consent in an informed fashion when you lie to them about who you are.


This x 100.


----------



## Seneca42 (Dec 11, 2016)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I have a few books our under Cara Vance. I'm happy share this here as I make no real secret that "she's" me.
> 
> That said, I'm aware that even if I were to post it in big neon letters for the few sales I get under her name, not everyone will be aware. I don't see the harm in, say, returning a fan letter thanking someone for liking her books and signing it "Cara". I consider that a harmless maintaining of the illusion. Same with the occasional Facebook comment on her page.
> 
> But there's definitely a line I draw. Maintaining a fan page or twitter profile is one thing. Creating a full on user profile for her would probably start to make me feel iffy. Infiltrating groups meant to be women-only under her guise, without disclosure, would definitely set off my creeper alarms.


This only goes to show that everything is subjective. I would feel SUPER creepy pretending I was a woman in any capacity, even with a pen name with zero reader interaction.

But that's just my view, which doesn't mean it should be anyone else's. Everyone has a different line they draw, which is why we have laws  If you aren't breaking the law, then technically you aren't doing anything wrong regardless of whether it offends my moral sensibilities or not.


----------



## MyCatDoesNotConsent (Sep 11, 2017)

åååå
Я не согласен с новым TOS


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Mercia McMahon said:


> There is a huge difference between the original thread topic and the broadened one. The first one is about provoking a conversation that with social media being eternal could easily come back to haunt an author if they made it big. The second is about gaining trust undercover and condemning that would be a further nail in the coffin of the already dire state of contemporary investigative journalism. The original topic is closer to setup journalism that eventually comes back to haunt the journalist and their media outlet.
> 
> LGBTQ is an unusual angle to take in a context where some want to police who goes into women only spaces, which runs counter to supporting T and Q. B are also used to being policed out of some G and L spaces. Warning: there are worms in that can. There is also the real life equivalent of someone pretending to be lesbian known as pretendbians.
> 
> Anyone with much experience of social media knows that there is little you really know about those who are interacting with and that if you make a wrong step there are plenty of pretend-angrians ready to haunt you.


Well aware of that, but there is a difference between the politics of lgbtq identity / being trans etc. and an author masquerading as a woman / man / gay man and interacting with readers intimately for marketing purposes. I hope you can see the difference. The politics of lgbtq are a whole other kettle of fish to what we are talking about.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

I used to read copyblogger.com. Years ago, a well-known freelancer "came out," writing an article admitting she was a woman despite having pretended to be a man for years. (If you're interested, here's the article.)

I had interacted with her/him a number of times before her admission (I used to hire a lot of freelancers). Her actions didn't creep me out. Her fictional persona, once revealed, didn't creep me out. I took it in stride.

Some of you folks might be thinking, "_But it's not like you were sharing sexual details with her/him._"

Well, right. lol


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

If this kind of thing doesn't bother you, then that's dandy. Please don't forget that does not negate the experiences of those who it does bother.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

People have different reactions to the issue, that much is clear. 

I don't interact intimately with my readers except on the rare occasion that someone writes me a personal letter and relates some personal experience with how my books helped them through some rough time, etc. When that happens, I interact with them as myself as a person. I don't create a fictional personna to go along with my pen name. I am still me, just using different initials and surnames. 

When I publish my SF, I won't create a big fictional male personna to go along with my pen name.I will be using my real surname but initials. I just won't use my given name, which is clearly female. 

I think to create this huge fake persona is deceptive especially if you do any truly personal or intimate interaction with your customers. Like if I were to create a male fighter jock persona to write my SF and posted photos of my father's medals and planes, etc. It  might warm up some customers to me but imagine if they found out I was actually just a middle aged woman who never flew a plane?


----------



## Diamond Eyes (Feb 11, 2017)

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> As for asking sexually explicit questions of others/fans/etc? ANYONE asking that stuff online comes off as skeevy. Let's be honest. Why does a woman talking to other women get a pass on that? Unless the fan is already going there, asking those questions is icky.





Amanda M. Lee said:


> I'm kind of confused why anyone would talk about their sex life on the internet with an author he/she has never met. I'm honestly curious. I'm a big fan of keeping professional business pages and not going there regardless of if you're a man or woman. How would anyone think this was ever a good idea unless the author was a sex therapist and actually helping people with some hangups?





Anarchist said:


> Interacting with readers via a fictional profile? I don't find that creepy.
> 
> People sharing details about their sex lives with strangers online? Now, _that's_ creepy.


Totally agree with these points. Doing this kind of thing with ANYONE who you don't really know whether online or offline, male or female, whatever--seems like a bad idea.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

SaraBourgeois said:


> If this kind of thing doesn't bother you, then that's dandy. Please don't forget that does not negate the experiences of those who it does bother.


Yeah, it's like some people just refuse to accept that their own personal level of tolerance for things is not universal and that anyone who diverts from theirs is somehow wrong.

It's best to err on the side of caution when dealing with this issue, me thinks. If we are business people, the last people we should be wanting to upset with our behaviour is our customers...


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

boba1823 said:


> Or don't get caught
> 
> I'm always a little puzzled when people do get found out in situations like this.. is it really so difficult to keep up a pseudonym?


It can be tricky when it comes to bank accounts etc. I had been using email correspondence while working on a book project with a man. There was one innocuous comment he made that puzzled me as something I would not expect a man to say. When it came to using PayPal to pay him the name he gave me did not match his name. It turned out that the man was actually a woman. 
The name 'he' used was far more glamorous than her own name, so I can see why she did it .


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> This is pretty much me. I honestly don't understand why this is a thing. At all. Not even a little.


That's fine, IMO. But, as with so many things, you don't have to understand something to respect it, or to refrain from exploiting it for your own gain. Whether it's something YOU would do, it's something SOME people do, and it doesn't mean they deserve to be lied to and manipulated.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm in the category of those who say pretending to be female, engaging in frank sexual discussions as if a woman, etc., is very different from having a female pen name. To me, it's creepy, and when women say yeah, they _do_ find it creepy, then my opinion hardens further.

As a side note, is there also something off about women being the primary writers and consumers of MM erotica? Are gay men offended by this? Indifferent? Amused? Obviously, you can't speak for all "X" in any situation, but are there any thoughts on this that represent a general consensus?


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

KennySkylin said:


> Totally agree with these points. Doing this kind of thing with ANYONE who you don't really know whether online or offline, male or female, whatever--seems like a bad idea.


Which then makes me ask: are the female fans who are interacting with the authors actually female fans, or are they too 'faking it'? (for whatever reason)


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

KennySkylin said:


> Totally agree with these points. Doing this kind of thing with ANYONE who you don't really know whether online or offline, male or female, whatever--seems like a bad idea.


Thriller authors who write about government conspiracies and bad actions post a lot about government conspiracies and bad actions, and their audience engages. Romance authors, whose books are about sex and relationships, may have reader groups where, among other things, readers may discuss a sexual aspect of the books, and even reveal something of themselves. They may well not be talking about their OWN sex lives; they may just discuss some aspect of sex, consent, communication, whether dirty talk is sexy, etc. Often in a funny way, because women do tend to bring humor to discussions like that.

Is the internet the safest place? No, but a closed or preferably secret group may feel a whole lot safer to a middle-aged woman than confiding in or having a discussion with women in your small town, who may share something you've said about your husband or your past partners or what you think is hot. Shaming of women is alive and well, in case anybody hasn't noticed it.

But yeah, finding out the author was secretly a man is probably going to feel like a betrayal.

ETA: There's a reason, in Miss Congeniality, why our heroine takes off her earpiece/microphone when she's going to engage the other contestants in girl talk. Because for the female audience, it would be creepy for her to be talking about sex and relationships and personal stuff with these women and have the male FBI agents listening in.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

SaraBourgeois said:


> If this kind of thing doesn't bother you, then that's dandy. Please don't forget that does not negate the experiences of those who it does bother.





sela said:


> Yeah, it's like some people just refuse to accept that their own personal level of tolerance for things is not universal and that anyone who diverts from theirs is somehow wrong.


In the event these comments are in response to my posts, let me clarify...

The OP asked for an opinion. I gave mine.

I also noted that each person's experience is unique to them. Everyone has their own gauge.

I never tell others what to do. I never tell others how to think. I always recommend people do what works for them and accept the consequences.

So sela, who are you referring to?


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

I think there are going to be differing opinions on the topic, particularly since the question itself is the title of this thread, thereby inviting differing opinions.   I don't think either side is wrong for feeling/thinking as they do, and I think it would be a shame for the discussion to get shut down because one side (either side) doesn't want to hear the opinions on the other side. 

Personally, I'm not sure what I think. When the topic first came up on the other thread, I thought I knew where I stood, but my thoughts continue to form as I read and consider the points everyone else is making.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

MonkeyScribe said:


> As a side note, is there also something off about women being the primary writers and consumers of MM erotica? Are gay men offended by this? Indifferent? Amused? Obviously, you can't speak for all "X" in any situation, but are there any thoughts on this that represent a general consensus?


I think (but I may be mistaken) that MM is different from gay romance. MM is primarily fan fiction that is written by women for women. I think gay romance as I understand it is written for gay men or others who might appreciate it. I suspect that a lot of writers of gay romance are women, gay men and maybe as we have found out, straight men writing as gay men.

I got my start writing MM fan fiction after stumbling onto a MM Fan Fiction writing group whose leader had a PhD in English Lit and whose advice and editing skill I coveted just as a writer in general. We used to have sessions with a gay man who gave seminars on gay sex so we wouldn't get the sex scenes wrong. 

That was way back in the day so I don't know what's up now.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

sela said:


> I think (but I may be mistaken) that MM is different from gay romance. MM is primarily fan fiction that is written by women for women. I think gay romance as I understand it is written for gay men or others who might appreciate it. I suspect that a lot of writers of gay romance are women, gay men and maybe as we have found out, straight men writing as gay men.


That's my point, though. Generalizing, MM is written by women for women. They are using gay characters and erotic gay scenes for the enjoyment of non gay characters. Are gay men bothered by this? I don't know the answer to that.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Anarchist said:


> In the event these comments are in response to my posts, let me clarify...
> 
> The OP asked for an opinion. I gave mine.
> 
> ...


We're not supposed to personalize our comments, IIRC.

In general, I think it's probably a good social rule to consider how people will receive a comment and filter according to the situation.

I have no problem with people offering their opinion as long as they don't suggest that people who don't share it are wrong. And if their opinion itself is an insult to others? Maybe the person should decide if they want to do that before speaking. Sometimes, you know your opinion is going to insult others but you don't care because the opinion can't help but do so. You have to accept the fallout as you suggest. Like when I say that scammers who scam the KU pot are scammers. I don't care if the scammers get mad at me for having that opinion.

That's different from telling people that their feelings are wrong.

I don't always live up to my own advice, but I still think it's good advice.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

LilyBLily said:


> I have a lot of sympathy for those women. I remember meeting a lady decades ago who was about age 70-80 who told me that Silhouette Desire romances had detailed things she and her late husband had never known. She felt they'd missed out on some good times they could have had--of course because they'd both been raised during a far more repressive era than today's, with only a very basic sex education.
> 
> Online, everybody has to assume that what might be private could become public, and that people you think you know might be lying to you about who they are and what their experiences have been. That's just common sense.
> 
> ...


Whether we should assume other people might be lying or not (which honest people tend NOT to assume, particularly people who didn't grow up with the internet), that idea doesn't negate the skeeviness of pretending to be somebody you're not in order to receive others' confidences--whatever the motive. This is a kind of victim-blaming, I believe.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

LilyBLily said:


> Should I be ashamed if I volunteer information about myself to someone who comes across as sympathetic, or who appears to have a similar background? I don't think so. Should I be creeped out if I discover they've been lying about themselves? Again, no. It's the risk we take when we won't take the risk of getting to know people in the flesh.


Could not disagree with this more. So, the elderly people who trust that person who call them and steal their lifesavings with a scam should just let it go? It was their fault for being foolish and not the fault of the scammer?


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

It's also backed up by psychology that online relationships are as valid and important to people as the ones "in real life". Our lives are online now, so there is little distinction at this point. What differentiation does exist is rapidly declining as we become more and more connected by the web.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Monique said:


> Could not disagree with this more. So, the elderly people who trust that person who call them and steal their lifesavings with a scam should just let it go? It was their fault for being foolish and not the fault of the scammer?


I think our culture is so saturated in victim blaming that many people just don't recognize when they do it.

It's part of the larger social system, if you study sociology. Easier to blame victims than the culture because that seems to huge and impervious.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> It's also backed up by psychology that online relationships are as valid and important to people as the ones "in real life". Our lives are online now, so there is little distinction at this point. What differentiation does exist is rapidly declining as we become more and more connected by the web.


Readers in my group exchange gifts, visit each other (including in different countries), are each others' Facebook friends, send get-well cards, etc. They post about their lives. They feel, to each other, like friends. They trust the atmosphere. I've actually met a number of them in real life (at sporting events and a readers' tour of another country where I did a couple meals with them). My assistant vets approvals carefully and moderates heavily.

If I were revealed to be a man? (Absent the meeting in real life, of course--or if that person they were meeting turned out to have been my wife.) I guarantee that trust would be GONE.


----------



## EllieDee (May 28, 2017)

Disturbing topic.  The problem isn't pen names, as I see it, but taking on a fleshed-out persona and trying to reap unearned benefits from it.  The Rachel Dolezals of the writing world.  

There's a grey area here that authors need to be watch out for.  Replying politely to a fan is probably fine.  Initiating or extending a conversation is heading onto the grey.  When a conversation shifts toward sensitive topics like gender and sexual identity, fantasies, etc, it's definitely time to gracefully bow out or risk getting labeled a creep when exposed.

When a male author pretending to be a woman to gain erotic novel inspiration is unmasked, that's definitely a creepy and violating moment.  People can only hope that he won't use their fantasies and personal stories to harm them ... and he's already proved he's a liar.


----------



## Gwood (Apr 3, 2010)

Author impersonates veteran. Interacts with other veterans as if he, too, is a veteran.

The community: "That's disgusting! How dare he?"

Change "veteran" to "woman."

The community: "Hmmm... this seems to be a gray area that requires further discussion and examination."


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Gwood said:


> Author impersonates veteran. Interacts with other veterans as if he, too, is a veteran.
> 
> The community: "That's disgusting! How dare he?"
> 
> ...


Bingo!


----------



## mama_bear (Oct 17, 2017)

This is an interesting subject, and I wanted to touch on something else that wasn't mentioned yet:



> I have become a safe place, since I write a kind of hot but consensual sex that they particularly enjoy reading about. I get letters from women in their 80s about sex. Not nasty letters. Just saying, thank you, or I shared this chapter with my husband, or whatever.


I think creating something that moves people to share is really beautiful, and it's one of the reasons writing is so fulfilling for me. This puts the author in a position of giving--whatever we create is for our readers, for them to take and share or interpret as they will.

Catfishing readers for information reverses the dynamic: now the author is trying to take from fans, which I feel is inappropriate. It gives me a similar sense of "you're not supposed to be here," in the same way authors shouldn't respond to reviews. I think there are certain positions on the give/take scale that are professional, and others that are not.

Also, when I first took an interest in slash and MM, one of the criticisms of female authors that I read frequently is that they questioned gay men about their sex lives in an exploitative way, and that upset a lot of people. When I think about writing MM, which is something I can't personally experience, as a woman, I simply write my characters as people first, and problem solved. Catfishing fans with sexual questions is unnecessary on so many different levels. Why not just have a great beta reader?

If an author has to mine fans for story ideas, maybe the author should try a genre that comes more naturally?

If it's a question of the mechanics of sex, there's a well-kept secret: the internet is full of porn.

If it's a question of human sexual proclivities, there are tons of scientific and psychological studies easily available, also via the internet, that would be more concise, more informative, and likely more insightful than a handful of raunchy Facebook PMs.

If you really need personal accounts, go on Reddit. Don't get your professional identity involved.

I also wanted to echo the sentiments of fans having their consent stripped if the author misrepresents himself.

It's unprofessional, unethical, and unnecessary. And I do wholly support authors using whatever pen name it takes to break into a genre.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

mama_bear said:


> Also, when I first took an interest in slash and MM, one of the criticisms of female authors that I read frequently is that they questioned gay men about their sex lives in an exploitative way, and that upset a lot of people. When I think about writing MM, which is something I can't personally experience, as a woman, I simply write my characters as people first, and problem solved. Catfishing fans with sexual questions is unnecessary on so many different levels. Why not just have a great beta reader?


Yes, back in the day, there certainly was a concern about exploiting gay men for info, but in my own case and our group's case, we went to a gay writer who quite happily offered up his services to help create more authentic-feeling encounters in our MM. Of course, it was fiction and so fantasy, but at least we had some of the actual mechanics more accurate as a result. Today, there is a lot more resources online than we had 20 years ago so I expect writers of gay romance can use those resources rather than exploit their fans via catfishing.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> I believe there are two camps on this. One takes offense and one considers it a benefit to the community because it has helped in some small way to open minds and further the interests of the gay community.
> Don't hold me to this though because I try to stay out of the politics of this stuff. I read for enjoyment and I happen to really like MM romance (gay romance is more "gay" (ie gay male oriented) if you will, although MM has been taking over the category in more recent years).
> MM comes from M/M which was called slash, with its origins in the / between Kirk/Spock. Not to derail this thread, so I'll leave it there, but it's much more complicated and involved than all that.


I thought that "gay fiction" was more literary, less likely to have a happy ending, etc., and more likely to be read and written by gay men and enjoyed on the literary end of things, while MM and gay romance are basically the same, stories that focus on men falling in love and (almost always) getting their happy ending.

There are a range of opinions...dare I say a rainbow of opinions?? And the same holds for how lesbians feel about lesbian content created by men, etc. Is it just objectifying or is it something an actual LGBT person can enjoy and not feel dehumanized? I think there are probably times when it's fair to be creeped out and irritated by objectification!! OTOH a good story should be something anyone who likes that sort of story can enjoy.

My experience is that there are male and female readers (and a lot of non-binary people) who find great joy in gay romance, written by men or women, as long as it's well written and the characters are someone you can engage with emotionally. People who have found it's opened their minds, helped them accept themselves, and many, many people who use the happy endings and engaging story lines as a way of getting through whatever difficult life issue they might be going through. I've done the same myself.

People will have strong opinions on this matter, that come back to their life experience and whether they feel like they're being victimized once again by the straights, basically. But most *readers*, who want to read a satisfying *romance* (whatever their gender) will care mostly about the story, not the author's gender. Yes, we all have biases to overcome about that.

I love using a gender neutral pen name. If anyone wants to know my gender I'm fine with telling them. But I do really love the appeal of having a gender neutral name. Too bad my parents didn't think of that when I was born, that I'd want to be as gender neutral as possible.  

I know there are periodic blowups in the community with gay men being p*ssed off at female writers. Fortunately I miss most of them (not being active on social media has its benefits), but I'd just like to point out that one of my friends shared that they could no longer read a male gay romance author who had gone out of his way to bash female readers and writers. My friend just couldn't see the author's work the same way anymore, even though my pal really liked them before.

So be careful if you decide to bash a big part of your readership. It'll bite you in the ass. Whoever you think your audience is composed of, it probably has more people who aren't like that than you think, and you'll turn a lot of people off you as an author if you're an [expletive] to some of your audience. (In addition to turning away some of the audience you think you have, and want, because they don't approve of that sort of behavior.)

Of course we all know stories of horrible, probably psychopathic authors who somehow manage to keep their audience and sell well. Seems like if you're famous enough you can get away with practically committing murder. But can anyone here really afford to be known as the next [insert hateful author of your choice]?

Further muddying the waters, a lot of gay romance is written by lesbian authors. More than statistically likely numbers. People who have no particular interest in male anatomy in their real lives at all...but who love writing stories about men falling in love. Readers and writers have their own reasons for loving stories of various kinds. It's not wrong, it's great. But I actually hate that people have crossed that line to catfish and manipulate and guilt their audience into supporting them because they're gay men when they're NOT. There's an author I know of that I really can't forgive. That's just how I feel about it. 

It's fine to use a pen name, but don't be a [expletive]ing creep, don't lie and manipulate your audience to make more money. Somehow that's a controversial statement??

FYI: I've never had any readers talk to me about sex except to say they were glad my stories were frequently on the "sweeter" end so the focus was more on other aspects of the story. The readers who don't feel that way don't tend to contact me in person.  I suspect it's genre dependent, as well as having to do with how much interaction you have with your readers, and how big your audience is.



Usedtoposthere said:


> Readers in my group exchange gifts, visit each other (including in different countries), are each others' Facebook friends, send get-well cards, etc. They post about their lives. They feel, to each other, like friends.


That is really sweet! It's wonderful you've made a place that they can find that community. A feeling of community can be so important and hard to find for many people.



Gwood said:


> Author impersonates veteran. Interacts with other veterans as if he, too, is a veteran.
> The community: "That's disgusting! How dare he?"
> Change "veteran" to "woman."
> The community: "Hmmm... this seems to be a gray area that requires further discussion and examination."


Yeah... Honestly I was SUPER disappointed with JK Rowling when she chose to use an inauthentic backstory for her penname and claimed to be a veteran. It was gross. But I think the publisher was ultimately to blame because there's no way they didn't a) suggest it in the first place, or b) at the very least sign off on it. Still, not cool. 
Even then, as far as we know, she wasn't interacting with fans claiming that to be a veteran and pumping them for information or guilting them into loyalty.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Just Griff said:


> I'd happily drown in opinions about the current goings on of indie publishing, but I'll pass on drowning in a sea of personal opinions about my personal life. * * * But maybe how I feel is a reaction to everyone from my generation oversharing, and seeing how much needless drama that can cause.


It can't be entirely age related, or at least not entirely. I'm way past SS age and feel that way. Some of it must be personality or individual temperament. If others find what they're convinced are safe spaces on the internet and want to share, it's certainly up to them, but my own experience is there is no such safe place. KBoards once seemed safe, and then there was the one-star outbreak. I bet a determined person could infiltrate Rosalind's group, and someday someone will.

As for the OP question, for me opposite gender pen name, fine. Online presence to act out that pen name as a real person, no. Assuming a different racial or sexual identity is taking a big risk on ugly fallout over unmasking and unfair to those who believe.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> I feel it's inappropriate if you are using a fake identity to gain trust of readers in order to get information you know deep down they probably wouldn't share if you weren't faking your identity.


Not sure why some people seem to not get that this is entirely different from using a pen name.

I personally have a pen name, male, or gender neutral at best, but I don't particularly hide it. It's right down there in my signature. But, I don't go out of my way to announce I'm a woman writing under that name. Everything in my author bios for both pen names is true, by the way. I tried to focus it in such a way that it wasn't obvious who I was, but not a lie to be seen. I've never gone on a forum or anywhere else to elicit information of any kind and pretended to be someone/something I'm not: an aging, Southern-born American, biological female with pale peach-colored skin.

As a veteran, I was not happy with J K Rowling's pen name claiming military experience she did not have. That was not cool.


----------



## MyCatDoesNotConsent (Sep 11, 2017)

qui tacet consentit

Я не согласен с новым TOS


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Taking this away from the sex aspect or the issue of pulling information from readers...

Let's say I write a story where a woman has a miscarriage.

*Scenario 1:*
A reader writes to me and says, "Thank you so much for writing that story. I had a miscarriage and it was devastating and I felt all alone, but reading your book made me feel like someone else got it."

I write back and say, "I'm so sorry to hear you had to experience that. And I am so glad that my book helped you deal with that pain. Thank you."

No matter what gender I am as an author or what my own experience with miscarriage is, that to me is an acceptable interaction.

*Scenario 2:*
Same as before. Reader emails and says that I connected with their experience.

I write back and say, "I'm so glad it helped you. I too felt alone when I had a miscarriage and I wanted to write this piece so others would understand how it felt."

If I have in fact had a miscarriage, that's a fine response. If I haven't? That's manipulative and betrays a reader's trust.

*Scenario 3:*
I write a blog post or FB post about the book I'm about to publish and talk about my own experience with miscarriage.

If I have never had a miscarriage, that is manipulative and betrays readers' trust. If I have, fine. Could pretending that I'd had a miscarriage sell more books? Sure, maybe. But that would make me a really crappy human being to take an event that emotionally traumatic and pretend it was my own experience.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

boba1823 said:


> Bingo - and this is what makes me believe that when the more business-minded Romance authors (on here, at least) discuss interacting with fans through a pseudonymous persona, they are not trying to mine them for this sort of information.
> 
> I'm still poking about in hope that some of the Pros will shed some more light on this, but maybe it's too much of a trade secret. (Is it just dropping comments to fans, e.g. "Cute doggy!" "Cute baby!"?)
> 
> It's hard for me to see how more substantive engagement, like lengthy private conversations with individual fans, could be of much value to a fiction author in most circumstances. I'm certainly open to the possibility that I'm wrong about this, being a noob. But it seems like one of those 80/20 rule things, and I would think that there should be more effective ways to spend one's time as an author.


One possible concern, I think, is that men using female pen names may not be talking to female fans about intimate subjects in order to build bonds with readers, to gain insight into female sexuality, or for any other pragmatic reason, but simply because it's titillating. I sincerely hope that's never the case, but no one looking at those conversations from the outside could really know for sure what motivates them, so the possibility exists. In my mind, that differentiates this particular scenario from J.K. Rowling's developing a male bio or other pretenses where the dishonesty is more clearly pragmatic in motivation.

Edited: I seem to have accidentally deleted the quote I was responding to.  Restored it.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

SaraBourgeois said:


> I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


This.

Using an opposite gender pen name is not creepy. It's when that author tries to gain the trust of and interacts heavily with readers knowing that these interactions would not be what they are were those readers to know the true identity of the author. Also using a fake (ie not you) picture to represent you are that person is pretty borderline for me (and illegal to do under most stock licenses and model agreements, btw).

Or, basically, what Sela said.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

mostlybree said:


> I am pretty horrified by this because I believe that interactions of a sexual nature should rely on informed consent. Even talking about sex with someone else online.
> 
> You are taking away someone's ability to consent in an informed fashion when you lie to them about who you are.


This THIS THIS


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> One possible concern, I think, is that men using female pen names may not be talking to female fans about intimate subjects in order to build bonds with readers, to gain insight into female sexuality, or for any other pragmatic reason, but simply because it's titillating.


it's gross if it's for prurient reasons, sure, but I strongly believe that it's also gross to do it for those other reasons. Have a female pen name if you like, and I'll defend that right all the way to the barricades. But don't forge relationships with people -- not to "build bonds," not to "gain insight," not for any "pragmatic reason" -- under false pretenses. Treat your fellow human beings as you'd want to be treated.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I can't imagine constantly interacting with people as someone you aren't. Pretending to be a woman in a discussion group day in and day out. I just don't understand what drives some people.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I think the issue is how far this is taken.

Using initials and writing without clear gender identification is an old technique to overcome potential resistance to the gender of the author in some genres. There are so many cases throughout history that it is often necessary because of stereotypes around gender.

Creating a neutral but truthful bio, using a generic symbol for the author page instead of an author pic, should provide curious readers with enough info. The book is the important piece after all.

Going out of your way to create a fake persona, and then to interact with readers in an intimate way with them, crosses the line IMO.

It's entirely understandable if a reader is affronted when finding out they've been catfished. Authors should take heed -- if you want to keep secret who you really are, just use gender neutral initials and a gender neutral bio. While a sexed-up bio on your author page and stock photo of a woman (or man) and sexy interactions on your Facebook page in private might sell a few books, the fallout from being outed as having deceived your readers will probably mean a lot fewer books will be sold and you could get a slew of 1 star reviews and hate mail. Not worth it.

If you are worried that your readers would be upset if they found out, you are probably right.


----------



## Overrated (Mar 20, 2015)

I have no issues with people using opposite gendered pen names. I think when you take on an identity - racial, gender, sexual, what have you - that goes beyond the pen name issue. I'm a white, short, middle-aged woman. I don't have a lot of experiences that someone who is a POC and male would have. I have a pen name, but it's female, and I don't do a lot with it. Even so, the facts I give for the pen name are facts that are true about me.

Maybe with a bit less about the middle-aged part. 

There's a difference between using a pen name and creating an identity that is definitely not you. Readers want to get to know _you_, even if it's just in a professional manner. If you're not really who you present yourself as, I think that's problematic.

Although oddly, I had no problem with JK Rowling's male pen name. I figured she - and her publisher - wanted to get away from having any connection to Harry Potter.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

MyraScott said:


> This thread is *NOT* about having a pen name that is the opposite gender.


Again, the topic of this thread is whether you think it's OK to *pretend directly to people on social media that you share their experiences* in order to convince them to interact with you.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

MyraScott said:


> Again, the topic of this thread is whether you think it's OK to *pretend directly to people on social media that you share their experiences* in order to convince them to interact with you.


I think that's the real issue. Pen names = OK. Tricking women into telling you their sexual secrets = creepy.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I can't say I even particularly mind if someone interacts with their readers as someone they're not - provided they're not inviting confidences that they know would not be given if the reader knew who they really were. This obviously presupposes dealing with readers in a way that's professional but not over-familiar, and will be easier to manage in some genres than others. I guess it might be impossible in romance, if romance readers really do like to share confidences in the ways that have been mentioned upthread.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> it's gross if it's for prurient reasons, sure, but I strongly believe that it's also gross to do it for those other reasons. Have a female pen name if you like, and I'll defend that right all the way to the barricades. But don't forge relationships with people -- not to "build bonds," not to "gain insight," not for any "pragmatic reason" -- under false pretenses. Treat your fellow human beings as you'd want to be treated.


Yep.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

MyraScott said:


> Again, the topic of this thread is whether you think it's OK to *pretend directly to people on social media that you share their experiences* in order to convince them to interact with you.


I think pretending to share an identity you do not on social media or forums or wherever in an attempt to get people to interact with you or to sell them something is skeevy.


----------



## JeanetteRaleigh (Jan 1, 2013)

There are two different issues here:  

1) Is it wrong for a male to pretend to be female when writing steamy romance (even to the extent of a fan site, etc)?
    
IMO, no. It's good marketing. A large majority of the romance market is written by women (or pen-named by men with female pens). I believe this can be done without crossing the line into creepy. 

2) Is it wrong for a man to pretend to be a woman in order to 'talk dirty' to fans?

IMO, yes. Although I suppose someone who would share that personal of a story online without ever seeing who they are talking to probably wouldn't care that much, from an ethics position, this sounds creepy.  If you want research, be up front and admit to being a guy writing female fiction and that you want feedback on the sexy stuff.  You might not find as many people willing to help, but then again, if it's sincere, you might find even more honest feedback.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

JeanetteRaleigh said:


> There are two different issues here:
> 
> 1) Is it wrong for a male to pretend to be female when writing steamy romance (even to the extent of a fan site, etc)?
> 
> IMO, no. It's good marketing. A large majority of the romance market is written by women (or pen-named by men with female pens). I believe this can be done without crossing the line into creepy.


No. This is not the issue we are discussing here. You can start a new thread so everyone can say we all think this is a fine, long standing tradition and no one really has an issue with it.

Again, we are not discussing whether having a pen name of the opposite gender is a thing.



JeanetteRaleigh said:


> 2) Is it wrong for a man to pretend to be a woman in order to 'talk dirty' to fans?
> 
> IMO, yes. Although I suppose someone who would share that personal of a story online without ever seeing who they are talking to probably wouldn't care that much, from an ethics position, this sounds creepy. If you want research, be up front and admit to being a guy writing female fiction and that you want feedback on the sexy stuff. You might not find as many people willing to help, but then again, if it's sincere, you might find even more honest feedback.


This is what we are discussing.


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

JeanetteRaleigh said:


> There are two different issues here:
> 
> 1) Is it wrong for a male to pretend to be female when writing steamy romance (even to the extent of a fan site, etc)?
> 
> ...


I think there are even more than two issues. So many scenarios have been brought up, everything from soliciting sexual information to "mining" readers for future writing material to simply responding to an email or having a stock photo profile picture.

Some lines are obvious, while others are more nuanced.

A part of me wonders if this stuff is really happening (catfishing for titillation or writing material), while another part is cynical enough to know it surely is, somewhere. To me, that's in a completely different category than a profile picture or a response to an email.

But then again, if you use the argument, "Would it upset the reader?" the answer has to be that yes, a fake profile picture or email from a pseudonym could certainly upset a reader if they end up feeling deceived. Heck, a pseudonym in general could upset a reader. Not all, maybe. Maybe not even most. But it would certainly upset some.

All of which is to say aside from that very clear, very bold line, a lot of this stuff is difficult to parse out.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

It seems to me that some of the inability to understand the importance of this whole issue could be resolved if people here would just use their imaginative skills as writers and imagine themselves as the kind of person who might actually share personal information on line, information that they would not themselves share or even consider sharing in real life. (Most of us here are just way too smart for that, right? Oh, yeah!)

And then imagine how that created "person" might feel to learn they were sharing their most intimate thoughts with a person who was lying in all the most fundamental ways about who they were and why they were there. And while we're at it, let's also imagine that that imagined "person" who is so very different from us, though not nearly so sensible and wise, has a right to respect and consideration and not just be brushed off as stupid for having trusted where they shouldn't.

We're writers. We create characters. We can do that, right?

Sadly, given where this whole discussion started, I think Gwood really hit the heart of it...



Gwood said:


> Author impersonates veteran. Interacts with other veterans as if he, too, is a veteran.
> 
> The community: "That's disgusting! How dare he?"
> 
> ...


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> It's hard for me to see how more substantive engagement, like lengthy private conversations with individual fans, could be of much value to a fiction author in most circumstances. I'm certainly open to the possibility that I'm wrong about this, being a noob. But it seems like one of those 80/20 rule things, and I would think that there should be more effective ways to spend one's time as an author.


I think you've unintentionally underlined another reason for what, at times, seems to be a total disconnect between folks in this discussion. Some, I think, are looking at it entirely from a business and practical (the Internet is NOT a private place!) angle, while others are looking at it from a far more....I'm struggling with the right word here because I'm not slamming the practical business people....human or personal angle.

I can best explain that by appearing to derail the thread in an attempt to answer your question. You are wondering why any author would spend so much time and energy with all this reader chit-chat nonsense because, from your perspective, that's simply not a good ROI for your investment (your investment being time spent chatting when you don't really want to and don't find any value in it). The truth is, for authors who don't enjoy that connection with readers, it really is a bad investment of time and energy. Smart writers look for other avenues that fit them and their personalities better.

But for writers who DO enjoy it, it's not about the possibility of monetary return. It's about the human connection with their readers (see Lilywhite's and Usedtoposthere's posts about it up thread). And because they enjoy it, they can establish a "personal" connection with people they may never meet, but nonetheless get to know....and that, down the road, DOES translate into money in terms of more readers and more engaged readers eager to buy their books. But that's not why they do it. They do it because they honestly like doing it. If they didn't, if it were just a facade, the readers would figure it out eventually. (Even the author whose posts were the impetus behind this thread admitted that he'd abandon pen names and personas when they ceased to be profitable, and that included walking away from places where he was engaging directly with his readers. And judging from how many pen names he seems to go through, a lot of them evidently stop being profitable pretty quickly.)

But romance authors aren't the only ones who honestly enjoy engaging with readers. Check out Neil Gaiman and his connections with his fans if you don't believe me. Gaiman is on record--often--for saying he just flat likes communicating with his fans, and learning from them, as well. You will never see him talking about the sales advantage he gains from it, because that's not his reason for doing it.

For you, since you're looking at it in strictly business/profit terms, this clearly isn't an approach that would work for you. For Gaiman and Lilywhite and Usedtoposthere and others, it most definitely is.

So...dragging this back on topic...I think it's that difference in perspective--the pragmatic business view versus the "I really connect with my readers and am glad they like to connect with me" view--that has contributed to some of the disconnects here. Some here are very much looking at it from the perspective of the readers, on whose behalf they are concerned, even outraged, while others, with absolutely no ill will intended, are looking at it from a much more practical, "this is a business and everyone with access to the Internet should understand the risks" approach.

The primary values and premises we start with often determine the judgments we arrive at in the end.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

My Dog's Servant said:


> Gaiman and Lilywhite


Printing this out and hanging it over the desk.


----------



## 39416 (Mar 18, 2011)

Aw heck, anyone who thinks it's ok to do this should just go to the groups they are doing this to and ask _them _if they think said practice is ok.

Then post their responses here!


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

My Dog's Servant said:


> I think you've unintentionally underlined another reason for what, at times, seems to be a total disconnect between folks in this discussion. Some, I think, are looking at it entirely from a business and practical (the Internet is NOT a private place!) angle, while others are looking at it from a far more....I'm struggling with the right word here because I'm not slamming the practical business people....human or personal angle.
> 
> The primary values and premises we start with often determine the judgments we arrive at in the end.


Well said.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

It's dishonest. And faulting readers who discuss intimate details from their lives with a dishonest author strikes me as akin to blaming women for wearing skirts when men rape them. Although no one can truly know who someone else truly is (in "real life" or on the Internet), it's reasonable that readers feel both respect for authors and some kind of personal connection. After all, they let us inside their heads, in ways they might not let others. Why should they _not_ trust authors are who they say they are by default?


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

I have to admit that I started reading this thread, rolling my eyes, and thinking - snowflakes. What's the problem?

Then as I read down some of the Author interactions with their readers, I thought about the emails I've received from readers who tell me that their husband just died, or their family history, or they have cancer and they wanted to thank me from taking them away from all of that for a while, and I thought, yep, people want to connect with us on a different level.

Then I thought about the readers who send a quick email to say they loved the book and when you reply thanking them they say; Oh wow, I never thought you'd respond. They put us on a pedal stool and think of us in the same way that they think of movie stars, or JK Rowling, etc. Imagine these gushing fans who are only too happy to be having a conversation with the 'star' - they want to be helpful, they want to please - they overshare.  

Yep, I started the thread thinking - snowflake, and ended the thread thinking - wrong and exploitative.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

MClayton said:


> A part of me wonders if this stuff is really happening (catfishing for titillation or writing material), while another part is cynical enough to know it surely is, somewhere. To me, that's in a completely different category than a profile picture or a response to an email.


I think is important to make it clear that this is absolutely happening. This is a direct quote [detailed paraphrase] from the twitter account of a romance author who claims to be a woman. Based on all the evidence I've seen, he is not:

[My recent reading has raised a question for me: how old were you when you experienced orgasm for the first time? Were you older or did you get started at a young age? Don't hold back.]

Personally, I find that very skeevy.

_I've replaced ChristinaGarner's quotation of the tweet with what I hope is an accurate paraphrase. Googling the tweet itself led me right to the Twitter account of the author in question. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

There's a very good business reason to engage on social media with readers (though you try to keep it relatively professional). It's called "brand ambassadors." In romance in particular, to my extreme surprise when I started publishing 5+ years ago, many readers (not all) enjoy a personal connection with an author. And people being people, if they have that personal connection and it's positive, they tend to talk the author up on THEIR social media, with real-life friends, etc.

Never discount the value of word of mouth. Word of mouth is what gives your books legs and you a career instead of a hobby. And gaining it via social media a thousand or more readers at a time is infinitely more efficient than hand-selling books out of the trunk of your car or at reader events.


----------



## MClayton (Nov 10, 2010)

ChristinaGarner said:


> I think is important to make it clear that this is absolutely happening. This is a direct quote [detailed paraphrase] from the twitter account of a romance author who claims to be a woman. Based on all the evidence I've seen, he is not:
> 
> [My recent reading has raised a question for me: how old were you when you experienced orgasm for the first time? Were you older or did you get started at a young age? Don't hold back.]
> 
> ...


Yeah that's ... wow. That just bulldozed right across the line.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

MClayton said:


> Yeah that's ... wow. That just bulldozed right across the line.


For me as well. I could care less about pen names or even maintaining a fictional presence online for that pen name. This goes far beyond that. And if there's nothing wrong with it, why the lack of transparency? (Spoiler alert: because there's something wrong with it.)


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Gwood said:


> Author impersonates veteran. Interacts with other veterans as if he, too, is a veteran.
> 
> The community: "That's disgusting! How dare he?"
> 
> ...


Impersonating a veteran is illegal. Impersonating a woman isn't.

There is a pretty big legal and ethical distinction between those two things. They are not equivalent.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

bobfrost said:


> Straw man.
> 
> Impersonating a veteran is illegal. Impersonating a woman isn't.
> 
> There is a pretty big legal and ethical distinction between those two things. They are not equivalent.


This thread is full of women telling you they find it equally repugnant though. Maybe think about that?


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Annie B said:


> This thread is full of women telling you they find it equally repugnant though. Maybe think about that?


This should go without saying. And yet... :/


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

Just remember the motivation here is $$$$. There's a formula being taught on how to make small fortune writing and publishing romance. And these guys are following it to the letter. They set up multiple pen-names each one tailored to fit niche genre they write in. This includes the social media component. And everyone in this sub-group, male or female, is following the scripted program as they've been taught. 

I'm not saying I don't find it skeevy... but their motivation isn't personal sexual gratification it's profit. In their minds they are creating and selling a fantasy and readers are gobbling it up.  Again, this is a method of business that's being packaged and sold to hungry authors. Men and women are involved here.. it's something to think about.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

bobfrost said:


> Impersonating a veteran is illegal. Impersonating a woman isn't.
> 
> There is a pretty big legal and ethical distinction between those two things. They are not equivalent.


Nice try. But no.

But I'll let my readers speak (I asked them what they thought):

"Creepy ... dishonest ... ugh."
"Creepy, yuck, disgusting."
"Crossing a line ... highly distasteful."
"I should have a reasonable expectation of knowing who I'm talking to."
"Ewww."
"No. Nope. Nyet. Never. Sorry fella, but if it's done behind a veil of dishonesty, it is WRONG!"
"very disturbing."
"deceitful."

Two readers also said readers should realize that people might not be who they said they were on the internet.

They do clearly distinguish between simply using a female pen name (fine) and interacting in personal ways as a woman on social media, newsletters, etc. (not fine)


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Just remember the motivation here is $$$$. There's a formula being taught on how to make small fortune writing and publishing romance. And these guys are following it to the letter. They set up multiple pen-names each one tailored to fit niche genre they write in. This includes the social media component. And everyone in this sub-group, male or female, is following the scripted program as they've been taught.
> 
> I'm not saying I don't find it skeevy... but their motivation isn't personal sexual gratification it's profit. In their minds they are creating and selling a fantasy and readers are gobbling it up. Again, this is a method of business that's being packaged and sold to hungry authors. Men and women are involved here.. it's something to think about.


We don't care whether it's for profit or for sexual pleasure. We find it an invasion and nonconsensual.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Annie B said:


> This thread is full of women telling you they find it equally repugnant though. Maybe think about that?


I think catfishing is repugnant.

Not illegal, but sure, I get why people aren't keen on it.

I don't think every male author who pretends to be female to maximize their income due to the societal expectations for romance author gender is a catfish, and I don't think they are universally repugnant.

I guess that's me trying to say that there is room for nuance here. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think any author who has ever misrepresented themselves with so much as a penname is repugnant, but I would argue that is a fairly extreme view. I certainly didn't think JK Rowling having a male penname and interacting with people as a man (with a male bio) was repugnant, but maybe someone out there did. There is a pretty wide range of what people believe to be ethical, moral, reasonable, or repugnant.

There are people here who think it's repugnant. There are others who think there is a spectrum of acceptability. In my eyes, an author could absolutely cross the line to repugnant, but I disagree with painting every single author who does this as repugnant.

A person pretending to be a veteran isn't a nuanced situation. It's illegal. There is no spectrum of acceptability there.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Actually, it's not illegal to represent yourself as a veteran. Yes, there was an act (the Stolen Valor Act) that made it so. However, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down 6-3 as an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. (United States v. Alvarez). Wearing medals or a uniform you haven't earned is illegal; representing yourself as a veteran in print or speech when you aren't is not. 

So--no. Distasteful in both cases, but not illegal.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> We don't care whether it's for profit or for sexual pleasure. We find it an invasion and nonconsensual.


Your missing my point. This is being taught to both men and women who are paying to be part of romance mastermind groups. That's why it's suddenly becoming so prevalent. I would not personally pay for these groups or employ their morally questionable methods (which includes a lot of gray hat techniques) -- but it's part of the package of what they are being taught. And it's important to know that's essential to what's going on here.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Bringing it back around to the OP discussion though... yeah, I think it’s certainly possible for a male author pretending to be female on social media to cross the line into reprehensibility.

Nuance. There is a line and it can be crossed. Where the line is drawn will vary from person to person, but I’m sure we could find content that would be more or less universally deemed to be inappropriate or repugnant.

I suspect where I would draw that line is significantly different than where most of the people chiming in would draw theirs, but it would be possible to offend me or disgust me if you went far enough out on the fringe.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

What I don't get, Bob, is that you've admitted what you're doing would upset some of your readers and yet you don't see anything wrong with that. I simply can't understand how you can continue to defend it with "nuance" when you know it's a betrayal of trust and have admitted so.

It's just gross and repellant.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Actually, it's not illegal to represent yourself as a veteran. Yes, there was an act (the Stolen Valor Act) that made it so. However, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down 6-3 as an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. (United States v. Alvarez). Wearing medals or a uniform you haven't earned is illegal; representing yourself as a veteran in print or speech when you aren't is not.
> 
> So--no. Distasteful in both cases, but not illegal.


I must have missed this decision.

In that case, I would have to think about my position on this. Being illegal made it easy to cast off.

Let me mull this over.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

I think with the internet & social media a whole new world exists & I think there are people who like to buy into fantasies such as reality TV & online worlds where anyone can pretend to be anything. A lot of people are lonely & want to talk to whoever wants to talk to them & enjoy the fantasy of whoever that person is pretending to be. 

I'm a woman & I have no problem with a guy adopting a female personality for social media purposes & for them to interact with fans. If anyone, male or female etc., gay or straight etc., is sharing private sexual information with that personality then that is on that person. I don't trust that anyone online is who they say they are until I meet them in person. I would tell my children or anyone I cared about to adopt that same mentality. Trust no one online. If you want to go along with a fantasy world or persona that someone is presenting online because you find it entertaining okay cool but that is different than really knowing someone in real life.

I don't see this as victim blaming. I see it as smart & sound advice all normal people should follow. Why is it not PC anymore to say "be smart, kids/adults. Don't trust anyone online." ? Why is that victim blaming? How about it's preventing future victims.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Monique said:


> What I don't get, Bob, is that you've admitted what you're doing would upset some of your readers and yet you don't see anything wrong with that. I simply can't understand how you can continue to defend it with "nuance" when you know it's a betrayal of trust and have admitted so.
> 
> It's just gross and repellant.


I said that I wrote under female pennames to meet the societal expectations of romance readers for the sake of profit.

I believe that publishing romance under a male penname, in general, earns less money. It might be possible to earn equivalent income as a man writing under a mans name if you were building a long lasting name with a significant social media presence (becoming the "bad boy" of bad boy romance), but that doesn't really work when you're publishing at a high rate of speed in multiple genres and under dozens of pennames.

In that instance, it's more profitable to write as a woman. It's more profitable to represent yourself as a woman. You can argue that if you will, but my actual experiments in this vein were absolutely conclusive.

When someone asked if my readers would be upset if they found out the person behind that pen was a man, I felt the answer to that was self evident. If a male penname in romance generally earns massively less than a female pen (in my experience), being "outed" as a man would obviously be damaging. It would kill a penname.

This thread further demonstrates that it goes beyond readers. There are authors who would attack you (and encourage their readers to attack you) if this came out.

I'm sure there would be readers who wouldn't particularly care one way or the other, but they aren't the ones you need to worry about. It takes thousands of readers to make a penname successful. It only takes a few readers to totally ruin one.

Therefore, it would be absolutely best not to reveal that fact, regardless of how I personally feel about the issue. You can see here that there isn't much in the way of flexibility on one side of this argument. If I can't have a reasoned conversation about this with fellow authors about the potential for nuance and a spectrum of acceptability, I highly doubt I could have that conversation with readers.

I write for a living. I do my best not to rock the boat, because I've got bills to pay.

I don't feel what I've done is repellant or gross, but we've already addressed that. Some people would disagree, which is fine. I respect their opinion even if I don't agree with it. I'll point out that some of the examples shared higher up in this thread were, to my eyes, repugnant and gross. I don't think I've personally crossed that line, but hey, my line isn't what matters, right?


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> This is not correct. Some of the most popular and respected writers of MM romances and mysteries are straight females.


When I said that, I meant to say "as a straight man". Apologies. I am aware that there is a market for MM romance written by women (including straight women). I have direct experience with that.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Actually, it's not illegal to represent yourself as a veteran. Yes, there was an act (the Stolen Valor Act) that made it so. However, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down 6-3 as an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. (United States v. Alvarez). Wearing medals or a uniform you haven't earned is illegal; representing yourself as a veteran in print or speech when you aren't is not.
> 
> So--no. Distasteful in both cases, but not illegal.


Just did my digging.

They struck down the old law. There is a new stolen valor law from 2013, signed into law by Obama, that makes it illegal to pretend to be a veteran with the intention of making money off that act.

Pretending to be a Medal of Honor receiving veteran to sell books to veterans would undoubtedly violate that law.

I stand by my previous thoughts on this. It's illegal. No room for nuance.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

bobfrost said:


> Just did my digging.
> 
> They struck down the old law. There is a new stolen valor law from 2013, signed into law by Obama, that makes it illegal to pretend to be a veteran with the intention of making money off that act.
> 
> ...


Not exactly. The old law was unconstitutional, remember--you can't make it illegal to SAY or WRITE that you're a veteran (freedom of speech under the First Amendment). The new law is much more narrow. It is only illegal to represent yourself as having *won certain medals and ribbons* (only those related to combat) for purposes of gaining money.

It is not a crime to represent yourself as a veteran when you're not--even if you're doing it to try to sell books.

I realize this is pedantic, but as it's a point you seem to be seizing on in your equivalence, I feel it's important to clarify it.

For me, the fact that most romance readers, romance writers, and women in general would, I believe, have an "ick" reaction would be enough to say--yeah, women think that's icky. And since writing romance is writing about women's feelings, I'd pay attention to that. But you're making money, I know, and as you say--no law against it.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Hmm, I’d have to further review this. The new law seems to make what you describe illegal but I am probably misreading something.

So... illegal for someone to say they won the Medal of Honor to sell books... legal to say you’re a veteran for the same purpose?

I’ll have to consider how I feel about that.

At any rate, “it’s not illegal” is not a good justification to do something. I certainly wouldn’t justify what I do based on that.

Anyway, I’m learning new things tonight.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

*sigh*

Pretty much most of the authors agree that it's fine to use an opposite gender pen name to write if gender is an issue in the genre. There may be a few who say no to all pen names and any cross-gender pen names but most understand it happens and is sometimes necessary. 

That's not the issue.

The issue is creating a fake persona and interacting in private with readers, deceiving them and exploiting their openness and intimacy for financial gain -- knowing that if the reader knew who the author really was (aka really male, really female, really straight, really white, etc.) they would be very upset.

It doesn't matter if doing so makes the author more money. That's not an acceptable rationale. 

When considering engaging in intimate contact with your readers while pretending to be someone other than yourself, ask yourself the following: "If my reader learned that I am really a ______, would they be really angry?" If the answer is yes, maybe just don't do it.

Seems pretty simple...


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

bobfrost said:


> Hmm, I'd have to further review this. The new law seems to make what you describe illegal but I am probably misreading something.
> 
> So... illegal for someone to say they won the Medal of Honor to sell books... legal to say you're a veteran for the same purpose?
> 
> ...


Yes. Illegal ONLY to say you've won combat medals or ribbons if you haven't, and ONLY for purposes of financial gain. (It's not illegal to lie and brag that you've done things you haven't to try to impress people or get girls or whatever, or certain people in our government would be in jail so many times over.)

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ12/html/PLAW-113publ12.htm
The actual text of the law.

ETA: The Act, original or as currently in place, was always only about medals/ribbons, not about military service.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Usedtoposthere said:


> We don't care whether it's for profit or for sexual pleasure. We find it an invasion and nonconsensual.


^^ This.

I also don't give a shit if it's legal. I try to do the right thing even when I'm not constrained to do so by law or contract. It's called "integrity."


----------



## WDR (Jan 8, 2014)

boba1823 said:


> If anyone is willing to share somewhat more specifically: what kind of reader interactions are we talking about here, in terms of what is potentially valuable from a business perspective?
> 
> (I'm getting the impression that what some people are envisioning as these interactions may differ considerably from the reality of the ways that business-minded authors are interacting with fans.)
> 
> ...


Meeting the author in real life is a huge thrill for any fan. Even if just for a moment, it means a great deal for that person. It is a hugely emotional event for them, one that they will remember for the rest of their lives and that they will brag to their friends about.

On the other side of the coin is when people discover that you are an author. They are most often thrilled at this little secret they've uncovered about you and will immediately steer the conversation to what you write and what your books are about. Depending on how you behave, this person could become a new and very dedicated fan. A person who meets an author directly is significantly more likely to actually purchase that author's book(s), even if that person is not a fan of the genre that author writes in. And they will brag to their friends that they met you and tell those friends about your book.

In both these scenarios, how you treat that person is of paramount importance. *Be the best possible version of yourself!* This interaction will transcend your life and become a story their grandchildren will tell to their children. If you have a reputation for being kind, gracious, and approachable, your fanbase will grow immensely and quickly. Especially if it is demonstrated multiple times. You will find yourself invited to prestigious events because the organizers will know that your presence will be a positive experience for fans.

All of this means that the way you interact with your fans _will_ have a direct effect on your bottom line in the business of selling your books to people.

Here are some awesome examples of how to treat fans:

Matt had a buddy in the recording industry who managed to sneak him backstage at a concert for a chance to meet David Bowie. When Bowie entered the room and was being introduced to people, Matt suddenly realized that everyone in the room was a bigwig in the industry and he seriously did not fit in with such an august group. Just as he was trying to step back and extricate himself from the crowd, Bowie appeared in front of him and the handler looked at him and asked, "Who the hell are you?" Matt nervously muttered that he was just a nobody and a fan. Bowie took him by the hand and began to ask him how he liked the show and the changes he made to the act. Bowie treated him like he was the most important person in the room, giving him far more attention than he had to the CEOs and VPs that filled the room.

Patrick Stewart has built up quite a reputation to how he treats his fans. Whenever he has done stage appearances, very often he'll be found at the backstage door after the show, standing in his bathrobe, signing autographs for every fan that is there. He won't quit or say he is too tired after a long day of work. He will stay there for every fan until everyone has gone away satisfied.

Neil Gaiman during his signing tour for _Ocean At The End Of The Lane_ was often signing books until 1AM or 2 AM. There is a photo of him sitting exhausted with his hand in a pan of ice water to reduce the swelling from signing so much. Gaiman is one of the most gracious people you can meet.

A friend of mine met Hugh Jackman on set during the filming of a movie about Elvis. He was blown away by how approachable and gracious Jackman was, even as he was hard at work. By how Jackman would switch from being just another bloke to being Elvis Presley was an amazing thing to witness. He's been a fan ever since, and because of how Jackman treated my friend, I've become a fan as well.

My uncle worked as an EMT at the NASCAR races in the Poconos. On one occasion, an up-and-coming rookie driver blew off some fans. 
Another, far more famous, NASCAR driver stomped up to him and gave him a very loud and very physical dressing down about how he just dissed those fans. "_Those are the people who made us! Not the sponsors. Not the corporations. It is the fans who made NASCAR what is is! Don't ever let me see you fans like that again!_" Since that point, my uncle noted that young driver has always made sure he spent time with the fans and that everyone who wanted one got an autograph.

These celebrities are as dedicated to their fans as their fans are dedicated to them and supporting their careers. (Even if one or two had to learn it the hard way.)

Be an


Spoiler



asshole


 and you've pretty much scuttled your career. As the World Science Fiction Society so publicly demonstrated this past week, if you act like a jerk you will find yourself unwelcome. People do not like bullies and choose not to follow their work. There will be no fans wanting to meet you and read your books, and your career will eventually shrivel up and disappear. You will not be the writer people remember well after you are gone.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

SaraBourgeois said:


> I think that, as a man, when women tell you that they find something creepy or unsettling, it's probably a good idea to listen to those women instead of explaining to them why it's not creepy.


I read some of the locked thread last night and have been thinking about it all day. While I don't usually post until I've read all the comments in a thread, I'm making an exception in case this one gets locked.

What Sara says is absolutely correct. There is a difference between intent and effect, BUT if your intent is pure and someone tells you the effect was upsetting, you don't tell them they are wrong.

If more men (particularly) would understand this, there would be a great improvement in the relations between the sexes.

Also (in view of the selective interpretation of the dictionary definition of catfishing), note the word "particularly." It doesn't mean "only." It means "especially." Men and women BOTH need to understand that a well-intended action can have a harmful impact. But, in our society at this point in time, it's _especially_ a problem with men refusing to accept that their well-intended action might not be so hunky-dory to women. Catfishing is pretending to be someone you're not to deceive someone. It's not acting, it's not being an undercover agent, it's an intent to deceive. It's _especially_ common in online romances, but that's not the exclusive definition.

I couldn't care less if an author is a man or woman or prefers not to select a gender or if they're using a male/female/ambiguous pen name and whether it matches their own gender identity. But pen names and "author personas" are one thing, interacting with readers (especially regarding their sexual preferences) with the intent to deceive them is another.

I am very open, direct, forthright, and openminded about things like sexual preferences, experiences, etc as were discussed toward the end of the other thread. If you are a man and ask me questions, I will probably answer you. If you are a woman and ask me questions, or if you don't present as one gender or another ("Hi, I'm Pat"), I'll probably answer you exactly the same way. But if you present yourself as option A and ask me questions, and I later find out that you told me you were A when you're actually B, I am going to consider you an untrustworthy person. That tells me that you didn't think you'd get the information you wanted if you were honest, so you chose to deceive me so you could get what you wanted out of me, without regard for what I thought/felt about it.

What this boils down to is consent. When you say "Female readers wouldn't open up to me if they knew I was a man, so I pretend to be a woman," reframe that as "This girl wouldn't want to have sex with me if she knew that I X, so I'll pretend to Y instead." Withholding your gender would be one thing - then anyone could choose whether or not to engage in the conversation on the condition that they don't know if they're talking to a man or a woman. But when you present yourself as something you are not, you are making it impossible for the other party to consent. (I think anyone who's found out the person they were dating was actually already married or in a relationship will understand the sense of betrayal and unearned guilt involved with that - you've been tricked into doing something you wouldn't have done if you'd had the full story, and even though you were ignorant of the facts, you still feel ashamed and guilty for your role in it.)

The same goes for presenting yourself as a member of any group you are not a member of. (Rachel Dolezal, anyone?) Particularly when that group may face hardships or expectations that your own group doesn't, when you assume a disguise to infiltrate that group, it's potentially exploitative and you are not giving those people the option to consent to their interaction. Especially if you're using their experiences to subsequently profit off of those people. And given that people have a limited amount of time to interact with others, you're also depriving them of the opportunity to have genuine, honest, legitimate exchanges with the kind of people they want to interact with.

I was actually hoping to see a poll when I opened this thread - perhaps covering the male/female issue AND the other groups (LGBTQ people, POC, religious groups, people with disabilities, etc). Perhaps it would be me who'd be surprised, but I kind of doubt it.


----------



## MyCatDoesNotConsent (Sep 11, 2017)

Я не согласен с новым TOS


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

I’ve talked about this. I think social media is an important aspect of building a successful penname. 

I think you could engage on social media without crossing the line into “creepy”. I certainly believe there is a line that could be crossed. I don’t believe I’ve personally crossed that line, but the trouble is, nobody can tell us exactly where the line is. Some would say I cross it the second I assume a new gender, whether I’m on social media or not.

At any rate, I think the lesson of this thread is clear, which is why I’m only publishing in the future  as all american mans man Buck Johnson. He wouldn’t be involved with any of this.

(I kid, but really, I can see it’s best not to openly discuss this sort of thing, no matter how I feel about it)


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

I don't get these arbitrary ethical rules people assign to things. Like, according to some of ya'all it seems to be some settled rule that says it's okay to have a female pen name & pretend to be a female on your bio & in your communications with women if you are a male romance author. But it's not okay to interact with them on social media too much as a male or to ask them when they had their first orgasm as a male. 

I call BS on this double standard.  Lying is lying. If some readers found out their favorite female author was a male they would still be upset even if they hadn't interacted at all. Yet some here say this is clearly okay while the other things are clearly not okay, even while giving "gauge potential reader reactions as your guide" as their reasoning for making this arbitrary distinction. To me this makes no sense. 


So, I say: everyone is entitled to their own opinions & options on how to run their own business as they see fit. Even men are entitled to these things. Sheesh, after reading all the comments on here talking about "mansplaining," as a woman and a feminist I honestly think that "mansplaining" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Feminism is supposed to be equality between the sexes so in my opinion since it would be very sexist and wrong to tell a woman not to womansplain her opinion then it is also very sexist and wrong to tell a man not to mansplain his opinion.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

writerlygal said:


> I don't get these arbitrary ethical rules people assign to things. Like, according to some of ya'all it seems to be some settled rule that says it's okay to have a female pen name & pretend to be a female on your bio & in your communications with women if you are a male romance author. But it's not okay to interact with them on social media too much as a male or to ask them when they had their first orgasm as a male.


If you can't see the difference between 1) politely interacting with someone on a surface level without revealing your gender, in order to protect a pen name that allows you to publish with some degree of heightened success in a specific genre, and 2) a man, *under the pretense of being a woman*, asking a woman when she had her first orgasm, I honestly don't know what more to say to you. The difference is so crystal-clear it's breathtaking, and anything further I had to say would venture into ban-hammer territory.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

WDR said:


> Be an
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I think it's important to understand that there are folks in this industry who view fans differently. They're here for short term gain only. Fans are irrelevant compared to getting them to spend money on whatever bundle is hot today. Once that bundle stops being hot then that pen name disappears and all those previous fans can go hang themselves.

That's the big difference. Some of us get a heart felt fan letter and we write back equally heart felt. Others determine which "role" will best serve that fan's expectations so long as they can add ... oh and "my newest book goes on sale tomorrow. Be sure to pick it up"


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

While "mansplaining" definitely happens (as a woman who worked in the computer industry and who also managed two different national car clubs over a twenty year period, I've been subject to more than my share of mansplaining), it's used too often to close down a line of discussion, which is a problem here.  

Let's not use the term.  You're authors, you have lots of words to choose from.  You should be able counter the points of a valid comment without using it.  Or, if you think the point invalid, say so.  Or ignore it.  Let's not counter condescension with condescension.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2018)

The practice is unethical. When I was writing under a female name, I had female readers confide in me things that made me uncomfortable. I didn't go seeking that, it just happened in normal conversation. And there was too much risk of course to tell them who I really was. I did get a thrill initially sort of taking on the female character of the author. In the end though when the sales dried up, I kind of realized that I was lying not only to the readers, but also to myself. And it takes a toll. Writing as yourself is writing without burden.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Those objecting to what bobfrost does (I'm taking no position on it), would it make a difference if he employed a female VA to handle all fan/social media interactions in exactly the way he himself is doing now?


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

thesmallprint said:


> Those objecting to what bobfrost does (I'm taking no position on it), would it make a difference if he employed a female VA to handle all fan/social media interactions in exactly the way he himself is doing now?


Would it be okay for a man to hire a woman to collect women's personal information to use as marketing research under the guise of friendship?

No.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

SaraBourgeois said:


> Would it be okay for a man to hire a woman to collect women's personal information to use as marketing research under the guise of friendship?
> 
> No.


Would that then apply to a man running a woman's fashion store or shoe shop? Couldn't he hire female marketing staff who behaved, as part of their job, in a friendly manner toward customers?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

thesmallprint said:


> Would that then apply to a man running a woman's fashion store or shoe shop? Couldn't he hire female marketing staff who behaved, as part of their job, in a friendly manner toward customers?


The man running a woman's fashion store or shop is probably pretty obvious to the customer who walks in.

I ran the online department for a women's intimate apparel company for several years. I was the escalation point for online customer service. True, some customers were a bit taken aback that I was a man helping them with their order, but at no point did anyone in upper management EVER consider the concept of me signing my emails as someone else.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

Being friendly while openly gathering marketing information and pretending to be someone's friend so that they divulge private information, that you use for marketing, is two completely different things.


----------



## WDR (Jan 8, 2014)

In answer to the original question:

In asking personal and intimate questions for research on a book, I would be forthright in who I am and why I am asking such questions. I would not use my nom de plume to misrepresent to people my identity. I would simply state that I am trying to create a character who has had _Experience-X_ in her life and I want the character to be as authentic as I can make her.

That being said, I've found plenty of material online just by searching for it. People do post a lot of B.S. But when you've collected enough samples you can pretty well start to recognize and filter out the posts that are fictional. Often such comments are posted by the very people who cat fish. Doing this kind of search can avoid the awkwardness of asking such questions, but then you might not get that authenticity you may be looking for.

Ultimately my goal is to create a character that the reader can relate to and sympathize with. To create a story that truly resonates with the reader and perhaps gives the reader something they can use in their life.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Pick any highly successful author and you’ll usually find a fan pleasing social media presence. They will be out there making friends and building fan relationships in a big way.

People spend a substantial part of their lives on social media these days. Many of them have an expectation that they will find their favorite author there as well. They come together to talk with that author and to talk with each other. They come to share their mutual appreciation of the author’s work.

Saying it’s ok for a man to have a female penname, but not ok for that man to interact with their fan base... that would put the author in question at a significant disadvantage.

And what about mailing lists? That’s another key component of success in writing. Do you not send out personalized emails from your penname talking to your readers and encouraging them to keep buying your books? Would it be wrong for the man running a female penname to do the same? 

There are lines I wouldn’t cross even writing as Buck Johnson. I wouldn’t cross those lines as a female pen either. Still, we have come to a point in this discussion where those lines can’t be pinned down. Maybe it’s wrong to ask readers about their first O, but is it also wrong to communicate with them in non sexual ways? And if you’re an author of explicit romance, do you have to now exclude yourself from any conversation that your fans make that move into steamier subjects? Would you have to do the same if you were an actual female?

Do authors working behind a penname need to deliberately handicap themselves? Isn’t it more “fair” that they be allowed to interact with their fans any way they please? The readers can choose whether or not to participate in those interactions.

Anyone who uses a penname is technically lying to their readers. Anyone who takes on a slightly different persona in their effort to sell books is lying. An introvert who writes books and acts extroverted on social media is lying. 

But that sort of thing doesn’t upset people. For reasons that seem readily obvious, one specific version of this “lie” is being focused on.

Go open up a “real” female’s e-rom Facebook page and you’ll find it full of posts about sexuality, pics of bare chested men, discussions that are steamy in nature. 

Now pretend you just found out that author is secretly a man. Does that change how you view the posts? Are they suddenly creepy?

Should they be?

Flip the genders. A woman is now talking all manly on her Facebook page and appealing to a male audience on her new book. They find out she’s a woman. Are her posts suddenly creepy?

Isn’t it something of a double standard to be ok with one sex doing something, but not ok with the other sex doing it? 

And if there’s an issue with “creepieness” or the words now seem “skeevy”, where do those feelings come from? They seem to come from a worldview built outside of the interaction we are discussing. The anger being leveled at a male author who engages with readers on social media as a female, making posts that are similar to what other authors in the genre make to build their fan base? That anger seems to come from a larger view of men in general.

Even I’m guilty of having some of that worldview. I admit some of the examples posted above felt creepy. Like the author was seeking some of that information for their own personal gratification.

But I can also see the other side of it. If a female author asked her e-rom fans when they had their first O, I don’t think I’d be “creeped out” by that question in the slightest. I could see that being an effective question for that female author to build a more effective and closer relationship to her readers, thus selling more books.

Anyway, if I had my say in this, the gender of a penname would be irrelevant to sales. Unfortunately, that is not the case. An author who wishes to become successful must consider the gender of the penname if profit is their largest personal motivation. Isn’t it possible that a man could inhabit a female persona purely for the long term success of their brand and their books, without that man being some kind of evil person?

Even if the idea creeps you out... can you agree that the person on the other end of this discussion might not be coming from a “bad” place?

I am not a predator. I am not the evil side of the metoo movement. I don’t believe my own posts to social media or my email blasts have crossed the line of acceptability I’m imagining in my head.I suspect there are plenty of men who write as women and engage on social media for the sake of profits (and not for some kind of twisted self gratification) that are watching this thread and keeping (smartly) quiet, lest they be lumped in with the most evil and disgusting possible examples.

At the end of the day, my gender of birth puts me at a disadvantage in the field of writing that I most enjoy and am most successful in. I write for profit, but romance novels have always been an interest of mine. I still remember getting yelled at by my father at age nine or ten when I got caught reading my mother’s Fabio-clad harlequins. Even then, the gender expectations of the genre were being used to attack me. I suspect  women can understand what it feels like to be at a disadvantage in a workplace because of their gender. The fight for gender equality isn’t a new concept. I’m glad that I am living and working in a day and age where I can write the books I genuinely want to write and publish, and profit from them without my gender being a limiting factor.

Maybe some day that distinction won’t exist, and Buck Johnson will be a household name in romance...

I won’t hold my breath. In the meantime, I’ll do what I need to do. My little white lie isn’t hurting anyone. In the grand scheme of things, pretending to be a woman so I can earn a living in my chosen genre is harmless. I’m sure someone could do deliberate harm in my shoes, but I am not interested in crossing that line. I have a personal code of ethics and integrity, and I will continue to operate within that code.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

"Creating a fake persona, including profile pic, biography, etc., and even engaging in generic polite interactions (e.g. "Glad to hear you liked my book!") - I see this is as establishing a fairly minimal relationship with fairly minimal obligations. I think of it as essentially creating a brand..."

I disagree with the scope of the branding here.  I'm okay with the different pen name aspect (I know that this is not part of the discussion, but it's hard to discuss it without stating that.)  But, surely, basically lying to a customer to get them to buy your book is not acceptable?  How is that part of a benign branding of an author?

I have so much more to learn.  Both these threads are tiring, and depressing.  I know now that to be hugely successful, you have to lie your a*s* off.  It's the same as, everyone is gay until they come out as hetero.  It's so much work.

If you're into mass production, I guess it could work.  But, if you write slowly, just trying to pick up your threads, it just seems almost spiteful.  Better to craft the best you can and then present it.

I was only trying to master the art of anticipatory multiple pen names under one roof.  Now, I have to worry about mandatory interaction with fans (I should be so lucky,) and whether I can go to a convention without hiring a fake me.

I think that putting up a fake bio and picture is too much of a lie, and treats the reader like a chump.  It's okay for someone to ask, "Oh, and what sex are you?" as might be necessary in this day and age.  But, lying about what you are is just a lie.  Maybe standards have dropped sharply, and each to his/her own, but it's still a lie.

In the old days, an author had to use a fake name for some things, maybe even to get published at all, and when she (she) got found out, she was either gutsy, or a liar,  depending on who was doing the viewing.  Talking about branding, I was thinking that using a different name for a different genre was acceptable.  This way someone following you might be able to see the name and know whether it was something they might want to pick up. So, if they liked your writing, they might read you under the other name, and be just as happy for that type of entertainment.  You double your readership, keep your genres straight, and no one feels misled (as we have all been taught to be careful with our covers.)

But, that's probably as far as I can get, and I am depressed over it.  This is just another "how to do mass production and be successful" thread, with different aspects of marketing in it.  There are so many things that I simply cannot do.  This isn't a whiny b** or "feel sorry for me" comment. Just an observation that I will probably fall short.  I never even considered gender, just quality of writing and whether I would be good enough with a plot to engage a reader.  I can never, ever pretend to be someone I am not, with fake pictures and autobiographical data that is not true.  I am not a social architect, and if people are needy, they may get a referral to a hotline.  I dunno.  I plan to keep too busy for emails or social media.  That's the new plan.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

You don't have to be a social butterfly to succeed as an author.

You don't have to assume another gender to succeed as an author.

The things I do in my own pursuit of maximum profit are not universally applicable. They work for my specific situation and my specific workflow, but my path is not the only path to success. Don't be depressed if "mass production" or being a social butterfly to build a massive fanbase isn't your style. There are authors out there who have written one single solitary book that has out-earned my entire lifetime catalog. My "best practices" are not your "best practices".

There are many different paths to success. I've described (in some detail) one such path. When those paths diverge in the forest, you can choose to go left instead of right.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

Yes, if you write with a pen name, you have deliberately handicapped yourself. That's the trade off for anonymity.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

For me the broader issue is trust and honesty. I use only pen names, but I don't pretend with any of those names that that's my real name. When I post a photo for a pen name, which I've only done with two of them, that's a photo of me. I also don't say anything as those pen names that isn't a fact about me as a person. Two of my pen names are gender-neutral, one deliberately so and one by default. (My most recent blog post under that second one starts with a comment pointing out that I am a woman and the first post on that blog also stated that fact, but I don't highlight that fact in the bio for that pen name.) I don't have male pen names (like Stephen) because for me that would be deliberately deceptive. That's where I draw my own line. Initials or females names and being clear that I'm using pen names.

If you find yourself having to make things up or say something that isn't true (like who you'd have as your book boyfriend when you're a straight man, which was an example given in the other thread), then you're not being honest with your readers at that point. Authors can actively participate in conversations with their readers without deliberately lying to them. For example, you can ask, "Who is your ideal book boyfriend?" without saying who yours would be.

We each have our own lines. As a reader I don't seek interaction with my favorite authors. I read their books and that's that. But if did have an interaction with an author I liked and later learned they had lied to me, especially about something personal, I probably wouldn't read them again. Normally I would say that the same behavior would reflect itself in that author's writing, but when the book themselves are ghostwritten that may not be the case.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Slight side-thread but: You absolutely do NOT have to be that active on social media or pretend to be someone you aren't to be successful in this biz. Social media falls under one of those things that if you a) enjoy it and b) are good at it, THEN it can be useful. Otherwise, you are likely better spent doing something you are good at (hopefully the writing, no?). 

We are discussing, in the end, a group of people who see access to people via Social Media the same as a telemarketing company sees access to your phone number or a spammer sees access to your email. That doesn't mean all sales are made that way or that this is even the best way to anything more than a quick buck. When things change, and social media always changes, these people will have nothing real built. But they'll likely have moved on to the next stuffing or whatever scam they can get to.

So please, people reading these kinds of threads, don't freak out if you feel you can't do this stuff. You don't have to, and probably you shouldn't anyway (if you listen to many of the legit, successful, intelligent people in these threads, anyway).  Please realize this is a relatively small pool of "successful" marketers/authors (I hesitate to call some of them authors because they tend to do more of the former and little of their own writing) who are poisoning the waters.  Does it make things harder for the rest of us and our audiences more wary and more jaded? Yes. But hard is not impossible. So please, don't freak out too much. Don't despair. Keep writing and keep your integrity.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> You don't have to be a social butterfly to succeed as an author.
> 
> You don't have to assume another gender to succeed as an author.
> 
> ...


We all have to choose our own path -- that's true.

In the end, what an author does will affect themselves directly, but it may end up affecting the rest of us indirectly through the fallout if things blow up around their practices.

That's why, although I honestly don't spend more than a minuscule fraction of my day thinking about what other authors are doing, when something comes up that I think is egregious, I take note and feel compelled to voice my opinion and argue for it. I know I have laid down a lot of pixels over this issue and the other thread, but I am not on any crusade nor do I spend any time worrying about other authors. I just don't.

When I have downtime for whatever reason, I enjoy a good debate and feel strongly about ethical behaviour in all my endeavours, whether they are personal or professional or business.

It seems to me that any time a person has to hide what they are doing, there is a reason. Some reasons can be justified -- if there is unjust persecution about doing that thing, secrecy is necessary. Other times, secrecy is intended to dupe the unwitting and trusting.

I think using an opposite-gender pen name to publish is at the very minor end of the spectrum of deceit. Creating a fictional bio and using a stock photo moves farther along on the continuum but I could look the other way. However, doing that and interacting with readers in an intimate fashion, extracting marketing info from them under the guise of being a member of their in-group to increase your profit, engaging in sexy-talk with readers about their sex lives whilst pretending to be just one of the girls/boys, and maybe even sharing fake stories of their own, seems to be perceived by many as creepy and skeevy not to mention downright unethical.

Knowing that, I'd steer clear. Even if it does't creep you out personally, it's clear that many others do feel that way. Discretion may be the better choice in this case. The fallout if readers found out, might be really very bad.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

lilywhite said:


> ...Don't lie to people you have relationships with. It's douchey. And the idea that it's less douchey if you're doing it to get rich instead of to get off is just ridiculous.
> 
> If you find yourself saying "They'd be mad at me if they knew the truth," you're probably doing something wrong. And it's VERY interesting to me that 95% of the time, the people arguing about where the line is are the ones who are clearly on the wrong side of it.


That's the bottom line for me.

I have to say this whole thing is whole thing is horribly familiar to me. I wish I had a quarter for every time I was told I needed to make up a story about how much experience I had, break terms of service, create false testimonials or any one of a number of shady, often downright illegal practices in order to 'build a business' online. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's hit self-publishing. I just hope people will stay wary and not take anyone's word for it that a practice that looks and feels wrong to them is perfectly all right. Or that it will make them rich. Even if you succeed, doing it in a way that 'works' for only a few years before loopholes get closed and leaves many people feeling angry and ripped off is not something I would wish on anyone.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Ya know, I've made over $1M since I started self publishing and not once have I asked my readers intimate details of their sex lives. Not once have I engaged in girl talk with them. I use social media to let them know what I'm working on and what's coming up on my publishing schedule and occasionally, hot pics of cover models or cat videos.

Would I have made $2M by going into private groups and asking them for deets about their last "O"? I highly doubt it.


----------



## DaniO (Oct 22, 2012)

bobfrost said:


> Now pretend you just found out that author is secretly a man. Does that change how you view the posts? Are they suddenly creepy?
> 
> Should they be?
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying. If this were a perfect world: 1) You wouldn't be judged on your sex and wouldn't have to pretend to be female in the first place 2) No person of either sex would discriminate against anyone.

There does seem to be movement toward gender neutrality in the US and worldwide. Sure, it would be nice if people weren't allowed to say it's creepy because you interact with readers as a woman. Technically, I feel you're right. It's a double standard. They are discriminating against you because you're a guy.

But we don't live in a perfect world. Most violent crimes against woman are committed by men. Most sex crimes against either sex are committed by men. Most crimes against children are committed by men.

We can't ignore facts like that. I don't hate men. I don't think all men are dangerous, but women are raised to be wary. There is an innate sense of fear that you learn from a young age. It doesn't matter that the laws say we are all equal. That we shouldn't discriminate against either sex. It's a feeling that comes from your experiences growing up. That time when I was fourteen and wearing my school uniform walking home and two men old enough to be my father drove past and shouted lewd comments. The time when I was trapped in a lift by some creepy teenager exposing himself. The time I was followed home after getting off the bus.

It's all these things which make women guarded about sharing things with men. They might open up to a woman in a way they never would to a man. Maybe it shouldn't be that way but it is.

I do understand. You seem like a guy just trying to earn a living. You aren't intending to trick women for nefarious purposes, and why should you suffer because some sick guys made women feel endangered, scared and helpless in the past? It's not fair, but it's a product of our society and that won't change overnight.

You can't flip genders in this argument because it simply doesn't work.

Personally, I have no problem with men writing under female pen names. My personal line in the sand would be if the author was trying to interact in a sexual way or trying to extract personal information from his readers.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> Yes, if you write with a pen name, you have deliberately handicapped yourself. That's the trade of anonymity.


I disagree. There are plenty of instances where writing under a pen name is a clear and demonstrable benefit and not a handicap.

Publish two similar sci-fi stories, one with a man's name on the cover, one with a woman's name. One month later, compare the data. I promise there will be an unquestionable effect.

My "real name" is large and silly and wouldn't fit properly on a cover, and it certainly wouldn't meet the expectations of the bulk of my readerbase. Using it would cost me sales. Short, concise, and memorable names are more effective. Names that match the gender expectations of the genre are typically more effective. Some people even swear by alliterative names as being more successful in selling books.

There are plenty of people from all walks of life who have changed their actual in-real-life name because it is directly effecting them in a negative way. Surely you've heard of the studies where two identical sets of transcripts were sent to a college, one with an obviously ethnically african american name, and one with a standard "white" name, where the "ethnic" named student was repeatedly declined admission while the "white" name was accepted again and again?

Operating under a penname does not have to be a handicap. It can be a clear advantage. We don't live in a fair world.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

bobfrost said:


> I disagree. There are plenty of instances where writing under a pen name is a clear and demonstrable benefit and not a handicap.
> 
> Publish two similar sci-fi stories, one with a man's name on the cover, one with a woman's name. One month later, compare the data. I promise there will be an unquestionable effect.
> 
> ...


I meant you handicap yourself as to what you can do on social media. As in, if you choose to use a pen name, you can't pretend to be a woman, black woman, or gay man on social media when you aren't. I mean, technically you can, but a great many of us believe it's wrong.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

In thinking about this thread, the thing it comes down to, for me, is the underlying profound lack of respect and consideration for others demonstrated by this behavior. And saying it's just done to make money, not because of any twisted mental kink, is almost more contemptible. It's the snake oil salesman come to town, selling a bottle of some wonder "elixir" that might not only be useless but actually harmful, to someone who's just honestly hoping to find something to help get them through the day.

Whether it's a man pretending to be a woman author asking "her" readers to talk about their first sexual experiences, or a woman pretending to be a man doing the same, actively supporting and encouraging a private conversation that might not otherwise take place is just plain wrong. And, though I haven't seen it explicitly stated here, handing out the line that "men won't take it that seriously" (implying that women shouldn't, either) is just bull**it. I have known several good, kind, decent men who have admitted that incidents in their past (not this example specifically, but related) still cause them emotional pain and make them doubt themselves even more because their reaction wasn't "right" or "manly."

And saying these readers should have known better so the onus is on them, is akin to saying I shouldn't be considerate of my elderly neighbor who really, really needs to get a walker for his own safety, but refuses to because he's having a hard time coming to terms with his own declining physical capacity. So, what? Because he's making a bad choice I should just hold him in contempt rather than stop and help him carry out the trash? [edited to remove an emoji I hadn't intended to put there]

I love books. I love stories. Since the days when my daddy helped me to sleep by reading "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" for the thousand and third time, stories have shaped my world and my perception of my place in it. They've helped me through hard times when I needed an escape. They've made me laugh and made me cry. They've inspired me. They've shamed me and helped me learn to be a better person by showing me how the other guy might have felt. They've educated me, soothed me, distracted me, enraged me, and shown me worlds and possibilities I could not otherwise have dreamed of. I honor the creative powers of the men and women who have written the stories that have enriched my life. Brilliant literature, great genre, or just workmanlike stories that caught my imagination....somewhere deep inside of me each one felt like a gift from another human being, a gift I valued far above anything that mere dollars and cents might give me. So to see storytelling treated as just the latest way to easy riches and to h*ll with any consideration or respect for the readers who read them just plain infuriates me.


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

For me, it all comes down to something a very wise man once told me: "If you have to ask whether something is right or wrong, you already know the answer."

Look, I'm a great salesperson. When I was a hairdresser, I did a fantastic job of selling retail. When I worked in jewelry sales, I was the top salesperson in my department more often than not. My old boss liked to say that I could sell ice to an Eskimo. I was good at it because I _believed _in everything I was selling. I couldn't push hair-care products that didn't work; I couldn't hawk cheap costume jewelry. And at the end of the day, I didn't feel guilty about parting my customers from their money because I truly believed that they got what they paid for.

Now that I'm selling my books, it's different. Of course, I believe in my books, but it's a different kind of marketing and I'm still learning. But playing games with lies and fake identities ... well, it feels like selling counterfeit Paul Mitchell or gold "electroplate" necklaces as 18K gold. Sure, I use a pen name (mostly because there are a ton of other writers named Amy Goodwin), but I don't pretend to be something I'm not for the sake of pulling in a few more dollars.

I guess I'm naive, but I just don't get it. The attitude of some people in this thread seems to be rather Machiavellian. I don't understand having so little regard for other human beings, no matter how many books it helps you sell.


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

bobfrost said:


> Anyway, if I had my say in this, the gender of a penname would be irrelevant to sales. Unfortunately, that is not the case. An author who wishes to become successful must consider the gender of the penname if profit is their largest personal motivation. Isn't it possible that a man could inhabit a female persona purely for the long term success of their brand and their books, without that man being some kind of evil person?


Yes, it's possible, and you raise some interesting points about the prejudices of readers.

That said, ultimately the only way to defeat prejudice is to meet it head-on. Authors pretending to be what they aren't because they can sell books better under that persona never forces readers to reconsider their own prejudices. Instead, it enables them.

The only other way of looking at the issue is to assume that such a reader bias actually has factual roots. In other words, perhaps in general woman do write better romances with female protagonists than men do. However, in that scenario, assuming a female persona becomes more like writing nonfiction with false credentials. For example, someone writing a book and dieting and pretending to be a nutritionist when the person wasn't would certainly be wrong, even if the person was factually correct about dieting. Is it really that much better for a fiction writer to pretend to be someone with greater knowledge of the female psyche than that person actually has? I don't know that a question like that has an easy answer, but it seems worth asking.

Pen names have been around for a long time, but in earlier societies, the author's personal life wasn't as important as it is now. Pen names were often a device for remaining anonymous rather than a way to create a fake persona. Occasionally, as with George Eliot, it was a way for a woman to publish in a society dominated by male prejudices, but that's not quite the situation we have now--partly because successful women authors effectively challenged the stereotype.

Disclaimer: I'm not making a living at writing and probably never will. Consequently, it's easy for me to say be honest with readers. I know that if my income were dependent on how many books I sold, I might feel differently. That said, I'd rather take my chances being who I am than create a fake persona. I know readers would in some cases feel betrayed if they discovered it was fake.

At the risk of being corny, I'll end with a Tolkien quote: "I passed the test. I will diminish...and go into the West...and remain Galadriel." That's the test for all of us: will we choose to be successful even at the cost of lying about who we are, or will we remain who we are even if it means less success?


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

It's distressing to me to see someone be so flippant about using a female persona to ingratiate themselves with readers for the sole purpose of making money. And then to refuse to examine how exploiting women for financial gain might be wrong. I mean, at least contemplate what we're saying before explaining to us why we're wrong. Why the women are wrong about how men make us feel when they use us for their own ends...


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I just want to say, thanks to all the folks on here taking time out of their day to make such reasoned and thoughtful points. This page alone is gold to anybody who's trying to figure out where the lines are.

And to Bobfrost: You honestly seem like a decent guy who's open to changing his mind. I really, truly don't think that the authors here are responding out of envy or whatever you may be thinking. (I'm not. I can't stand the tactics of the Mastermind group, but I do very well with my stuff using very different tactics. As do Annie, Sela, and others here.) But--I asked my readers, others asked their readers, and women were ... alarmed. Put off. Repelled. For the reasons Carrie points out, which I'm just gonna quote here, because she's hit the nail on the head.

Actually, I don't expect you to change your mind--I appreciate that you haven't blown up, however; shows admirable levelheadedness--but for anybody on the fence, especially for men who don't get why this is upsetting women--read this.



carrie 123 said:


> I get what you're saying. If this were a perfect world: 1) You wouldn't be judged on your sex and wouldn't have to pretend to be female in the first place 2) No person of either sex would discriminate against anyone.
> 
> There does seem to be movement toward gender neutrality in the US and worldwide. Sure, it would be nice if people weren't allowed to say it's creepy because you interact with readers as a woman. Technically, I feel you're right. It's a double standard. They are discriminating against you because you're a guy.
> 
> ...


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Bill Hiatt said:


> Yes, it's possible, and you raise some interesting points about the prejudices of readers.
> 
> That said, ultimately the only way to defeat prejudice is to meet it head-on. Authors pretending to be what they aren't because they can sell books better under that persona never forces readers to reconsider their own prejudices. Instead, it enables them.


You make a nuanced point that I respect. I agree with what you're saying.

And I also admit that it's unfortunate that I am not the person who's going to flip that script.

I could go out there and write my romance loud and proud as a man writing under a male penname in an attempt to change the system. I could do that tomorrow. By writing under an assumed female penname, I am, in a way, perpetuating the bias toward female romance authors rather than bucking against it... similar to how an African American student who changes their name to something less ethnic sounding for the sake of college admission is taking advantage of the bias that exists rather than allowing themselves to be rejected and immediately trying to fight against that rejection to change the way college admissions works.

But I don't fault that student for keeping their head down and getting accepted under a new "assumed" name, because to paraphrase something Carrie said in an above post (that was also very thought provoking), society won't change overnight. That student has their entire life ahead of him. A career, a family, success in education and success in the world at large. Fighting against the system is hard. It's noble, but it's hard. People have lost everything fighting against the dark products of our society. People have died fighting for equality. Usually change doesn't happen without great upheaval. I celebrate the upheaval and the general movement of society toward greater equality, but I'm not out there marching with a gas mask and some milk in a spray bottle. I've got kids to feed.

I've chosen to keep my head down and operate in the world that exists. I might be wrong, but I suspect that I could personally fight my whole life for author gender equality in romance and not move the needle even one tiny fraction of an inch, because the societal reasons behind this gender bias has deep roots that go far beyond anything I'd be doing up here at ground level. Alternatively, I can operate within the bias that exists and enjoy the life that I have always dreamed of living. I am an author and a publisher, the culmination of a lifelong obsession with books that I've had since I was a little kid. I have talked about how my publishing company buys some ghostwritten work, and does royalty-sharing agreements with some authors, but despite these efforts at broadening my reach, I also write words EVERY SINGLE DAY that eventually become novels. I still put my fingers on a keyboard, because I love the act of writing. It's a pure act of raw creation, and I revel in it.

I love my job. I love what I do. I love writing romance, even if it's not the genre that society says I should be writing in. I'd rather keep a job I genuinely enjoy in a way that supports the lifestyle I enjoy, than spend my time fighting a much greater issue in society from my tiny corner of the internet. I'd rather have 200 5-star-reviews from women who loved my book, than to have ten angry reviews from women who think I'm disgusting for writing the kinds of books they ordinarily love to read, simply because I am a man.

We can get deeper into this, really. Knowing a man wrote a book can change the ENTIRE way the book is perceived. For example, a "dark" romance written by a woman would be fairly universally accepted, while the same book coming from a man would probably generate a substantial amount of outrage.

I am not the man who will change this double standard.


----------



## passerby (Oct 18, 2015)

Most people on this thread agree that it's okay for a man to use a female pen name. However, when it comes to interacting with women on social media, many believe that there should be certain boundaries and limits. But where's the boundary? What's the limit? 

Maybe it's like the speed limit. I once had a conversation about limits with a cousin-in-law of mine who happens to be a state police officer. This was during the time that the mazimum speed limit in the U.S. was lowered to 55 mph. This state trooper told me that in my state, I could drive right past a State Police car on the Turnpike at 65, and none of them would stop me. 
    "But don't go 66," he said "I'll give you a ticket if you do."
    "Why?" I asked. "Why is it okay to go 65, but not 66? I'd still be breaking the law, either way."
    "Because," he answered, "before they changed the law, it was determined that it was safe to travel at 65 miles per hour on the Turnpike. Once you pass that limit, it becomes unsafe, and you could hurt yourself or someone else. That's the point where I'll stop you and give you a ticket."

Maybe that's the answer. Where's the limit? Maybe it's the point where you could end up hurting someone else (giving the people in question the benefit of the doubt and assuming they care about that sort of thing).


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

bobfrost said:


> Saying it's ok for a man to have a female penname, but not ok for that man to interact with their fan base... that would put the author in question at a significant disadvantage.


It all depends on the definition of "interact."


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Jena H said:


> It all depends on the definition of "interact."


Of course it does. I've already said repeatedly that I think there's a line that can be crossed in your interactions.

Hell, I believe there is also a line a female author could cross in her interactions with fans.

There were some examples posted higher up in this thread that, if posted by a woman, I'd probably look at a little sideways and say "well that's a little too personal..."


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Usedtoposthere said:


> We don't care whether it's for profit or for sexual pleasure. We find it an invasion and nonconsensual.


As this thread is on a public forum I wouldn't be surprised if it has alerted some men to a new way of finding 'titillation' - join a romance fan club as a woman and begin to interact with the sex talk


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I'm kind of confused why anyone would talk about their sex life on the internet with an author he/she has never met. I'm honestly curious. I'm a big fan of keeping professional business pages and not going there regardless of if you're a man or woman. How would anyone think this was ever a good idea unless the author was a sex therapist and actually helping people with some hangups?


There are a lot of romance/erotica readers who seem to have an almost compulsive desire to share. Some of the emails I've gotten over the years...  You write something that connects with some personal experience they had and the next thing you know you're getting an eyeful of waaaaaay more than you ever wanted to know about a complete stranger.

I don't for a heartbeat condone initiating intimate conversations with fans under an assumed identity, or leading them on if they initiate it. Basic conversational stuff that protects the integrity of your pen name, sure. You have to do that. But it sounds like this is being taken way too far. If you're writing under a pen with an assumed identity you really ought to be keeping your interactions on social media limited anyway, because it's a great way to accidentally out yourself and blow up your pen name.

Frankly both sides - authors and readers - probably ought to think a lot harder about what they're saying and sharing this way because you have no idea who is sitting on the other side of the screen.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

boba1823 said:


> For me, the 'Would a reader be angry?' test doesn't pass muster as a sensible ethical test, as anger is not a reliable indicator of unethical behavior. Lots of things that are presumably not unethical can make a reader angry - e.g. taking an extra long time to publish the next book, raising the prices of books, pulling books out of KU.


This is disingenuous in the extreme. None of the things you've listed is a personal betrayal; at best they are inconveniences.

This whole conversation is ridiculous. Again, loudly for those who seem not to be able to hear it: Stop dismissing it when women tell you what they think about things. Check your damn privilege.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

KelliWolfe said:


> If you're writing under a pen with an assumed identity you really ought to be keeping your interactions on social media limited anyway, because it's a great way to accidentally out yourself and blow up your pen name.


I imagine that's one of the challenges of having one or more pen names; some authors are better at keeping secrets than others. If one of your pens is doing something illegal, immoral, or some shade in between, and you can't help but do that thing anyway, for goodness' sake don't tell anyone. Much less anyone on a public forum.



KelliWolfe said:


> IFrankly both sides - authors and readers - probably ought to think a lot harder about what they're saying and sharing this way because you have no idea who is sitting on the other side of the screen.


Truth for the whole internet. Anyone could be anyone. Think about what you're sharing on public forums. Or, really, any forum. While some places have confidentiality elements in place, it's hard to trust that every member of a site is there for ethical reasons.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

@BobFrost - Let me ask you a question. You say you see nothing wrong with posing as a female writer and interacting with your fans, despite knowing that it would likely upset them if they found out. But what if a female fan discovered that you were lying and shared what she knew with all the rest of your fans, and they were, predictably, upset? Upset enough to denounce you publicly, which lost you fans, and therefore, money. How would you feel about that? Would you consider it wrong to out you, or would you not care?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

LadyG said:


> My old boss liked to say that I could sell ice to an Eskimo.


My grandfather, considerably less refined than your old boss, would have said you could "sell dog [crap] to dead people." LOL


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

bobfrost said:


> Flip the genders. A woman is now talking all manly on her Facebook page and appealing to a male audience on her new book. They find out she's a woman. Are her posts suddenly creepy?
> 
> Isn't it something of a double standard to be ok with one sex doing something, but not ok with the other sex doing it?


I think it *could* be creepy, depending on what the woman pretending to be a man has been talking about with her fans. Typically, women authors pretend to be men when they're writing about hard science, brutal crimes, horror, and other stuff that society tends to think of as "not feminine." If a secretly-a-woman author who's been nattering on with her fans about whether EMDrive engines are possible is revealed to be a woman, the fans may be surprised or taken aback, but no personal info has been exchanged. They've been talking about engineering and theoretical physics. Now, if she's been asking her readers to tell her about the last time they felt sexually inadequate, or asking them to share some other personal, intimate experiences or information that she suspects many men would be unlikely to want to share with a woman, I think that'd be an entirely different matter. But it doesn't seem to me that the kinds of genres that prompt women writers to take on male pen names would generate those kinds of very intimate conversations in any natural way.


----------



## mayatylerauthor (Apr 22, 2015)

So many valid points here. I think the important thing—whether you use a pen name or not—is to represent yourself honestly to readers. Deception is creepy and, in the long run, will wreck your credibility.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

boba1823 said:


> I see this as the very point. The wrong-making feature of certain types of interactions is that they represent a personal betrayal. The matter of whether someone feels angry or not seems to me to be ethically irrelevant - it would not be less wrong to personally betray someone if it did not make them angry.


People's reactions to things that other people do to deceive and exploit them are "ethically irrelevant"?



> So one might say that the better question to ask would be: "Does my behavior reflect a personal betrayal to a reader or readers?"


Or one might listen to the women here who have told you what the right question is, as well as providing the answer.



> And I think the answer to that will depend in part on the question of what kind of relationship I, as an author, have established through my past behavior - i.e. have I created a substantive personal relationship by having lengthy one-on-one chats with individual readers, or have I established a more professional author-fan relationship based on fairly generic types of interactions?


Woman: This makes me acutely uncomfortable and would constitute a serious betrayal of trust.
Man: It's not as simple as you think, and you don't really have the right to those feelings.

So it is, so it has ever been. How exhausting.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

mayatylerauthor said:


> So many valid points here. I think the important thing-whether you use a pen name or not-is to represent yourself honestly to readers. Deception is creepy and, in the long run, will wreck your credibility.


The problem here is a lot of us consider pen names for the long term. It's a different case for someone who is pumping out tons of ghost-written stuff and creating new pen names as readily as they change their socks. What does credibility mean when your whole business model involves regularly dumping pen names to the curb, only to start again with a bunch of new ones? It's inconvenience, nothing more. Ergo, I'm beginning to see it's kind of pointless to argue the morality of something with someone for whom that morality probably isn't even a blip on their personal radar.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

My Dog's Servant said:


> I love books. I love stories. Since the days when my daddy helped me to sleep by reading "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" for the thousand and third time, stories have shaped my world and my perception of my place in it. They've helped me through hard times when I needed an escape. They've made me laugh and made me cry. They've inspired me. They've shamed me and helped me learn to be a better person by showing me how the other guy might have felt. They've educated me, soothed me, distracted me, enraged me, and shown me worlds and possibilities I could not otherwise have dreamed of. I honor the creative powers of the men and women who have written the stories that have enriched my life. Brilliant literature, great genre, or just workmanlike stories that caught my imagination....somewhere deep inside of me each one felt like a gift from another human being, a gift I valued far above anything that mere dollars and cents might give me. So to see storytelling treated as just the latest way to easy riches and to h*ll with any consideration or respect for the readers who read them just plain infuriates me.


I love books too. I've read countless numbers of them. They kept me company in my darkest days and my brightest ones. I remember the day I exhausted my school library... at age seven. I remember the day I found an old hardcover copy of the entire lord of the rings series, and how I spent every single childhood cent I had saved to buy them, and how much it meant to me to own them. They're still sitting on my desk, along with other books I love. I built monitor stands out of a few of my absolute favorite books, spine-out, so I'd see them every time I sit down to write. I'm working through a copy of American Gods right now. Somehow I missed it when it was originally released, and it's sitting on the edge of my bathtub waiting on me to take a break.

I've wanted to be an author my entire life, and at almost every step along the way, I was told that my dream would never come true.

So few people become successful as an author. It's a silly dream to pursue. Be a doctor. Be a lawyer. Go to college. Make something real out of yourself. Get your damn head out of the clouds, because nobody is ever going to read your books.

And you know what? THOSE PEOPLE WERE RIGHT! I decided to buck the system. I decided to write my novels and prove everyone wrong. I wrote my romance novels. And they were summarily ignored or rejected by every single publishing house I attempted to submit them to. I'd wasted my time. My dream was dead.

I gave up on my dream. I worked as an ad executive. A salesman. A mid-level manager. Those were soul-sucking jobs with no future. I was generating wealth for the company I worked for... and building nothing of value that I could truly stand back and appreciate as a fruit of my labor.

At one point along the line, I finished up a college degree and became a teacher. I was looking for meaning and purpose in my life. I thought maybe passing on knowledge to the next generation could be that purpose. I got married, I had kids, I bought a modest little house and lived a modest but comfortable life.

It was nice. I loved it... but the job didn't love me. State government made deep cuts to funding. My already low salary was frozen for years. My class size ballooned from 25 to 30, then to 40... and 45 students. Supplies ran low. I spent thousands of dollars on paper, and thousands more on the necessary bits and baubles required to teach a middle school class to a group of underprivileged students. The state removed tenure for teachers and summarily fired hundreds of teachers who were higher on the salary scale to cut costs, thus destroying their retirement if they chose to continue teaching, as being hired on with a new district only allowed 6 years of experience to carry over, and retirement was based on the last few years of your income). The writing was on the wall. This career wouldn't sustain me long term, no matter how much I enjoyed it.

Somewhere along the line, self publishing became a thing. I discovered it by accident. Here I was, a failed author with more than a little relevant work under my belt. I got my start pouring out dozens upon dozens of erotic short stories that I'd written, and within a few weeks I was earning more from my erotica than I had ever earned from my teaching career. I declined to sign a contract for the next school year. Instead, I spent my summer pouring everything I had into this business (including those old "failed" romance novels), and I succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

I am many things. I will not deny that I am a mercenary who writes with the intention of maximizing profit, but I am also an author who is genuinely proud of every single word I put to paper. Writing is an act of pure creation, and I love every single second of it.

I respect and I love my readers.

I am proud of my work.

I am proud to be an author.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Atlantisatheart said:


> I have to admit that I started reading this thread, rolling my eyes, and thinking - snowflakes. What's the problem?
> 
> Then as I read down some of the Author interactions with their readers, I thought about the emails I've received from readers who tell me that their husband just died, or their family history, or they have cancer and they wanted to thank me from taking them away from all of that for a while, and I thought, yep, people want to connect with us on a different level.
> 
> ...


This one post makes this whole discussion worth having.

The marketers of the world who see their fans as cash machines will _never_ recognize that taking advantage of the trust and belief in them is wrong... it's just what Amazon and Facebook allow them to do. They didn't make the rules, right? They aren't the only ones! Why shouldn't they? No one's getting hurt... as long as no one knows.

But every now and then... someone sees the other side and that moment of understanding is worth all the frustration of arguing the obvious with people who don't want to acknowledge it.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Bill Hiatt said:


> Yes, it's possible, and you raise some interesting points about the prejudices of readers.
> 
> That said, ultimately the only way to defeat prejudice is to meet it head-on. Authors pretending to be what they aren't because they can sell books better under that persona never forces readers to reconsider their own prejudices. Instead, it enables them.


That's great, but most of us aren't writing to be social justice warriors and trying to "fix" our readers. When I write hard SF I do it under a male pen name because I know that if I don't I've immediately eliminated a huge chunk of potential readers who will never bother clicking on my book link. The same is true of male pen names in romance. I can't tell you how many times I've seen female readers say that they would never, ever read a romance written by a man because "men can't write romance." I've seen it said _here_, in other discussions of this topic. Yes, there are always exceptions. But they're just that, _exceptions_, and if you're doing this to make a living then it's stupid to cut off half or more of your reader base right off the bat over something that doesn't matter. The writing matters. The name/gender you publish it under doesn't, and it's stupid to handicap yourself because people have prejudices that you're not responsible for and that you're not going to fix. And we play off of reader psychology constantly as part of our job. Knowing reader expectations and meeting them is part of the job, whether that's saving the cat or publishing military sci-fi as Drake Edwards (I made that up, if there really is a Drake Edwards publishing mil sci-fi you have my sincere apologies) instead of Kelli Wolfe.

I'm also throwing in 100% with AnnieB and Sela in their attitude towards authors on social media in general. I think a lot of us are over-interacting with our fans in the belief that it's necessary to build a successful writing career. It isn't. Maintaining a presence is important, but getting intimate with your fans is not. It could even be dangerous in terms of legal liability if something one of them tells you turns up in one of your books afterwards. I've read about any number of lawsuits that have come about because of that kind of thing with tradpubbed authors, and they were forced to break off almost all interaction with their fans as a result. Most of us don't have big publishing houses to help with legal issues like that.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> I respect and I love my readers.
> 
> I am proud of my work.
> 
> I am proud to be an author.





bobfrost said:


> In the same vein, I am not lgbtq. I have a MM romance penname that is very successful. I interact with those fans as a gay man. That is their expectation. My audience wants to read books written by a man who shares their interests.





bobfrost said:


> I mean, just yesterday I posted up a little thing asking my readers to tell me what their favorite sex scene was in my latest book... and the day before I was communicating with people about my favorite "book boyfriends" and having a conversation about that with a dozen different women.
> 
> I don't have book boyfriends. I don't care what sex scene they enjoyed (outside of from a purely mechanical standpoint, since I will likely use that information to write or edit my next book in a way that might better capture my audience).
> 
> ...





bobfrost said:


> I am a man. I frequently engage in "girl talk" with my readers who believe that I am a woman. I engage with my fans on a daily basis to build my penname and grow my success. There is absolutely nothing creepy or wrong about this. Would readers be bothered if they discovered my "secret"? Maybe. Which is why I don't tell them.


Everyone has different ideas of what "respect their readers" means, I guess.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

KelliWolfe said:


> That's great, but most of us aren't writing to be social justice warriors and trying to "fix" our readers. When I write hard SF I do it under a male pen name because I know that if I don't I've immediately eliminated a huge chunk of potential readers who will never bother clicking on my book link. The same is true of male pen names in romance. I can't tell you how many times I've seen female readers say that they would never, ever read a romance written by a man because "men can't write romance." I've seen it said _here_, in other discussions of this topic. Yes, there are always exceptions. But they're just that, _exceptions_, and if you're doing this to make a living then it's stupid to cut off half or more of your reader base right off the bat over something that doesn't matter. The writing matters. The name/gender you publish it under doesn't, and it's stupid to handicap yourself because people have prejudices that you're not responsible for and that you're not going to fix. And we play off of reader psychology constantly as part of our job. Knowing reader expectations and meeting them is part of the job, whether that's saving the cat or publishing military sci-fi as Drake Edwards (I made that up, if there really is a Drake Edwards publishing mil sci-fi you have my sincere apologies) instead of Kelli Wolfe.
> 
> I'm also throwing in 100% with AnnieB and Sela in their attitude towards authors on social media in general. *I think a lot of us are over-interacting with our fans in the belief that it's necessary to build a successful writing career.* It isn't. Maintaining a presence is important, but getting intimate with your fans is not. It could even be dangerous in terms of legal liability if something one of them tells you turns up in one of your books afterwards. I've read about any number of lawsuits that have come about because of that kind of thing with tradpubbed authors, and they were forced to break off almost all interaction with their fans as a result. Most of us don't have big publishing houses to help with legal issues like that.


I've often thought this (bolded section). I'm from the old days when a writer having a webpage was a novelty, and interacting with that author was limited. It's definitely possible to be a popular writer and have book-selling success without constant interaction or communication with fans.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Jena H said:


> I've often thought this (bolded section). I'm from the old days when a writer having a webpage was a novelty, and interacting with that author was limited. It's definitely possible to be a popular writer and have book-selling success without constant interaction or communication with fans.


It is definitely possible. No doubt there. I don't think anyone is arguing that. More, if you choose to go the route of interaction, don't be deceptive about it.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> @BobFrost - Let me ask you a question. You say you see nothing wrong with posing as a female writer and interacting with your fans, despite knowing that it would likely upset them if they found out. But what if a female fan discovered that you were lying and shared what she knew with all the rest of your fans, and they were, predictably, upset? Upset enough to denounce you publicly, which lost you fans, and therefore, money. How would you feel about that? Would you consider it wrong to out you, or would you not care?


At the moment, I operate in a way that no single penname is truly irreplaceable. I have dozens upon dozens upon dozens of them.

If I lost a penname, I would feel that on my bottom line, but the impact that loss would make is vastly smaller than the impact I'd be faced with if I wrote and published future romance under a male penname.

Bear in mind, I frequently publish books that I didn't personally write. I've published 3 figures worth of ghostwritten titles, many of which were written (and edited) by women (and I know they were women, because I have contracts with these individuals and 1099 them every year). In those instances, I am not misrepresenting who wrote the book from a gender perspective, although the penname itself may have a social media presence that I personally manage, so the social media would be coming "from a man".

A ghostwriter could break a non-disclosure agreement and "out" one of my pennames. I believe that has happened before with a former writer I worked with in the past, and the aftermath did, indeed, kill the penname (not because the gender was revealed or anything like that, but because an author started a crusade against my penname on facebook and her fans started shouting to high heaven about how the penname was full of "ghostwritten" stories, which led to accusations of everything from plagiarism to some kind of arbitrary "scamming" as readers were encouraged to 1-star my books and report them to Amazon). When the dust settled, I pulled down all of the books I'd published under that penname, and the author responsible for the attack against me patted herself on the back on facebook for "getting amazon to take down a scammer".

Funny enough, many of the titles published on that penname were books I'd personally written... but I digress. I've since re-published those books under a new penname and all is well in denmark. That attack definitely took its toll. It cost me substantial amounts of money, and completely derailed a recent release which had an incredibly expensive marketing campaign working for it at the time. I suspect that book might have been the instigator of the attack, because it was sitting squarely in the top 30 in the Kindle store, and the ghostwriter who wrote it may have been upset about the disparity between what I'd paid them for the book, and the amount of money the book was "clearly" earning (although to be fair, they were not privy to the size of my marketing budget, which at that moment meant the book was actually deeply in the red)... but that's all just speculation. I do know that author (whom I'd bought several books from in the past) never worked with me again in the future, and after sending me a few terse emails demanding more money for the book in question despite the clarity of the contract they signed with my publishing company, they cut off all conversation with me as the ensuing chaos took place. I never bothered digging any deeper to see if they were behind the attack, mostly because there would be no realistic way to prove it one way or another.

At the end of the day it didn't make a huge impact in my year worth of income, but I certainly felt every single dollar that I lost as a result of this. To this day, that book I mention above is one of the only books I've ever lost money publishing.

Anyway, there aren't many ways that my pennames could be outed. I'm not terribly worried about this in any way shape or form. If I lose a penname, I'll start a new one.

On pennames that I, alone, am responsible for... nobody will ever know. I publish through my publishing company, and my publishing company is registered in a state that would require a couple acts of congress to get a name out of the LLC itself... and the name you would get is a registered agent... so you'd need to keep fighting... and even if you managed to pierce that veil, my wife wrote those books. Just look, here's a picture of her holding a copy of the first print edition... and a picture of her at my writing desk with her fingers on the keyboard.



I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's a risk I take in the pursuit of my career, and I've made my peace with it while doing what I can to minimize the risk. It's pretty close to zero.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> I find it very interesting to read other people's perspectives.
> 
> Being interested in learning about other perspectives, though, does not mean that I should uncritically accept as correct something that other people believe.


Yeah, because listening to what women actually think and are almost universally telling you (and telling you that their readers also think) about something that is 100% a question of, "How do women feel about this"? would be stupid. They're so emotional. Probably change their minds tomorrow.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> Everyone has different ideas of what "respect their readers" means, I guess.


I wrote, and stand by every single thing you quoted. I see no issues with any of it, as I have repeatedly said.

Am I not allowed to discuss the content of my books with my readers? Is something as innocuous as talking about a book boyfriend an issue? Can I not engage in "girl talk" in the same way many successful romance authors do on their social media accounts?

I posted up one of those gifs you see on facebook where a person is whipping up a crazy-good looking cinnamon roll recipe and talked about how OMG excited I was to make it.

I have not, nor will I likely ever, engage in the making of a cinnamon roll. Getting all excited about it was in keeping with the persona I'm maintaining with my readers. It was just a way to keep interaction. 14 shares, 344 likes. That silly little post is building my brand and helping engage my readers so next time they want a book, they come looking for my books. I use similar posts and blogs and website links to help build a facebook pixel audience that I use for re-targeting, so I can advertise specifically to the people who engage with my content.

That is the kind of "girl talk" I was discussing above. I'm sorry if there is a deeper meaning that I'm not privy to. I'm not a girl, so I can only base my discussion around things I actually see and do...


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

I'm not seeking any kind of monetary compensation by having this conversation here, so I have no realistic motivation to lie about my methodology. Hell, it's costing me money to sit here and have this conversation when I could be more productively spending my time publishing another book.

If I was seeking to be well-received by the audience here, I don't think trying to broaden perspectives would be the best way to do it.

At the end of the day, I'm giving my genuine perspective. If everything I've posted on the subject doesn't make it clear that I'm trying to have a rational and reasoned conversation about this, I don't know how I could ever convince you any different. I won't hold it against you. At any rate, I've moved in my position from "devil may care" to "ok, I can see how you could take this too far and while I don't think I've personally done that, I will certainly try to avoid doing so going forward".

Live and learn. Before we had these conversations I'd never even considered the other end of it, and I was frankly surprised to see someone bashing an author for writing under an assumed gender. Now I think I understand that side of the argument quite a bit better.

_Edited to delete quote. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

bobfrost said:


> I wrote, and stand by every single thing you quoted. I see no issues with any of it, as I have repeatedly said.
> 
> Am I not allowed to discuss the content of my books with my readers? Is something as innocuous as talking about a book boyfriend an issue? Can I not engage in "girl talk" in the same way many successful romance authors do on their social media accounts?
> 
> ...


nobody here is talking about cinnamon rolls. the examples you provided in the other thread (which have been screenshotted and quoted here) had nothing to do with cinnamon rolls.

This is called gas lighting.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> nobody here is talking about cinnamon rolls. the examples you provided in the other thread (which have been screenshotted and quoted here) had nothing to do with cinnamon rolls.
> 
> This is called gas lighting.


That was another example, more recent, from one of my facebook walls, of me engaging in "girl talk". It's not gaslighting.

Other examples I've mentioned and was responding to in the same post you are quoting were "what was your favorite steamy scene from my latest book" (in the post here at KB I said: I mean, just yesterday I posted up a little thing asking my readers to tell me what their favorite sex scene was in my latest book... - but obviously that was me being a bit bombastic in language and it was a bit more nuanced in the actual FB discussion, the meaning is the same but obviously you want to put it in a way that is a bit more "pg" for facebook). I just said, in that reply, "Am I not allowed to discuss the content of my books with my readers?". Let me elaborate further. Engaging my readers in a simple discussion about the content of my book not only gets them more invested in the book (and caused people go go and read more of it, giving me more KU page reads), it also gives me a neat little post that other readers might see that would entice them to buy the book itself. That post had quite a few responses and was well received.

I didn't see anything wrong with that post. Do you? If you can convince me I shouldn't be discussing the content of my books (which are steamy, and which these readers obviously read and enjoyed) with my readers, I'll pull the post down right this very second.

A further example was me asking people who their favorite book boyfriends are, and sharing my own. Again, I don't really see the problem with this. It's fairly innocuous to my eyes, and if it were posted by a female author, nobody would bat an eye at it because it IS innocuous.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

We're not supposed to personalize our posts so I'll try not to, but frankly, I'm somewhat in awe that an author can listen to what women are saying and shrug it off because money. I'm a bit in awe that an author can say that they realize readers would be upset if they knew who the author really was and that's why they don't tell them because money.

It's a little startling that someone can be so upfront about their motives and be so willing to write off concerns that their behaviour is unethical because in the end, money.

Money overrides ethics.

It makes me wonder what other ethical issues money overrides for them. Maybe buying fake reviews from a review service dressed up as a reader group, using paid incentives to get reviews? Maybe using bots to get rank? Maybe paying ghostwriters far below what their words are worth? Maybe taking advantage of kinks in the Amazon algorithms or tech to get unearned page reads?

If money is the bottom line and ethics are just troubling personal views that we can all just disagree about, there's a lot of room for unethical behaviour. 

A pen name is one thing. A whole performance by a fake persona used to deceive readers for financial gain, betraying their trust, is completely other.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

sela said:


> We're not supposed to personalize our posts so I'll try not to, but frankly, I'm somewhat in awe that an author can listen to what women are saying and shrug it off because money. I'm a bit in awe that an author can say that they realize readers would be upset if they knew who the author really was and that's why they don't tell them because money.
> 
> It's a little startling that someone can be so upfront about their motives and be so willing to write off concerns that their behaviour is unethical because in the end, money.
> 
> ...


And so we've moved to the "if you do THIS, what aren't you doing?" accusations which inevitably come from this kind of conversation.

"This person is walking against the flow of foot traffic on the sidewalk... are they also stealing car stereos and doing heroin?"

I'm not doing anything against the ToS. I'm paying ghostwriters based on mutually agreed-upon contracted amounts that they feel are fair (otherwise they wouldn't sell their work to me in the first place). I don't need to pay a review service or to pay incentives to reviewers because I have a steadfast group of readers who will readily and excitedly review any book I send them.

I'm a man, writing as a woman. That is my great sin here.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

bobfrost said:


> I wrote, and stand by every single thing you quoted. I see no issues with any of it, as I have repeatedly said.
> 
> *Am I not allowed to discuss the content of my books with my readers? Is something as innocuous as talking about a book boyfriend an issue? Can I not engage in "girl talk" in the same way many successful romance authors do on their social media accounts?*
> 
> ...


Just how personal do romance writers get when chatting online? Probably not as personal as you suggest-- at least, not in great numbers. Sounds like rationalization to me.

As for the cinnamon roll, you may think that flat-out lying like that is effective or acceptable, maybe even harmless, but if your "fans" find out about your deception, I bet most won't be very happy. Or forgiving.

You clearly know that what you're doing (or say you're doing) is distasteful at the very least, and yet I hear nothing but rationalization. Asking for peoples' opinions, and then dismissing those very same opinions... again, rationalization.

To be clear, I don't care what you do. Another person's questionable tactics are not my concern. But if I were you I'd keep in mind that saying about Karma being a... well, you know. Especially on social media, where 'secret' information comes to light on a startling basis.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

bobfrost said:


> That was another example, more recent, from one of my facebook walls, of me engaging in "girl talk". It's not gaslighting.
> 
> Other examples I've mentioned and was responding to in the same post you are quoting were "what was your favorite steamy scene from my latest book" (in the post here at KB I said: I mean, just yesterday I posted up a little thing asking my readers to tell me what their favorite sex scene was in my latest book... - but obviously that was me being a bit bombastic in language and it was a bit more nuanced in the actual FB discussion, the meaning is the same but obviously you want to put it in a way that is a bit more "pg" for facebook). I just said, in that reply, "Am I not allowed to discuss the content of my books with my readers?". Let me elaborate further. Engaging my readers in a simple discussion about the content of my book not only gets them more invested in the book (and caused people go go and read more of it, giving me more KU page reads), it also gives me a neat little post that other readers might see that would entice them to buy the book itself. That post had quite a few responses and was well received.
> 
> ...


Yes, I see something wrong with that post. Why? Because engaging with readers about sex (book or no book, you're still asking them to discuss their sexuality) while being a man pretending to be a woman is creepy. I've said it. Several other women have said it. At this point, you are willfully ignoring what we are saying plainly and recasting your previous statements in a "cutesy" manner.

It would be innocuous if a woman was doing it. That's the point. The reason it's not innocuous is that you've revealed to us that you're not a woman. (and that your readers would feel the same way) You're doing something you know they wouldn't be okay with and using deceit to get away with it.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

boba1823 said:


> I find it very interesting to read other people's perspectives.
> 
> Being interested in learning about other perspectives, though, does not mean that I should uncritically accept as correct something that other people believe.


Save the pseudo intellectual curiosity, seriously. If you poked someone with a pin and asked them if it hurt, you would uncritically accept their answer. Listen to people when they tell you what they are feeling and experiencing. It's not a gray area. It's not something that needs to be looked at critically. It's not something you need to examine. It's not something you need to parse and look at and figure out the truth of. You're not in charge of deciding if other people are feeling things, not when they are already being perfectly clear with you about what they feel. And you don't get to decide if those feelings are valid. They are.

I can't believe I'm about to quote Louis CK of all people (WHY, Louis??), but: "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't."


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

SaraBourgeois said:


> Yes, I see something wrong with that post. Why? Because engaging with readers about sex (book or no book, you're still asking them to discuss their sexuality) while being a man pretending to be a woman is creepy. I've said it. Several other women have said it. At this point, you are willfully ignoring what we are saying plainly and recasting your previous statements in a "cutesy" manner.
> 
> It would be innocuous if a woman was doing it. That's the point. The reason it's not innocuous is that you've revealed to us that you're not a woman. (and that your readers would feel the same way) You're doing something you know they wouldn't be okay with and using deceit to get away with it.


Is it ok for me to write the book and publish it under a female penname in the first place? Is the book itself not "engaging my readers with sex", given the highly explicit content matter within?

If we drill down, are you saying that me asking readers to tell me what scene they liked most in the book an issue, or are you saying me writing the book in the first place and publishing it as a woman is an issue?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

sela said:


> If money is the bottom line and ethics are just troubling personal views that we can all just disagree about, there's a lot of room for unethical behaviour.


I have been saying this over and over in every forum where I have a voice. Someone will say "But don't these people realize they're ruining the romance category?" and "Don't these people care that they're stepping on other authors to succeed?" and "Don't people care that they're exploiting readers/ghostwriters/service providers?" and on and on.

My response is always the same. You (not YOU, Sela, but general "you") have to stop thinking of these people as authors like you are. They aren't. They are in it for the money and they feel as much for the product as any internet marketer feels about the hot widget of the hour--which is to say, nothing.

*When you're only in it for the money, the money is all that matters.*

And to hell with the people you step on.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> I'm a man, writing as a woman. That is my great sin here.


Now you're purposely misunderstanding what all this is about.


----------



## mayatylerauthor (Apr 22, 2015)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> The problem here is a lot of us consider pen names for the long term. It's a different case for someone who is pumping out tons of ghost-written stuff and creating new pen names as readily as they change their socks. What does credibility mean when your whole business model involves regularly dumping pen names to the curb, only to start again with a bunch of new ones? It's inconvenience, nothing more. Ergo, I'm beginning to see it's kind of pointless to argue the morality of something with someone for whom that morality probably isn't even a blip on their personal radar.


Agreed.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

sela said:


> It makes me wonder what other ethical issues money overrides for them. Maybe buying fake reviews from a review service dressed up as a reader group, using paid incentives to get reviews? Maybe using bots to get rank? Maybe paying ghostwriters far below what their words are worth? Maybe taking advantage of kinks in the Amazon algorithms or tech to get unearned page reads?
> If money is the bottom line and ethics are just troubling personal views that we can all just disagree about, there's a lot of room for unethical behaviour. A pen name is one thing. A whole performance by a fake persona used to deceive readers for financial gain, betraying their trust, is completely other.


I can't like Sela's post enough. For me it points out the terribleness of this practice and the greed behind it.

Also, this keeps devolving into men vs. women issue --- it's so much bigger than that. So many of the posts are letting women off the hook for doing the exact same thing! And I think that is wrong. This whole catfishing scheme is part of a business plan that's being followed by both men and women.

- If they are writing M/M they pretend to be a Gay Man. 
- It they are writing Bad Boy then the writer persona is a Woman
- If they are writing Urban Romance or BWWM then they are a Black Woman.

Part of the business plan is creating a persona that matches the genre. Then they further reader engagement by creating a social media persona. That presence is then used to create the illusion of a real person who matches the genre. Readers are tricked into believing the persona is real and is actually part of a group the readers identify with! They do this because it works --- and they will follow this publishing template until it stops working.

Male or female it's deceitful and I don't think women who are part of these mastermind groups should get a free pass. What bugs me is the men are taking all the heat -- while women pretending to be gay men or a different ethnic origin get a 'ho hum' it doesn't matter response.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> while women pretending to be gay men or a different ethnic origin get a 'ho hum' it doesn't matter response.


For the record, I think those things are wrong too. I think I've stated in this thread somewhere that I'm working on a book that will be published under a male pen name. I'm not even creating a FB profile for this dude, and I'm certainly not going to talk to my readers about their erectile dysfunction. I don't write M/M so I can't speak to that, but as Becca pointed out, in MOST genres that sort of require a male pen name, there's not a lot of deeply personal sharing. I would be acutely uncomfortable with it if there was.

And I would never masquerade as a POC, not even in the most surface of ways.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

Anyway, I've said my two cents. This has been a fascinating conversation and I appreciated having it. I think I've moved a bit in my own perspective on the issue, and even though I don't feel as if I've crossed the kind of lines being discussed here, this conversation will probably be reflected in future discussions I have with my readers. 

I surrender. White flag.

To any other male authors writing under female pennames and interact with fans on social media under that penname... I'd recommend never talking about it openly. Read over this thread and learn from it as I have. For goodness sake, keep your pennames private.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

lilywhite said:


> For the record, I think those things are wrong too. I think I've stated in this thread somewhere that I'm working on a book that will be published under a male pen name. I'm not even creating a FB profile for this dude, and I'm certainly not going to talk to my readers about their erectile dysfunction. I don't write M/M so I can't speak to that, but as Becca pointed out, in MOST genres that sort of require a male pen name, there's not a lot of deeply personal sharing. I would be acutely uncomfortable with it if there was.
> 
> And I would never masquerade as a POC, not even in the most surface of ways.


I understand that. I had a female erotic romance pen name for years. I never crossed the line or asked for personal information. At most I would post a picture of a sexy guy and let the women discuss how handsome he was. Since I'm gay that didn't really feel creepy to me -- because I thought the guy was cute too! But I never ever went into a creepy & overly personal sexual area with my very tiny fan group.

I now just write under my own gender and it's much less stressful. But still don't think using a pen-name is bad, at times it is a necessity. But there's an exploitative area that I believe goes too far. Which it seems most of us agree with. If a woman wants to write m/m under a male name that's one thing. If she suddenly creates an entire persona, who lives in New York and has a boyfriend. Then post pictures of said (imaginary) boyfriend walking their dog in the park..etc.. That's where the line is crossed and that's what these internet marketers are doing. It's exploitative and wrong across the board.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

bobfrost said:


> *Is it ok for me to write the book and publish it under a female penname in the first place?* Is the book itself not "engaging my readers with sex", given the highly explicit content matter within?
> 
> If we drill down, are you saying that me asking readers to tell me what scene they liked most in the book an issue, or are you saying me writing the book in the first place and publishing it as a woman is an issue?


Don't try to change the subject. Of course there's no problem with a female pen name. ALmost 30 years ago I was in a critique group with a middle-aged man who was a very successful romance writer--with a female pen name. It's been done for decades, even centuries. And contrary to your second sentence, the book itself isn't a "dialogue" or "interaction." It's simply telling a story. The problem comes when you solicit opinions or feelings about very personal topics from readers who think you're a woman. (Personally, I'd find such interaction questionable, period, no matter if the other person is a man or woman.)

The fact that you're specifically asking about sex scenes is quite telling. That seems to be what you're interested in "discussing," and yes, that's creepy. Again, no matter the gender of the author, I find the notion of being asked about a "favorite sex scene" to be questionable at best, skeevy and creepy at worst.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

bobfrost said:


> Live and learn. Before we had these conversations I'd never even considered the other end of it, and *I was frankly surprised to see someone bashing an author for writing under an assumed gender.* Now I think I understand that side of the argument quite a bit better.


Who in this discussion has bashed an author for simply _writing_ under an assumed gender?

_edited position of the end quote code_


----------



## DaniO (Oct 22, 2012)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Male or female it's deceitful and I don't think women who are part of these mastermind groups should get a free pass. What bugs me is the men are taking all the heat -- while women pretending to be gay men or a different ethnic origin get a 'ho hum' it doesn't matter response.


For me, it's not a matter of men vs women or men getting all the heat.

And it's not the content of the books, Bob. It's not even who writes them. It's the interaction with readers under false pretences that sets off alarm bells. It's getting them to confide in you, to trust you when you're not honest with them.

It's not the cinnamon roll posts I find creepy. Although some people here object even to that.

I hope Bob Frost stays on this thread and continues to comment.

Sure, he likes money. Who doesn't? But suggesting an author who does this must be scamming and involved in various dirty tricks is going too far. I don't think we have any evidence of that at all.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

PhoenixS said:


> Who in this discussion has bashed an author for simply _writing_ under an assumed gender?
> 
> _edited position of the end quote code_


Sorry, it came from the previous discussion which instigated this discussion .

No worries! I'm off now, seriously, I've got lots of work to do. Good luck everyone.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Male or female it's deceitful and I don't think women who are part of these mastermind groups should get a free pass. What bugs me is the men are taking all the heat -- while women pretending to be gay men or a different ethnic origin get a 'ho hum' it doesn't matter response.


I for one certainly don't give them a free pass. Pretending to have authentic experience as something you're not and engaging others as that persona and building a social relationship with readers based on that lie for financial gain is skeevy, imo, no matter what form that takes.

I think the concentration on the male/female issue is only because the majority of commenters here identify as either one or the other and so can provide an authentic response, plus we have someone engaging in this activity willing to comment and rebut.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Editing my own words in a reply because I want to clarify:



> Money overrides ethics.
> 
> It makes me wonder what other ethical issues money overrides for them. Maybe buying fake reviews from a review service dressed up as a reader group, using paid incentives to get reviews?
> 
> ...


There. It's just fiction, for heaven's sake!

It's all a big fantasy by readers who want to keep living the fantasy.

Those readers are stupid if they trust others to be who they really say they are... This is the internet after all...

/sarcasm


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

bobfrost said:


> And you know what? THOSE PEOPLE WERE RIGHT! I decided to buck the system. I decided to write my novels and prove everyone wrong. I wrote my romance novels. And they were summarily ignored or rejected by every single publishing house I attempted to submit them to. I'd wasted my time. My dream was dead.


If, from this experience, you went on to get a degree in teaching and spent 25 years or so in the classroom then, you're right, way back then you probably couldn't have published a romance as a man. In the 70s, one of the biggest names in historical romance, which was skyrocketing after the success of Kathleen Woodiwiss's first book, was Jennifer Wild. It was probably not until the mid to late 80s that it became much more widely known that Jennifer was, in fact, a man named Tom Huff who had published other romances under other female pen names, though never with such success. Being "outed" (and I have no idea how that happened, or if he simply came forward himself) didn't seem to hurt his career, but by then, he was a big name. I also have no idea if his early editors were aware of his real gender or not. It's certainly possible that that was hidden behind his agent and finessed in the contracts. In the 90s, Harold Lowry published his successful Western romances under the gender neutral name of Leigh Greenwood. But he sold as a man (we shared the same editor), went on signing tours (hard to pretend you're a woman when you're six feet tall and clearly male and sitting right there in front of the reader) and eventually served two years as president of RWA. As a man. Which is not to say he didn't face challenges, too.

It's NEVER been easy to get published. Maybe back then it really wasn't your gender that was the issue. Maybe you just needed to gain better mastery of your craft. Men weren't the only ones getting rejected in droves--believe me, I know! And since there was no internet, once you were published, there was no way to engage as frequently and easily with fans as you can now, so you were less likely to face some of the ethical issues that crop up now.

Kudos to you for keeping the dream alive over all the years, and kudos for having now built what appears to be a successful, and financially rewarding, publishing enterprise. It seems you've drifted a long, long way from being a writer, first and foremost, but that's okay. Dreams are like battle plans--they never survive the first contact with the enemy (life) without significant change. And we all have to figure out ways to pay the bills.

But if you're managing to do so much, it seems foolish to put it all at risk by what, to most of us here, are very underhanded interactions with your readers. Obviously, you have some clear notions about what you have to do to achieve the success you want. But...I'm glad to see you're rethinking this part of it. Maybe you still have to use a female pen name to get the sales and readership you want. Nobody here has any problem with that. Just...watch your boundaries and step back a bit, because, for most of us here (and clearly for the readers that some authors here have queried), there are certain things that definitely cross a line that shouldn't be crossed. And that's a mistake that could bring down everything you've been working for all these years.

That said, thank you for your continued courteous engagement here. It can't have been easy. And while I don't agree with much of anything you've said, I really do find the way you've engaged with everyone admirable.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

My Dog's Servant said:


> If, from this experience, you went on to get a degree in teaching and spent 25 years or so in the classroom then, you're right, way back then you probably couldn't have published a romance as a man. In the 70s, one of the biggest names in historical romance, which was skyrocketing after the success of Kathleen Woodiwiss's first book, was Jennifer Wild. It was probably not until the mid to late 80s that it became much more widely known that Jennifer was, in fact, a man named Tom Huff who had published other romances under other female pen names, though never with such success. Being "outed" (and I have no idea how that happened, or if he simply came forward himself) didn't seem to hurt his career, but by then, he was a big name. I also have no idea if his early editors were aware of his real gender or not. It's certainly possible that that was hidden behind his agent and finessed in the contracts. *In the 90s, Harold Lowry published his successful Western romances under the gender neutral name of Leigh Greenwood. But he sold as a man* (we shared the same editor), went on signing tours (hard to pretend you're a woman when you're six feet tall and clearly male and sitting right there in front of the reader) and eventually served two years as president of RWA. As a man. Which is not to say he didn't face challenges, too.
> 
> . . .


Haha, Harold Lowry is the person I was speaking of in my earlier comment, about a male romance author with whom I was in a great critique group. You're absolutely right-- he never hid behind his pen name, or made any pretense to be anything other than a man who writes books for a majority-female audience. His book covers were the only place he ever used his 'female' persona.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

Jena H said:


> Haha, Harold Lowry is the person I was speaking of in my earlier comment, about a male romance author with whom I was in a great critique group. You're absolutely right-- he never hid behind his pen name, or made any pretense to be anything other than a man who writes books for a majority-female audience. His book covers were the only place he ever used his 'female' persona.


A gentleman and a scholar, as they say. A truly nice person, and a darn good writer. (end of thread diversion!)


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Folks, popcorn gifs are really not appropriate for a topic like this, especially when most are clearly trying so hard to maintain a strong, civil conversation. 

I think this has been a good thread. And I think it's been valuable to have someone like bobfrost articulating the thought processes of someone who sees the transition into skeeviness coming further along the continuum of interaction than many others might. Without opposing views, the conversation would be less specific, informative, and thought-provoking. Let's keep in mind that spreading awareness about this issue probably matters more than changing one author's practices.

Accusations of lying are not appropriate. That is the kind of thing that will get the thread locked, so please desist. I will be making a few edits/deletions.


----------



## wheart (May 26, 2016)

Ethics and integrity. Two things most of us strive for and try to implement in our lives.

It's so easy to cast stones.

I feel it is not impossible to give opinions/feedback/etc. without making someone out to be sleezy or despicable.

Below is a list of things that hopefully we can all agree are outside the realm of integrity. Yet how many people have done one or more of these, even if not anymore, but had done so at some point in the past? This is a rhetorical question, of course, and just food for thought so we can all be a little less hurtful in how we cast stones.

Faking an orgasm and/or letting your significant other/spouse believe they are/were awesome in bed
Cheating on a spouse/significant other
Cheating on a test
Not stepping up to take responsibility for something that was your fault
Taking credit for something that should have been credited to someone else
Not reporting ALL (especially cash sales since that can't be easily verified) of your income to the IRS (or whatever your tax collector)
Taking home a pencil, stapler, or any property no matter how small, belonging to your employer
Posting/perusing the Internet for personal use during work hours (NOT counting lunch/free-time) to which you are getting paid for those hours by your employer
Being a person who fights for total equality yet will apply for things (ex: a small business loan) that are only available to a specific group (whether it be gender, ethnicity, etc.) that aren't open to those outside that group
Pirated software (or anything) from a friend/family member/Internet because you didn't want to pay for it
Told a lie, no matter how small, no matter how harmless you thought it was


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> There is a world of difference between expecting a person to accept statements about how one feels about something (which is reasonable) and expecting a person to uncritically accept ethical dictates about acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
> 
> People have a privileged position with respect to their own feelings because they have special access to facts about how they feel. No one person or group has special access to the facts about ethics; this is what makes ethical discussion so important, and why it relies upon reasons that go beyond "Because I said so."
> 
> ...


Maybe this discussion breaks down on definitions of "unethical". For those of us objecting to the specific kind of behavior discussed here--authors inviting conversation on intimate topics while pretending to be someone they're not--we consider "unethical" applies because the author is outright lying about who and what they are and why they are doing what they are doing. We find it especially disturbing because it appears that those who use this approach see nothing wrong in it since they're doing it for money. "It'd be awful if we were perverts but we're not, it's just about the money, so it's okay." Er...no. It's not.

Would you consider someone practicing medicine even though they do not, in fact, have a medical degree, unethical? I would. You would, too. They're putting the people they deal with at risk of harm. The same applies to an author engaging in these kinds of activities because they can, in fact, however unknowingly, do harm if that deception is ever revealed. Creating a situation where people could feel shame, guilt, embarrassment, or any similar negative emotion, especially for the truly vulnerable, does harm. Period. It is, therefore, unethical. (It's also, in the case of practicing medicine without a license, illegal. But even if something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's not unethical.)

If the ethics of the question don't concern you because your ethical line is drawn elsewhere, then all you really need to know, as someone clearly focused on making money, is that such behavior will also be considered



> "Creepy ... dishonest ... ugh."
> "Creepy, yuck, disgusting."
> "Crossing a line ... highly distasteful."
> "I should have a reasonable expectation of knowing who I'm talking to."
> ...


So... Say it doesn't matter--for _you_--because it hasn't crossed _your_ personal ethical line. Regardless of where your line's drawn, remember where that line is for others because, when you cross it, they're not going to be forgiving just because your line isn't where theirs is.

I recognize that you seem not ever to have considered this approach. Much earlier in the thread you said a lot of reader engagement seemed like too much effort for too little reward. Since you've been following this thread, you also now know that it carries a lot of risks you hadn't previously considered, as well.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

The need to _justify_ this behavior keeps people answering posts in this thread long after they claim not to care anymore. I would suspect it's guilt but it also might be an overwhelming need for attention and not any real twinge of integrity.

FWIW, I'm a member of a group that regularly posts crude jokes and borderline offensive memes... today the author/owner of that group asked these not-easily-offended folks how they'd feel about this situation and the responses were overwhelmingly negative.

It's not just "sensitive girls" who find this offensive (as if what girls think about how they are treated is just a silly thing to take seriously) but this entire group of d*** joke lovers who feel that *interacting with people as someone you are not* is most definitely despicable.

Not as a "pen name" _(Glad you liked the book!)_ but creating a persona you pretend to be and interacting with people is a big fat line that makes people angry.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

This discussion isn't about using a pen name per se.

It's about creating a fake persona of a category that you don't belong to and interacting in a very intimate manner with your customers in order to make more money off them via deception.

I can imagine two conversations:

"Oh, Sadie McSade is really a man? Oh, that's so strange. His romance novel felt so real to me. He really understands romance! Why does he think he has to use a female pen name? I'd read any book he writes!" (of course, she may never have picked up the same book using his actual male name so this is why pen names are still necessary)

"Oh, you mean Sadie McSade is really a man? OMG he said all these things to us in a private reader group, asking us about our "O"'s and how old were were when we first did it and if we were ever in an abusive relationship. I told the group about the time I was raped and how hard it was to get over and how my boyfriend had a hard time touching me... WHAT A CREEP! What an UTTER B&^S%$S!"

Again, this is about degree and how far this is taken.

I think, for any author reading this thread who may be creating a fake online persona in a identity group to which you don't belong to interact with readers and grease the marketing skids for financial gain, if you feel at all defensive about your behaviour, perhaps consider whether the better angels of your nature sitting on your shoulder are telling you that if you have to hide it, maybe it's a bit (or a lot, depending on degree) skeevy.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

MyraScott said:


> This thread is *NOT* about having a pen name that is the opposite gender.


First line of the original post. Repeated several times.

This was the first line of the original post because I expected people would try to conflate the two so they could point out all the people who do it and distract from the issue in this thread, which is catfishing.

But if someone wants to start a thread on using an opposite gender pen name, that's a fine topic. But not the issue for this thread.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

As a rule of thumb, I gauge any activities I do that have to be kept secret from the people involved based on the obvious consequences when I get caught.

Not if. When.

Because you will get caught and you will have to face those consequences.


----------



## eleutheria (Mar 25, 2014)

I'll preface this by saying that I think using a female pen name (or pretending to be a gender you're not in general) in order to get personal information that would not otherwise be shared is wrong.

However, I think some of the smaller cross-arguments are having a problem understanding the opposing point of view. I think (besides bobfrost) that it's more about what is a good (well-supported) argument and what a bad (ill-supported) argument is.

An argument based on emotion is generally a bad one. "This makes me feel creeped out, other people also feel creeped out, and authors should not do things that upset their readers." Okay. But if you look at the latter part of this, it's so vague that it becomes a bad idea to actually completely agree with it because of the other implications. If you kill of a popular character and piss off your readers, have you done something wrong? No, of course not. How about writing a character that is so vile he creeps out the reader and upsets the reader? Obviously not. "But that's not what I was even arguing!" No, it wasn't, but that's why this argument was a bad one to make - not for the idea behind it, but the WAY it is being argued. I guess you could also look at this as failing to be specific enough. If you're trying to have a deep ethical discussion, implications and unintended consequences matter. Intent is not enough.

A good argument is based on reasoning. "Pretending to be a woman to use other people for money and get personal details a woman would not normally share with a man breaks the social contract of generally being honest and allowing male and female spaces." (I've seen this one expressed here, and completely agree with it.) If you follow this down the rabbit hole (what do you mean by social contract?) you come to the very basis of modern civilization. I'd call that a good argument, and one FAR more likely to convince your opponent he/she is wrong.

Tiny example: 


> The same applies to an author engaging in these kinds of activities because they can, in fact, however unknowingly, do harm if that deception is ever revealed. Creating a situation where people could feel shame, guilt, embarrassment, or any similar negative emotion, especially for the truly vulnerable, does harm. Period. It is, therefore, unethical.


I get your intent here. But if a murderer feels shame, is that a good thing or a bad thing? If I tell a murderer, "What you did was horrific and wrong" and that causes shame, embarrassment, and negative emotion, have I done something unethical? I don't think so. I don't think you do, either. Be careful about absolute statements. Particularly as they give your opponent wriggle room to pick it apart and dismiss it entirely.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

"I have not, nor will I likely ever, engage in the making of a cinnamon roll. Getting all excited about it was in keeping with the persona I'm maintaining with my readers. It was just a way to keep interaction. 14 shares, 344 likes. That silly little post is building my brand and helping engage my readers so next time they want a book, they come looking for my books."

And you have an actual picture up there?  Hahahah!!

BobFrost, you are in trouble if they ever, ever find out.  My first thought was, Oh, he's punking us all, right here in this thread!

And, you call it a SILLY post!  Good luck, BobFrost!


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

boba1823 said:


> This focus on harm lands a lot closer to my intuitions about ethical boundaries regarding deception in this context. My initial thoughts for what might make a good ethical rule of thumb were something like:
> 
> I do feel that there should be some reasonable threshold regarding the magnitude of the harm. I think of hypotheticals like the following:
> 
> ...


Your example is not adequate to the case we are discussing.

There is a big difference between the example you gave and what Bob Frost has reported some male authors are engaging in -- creating a fictional female persona and then engaging women readers in intimate conversations, pumping them for personal sexual information for financial benefit.

The fact we fellow authors feel such behaviour is creepy or skeevy is one thing. The actual behaviour itself is both deceptive and a betrayal of trust. It is wrong for those reasons -- not because we describe it as skeevy or that we are creeped out. That's just our response to deceptive behaviour that betrays the trust of readers.

And it's on a whole other level than the example you used, which I feel trivializes the case we are discussing.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

If I focused on what my readers said, it wasn't because that was the moral argument. The moral argument has been well stated by others. It was because, for people who mostly care about how things affect their business, I thought it was the explanation that might make a difference. In my experience, some people are always going to be dismissive of what women feel, once words like "feeling safe," "invasive," "deception," and "women's experiences in the world" come out, no matter how compelling the moral argument. Because, as we all know, we "shouldn't" feel like that.

If you do it, cinnamon roll or more (which, yeah, still doesn't pass my sniff test), make sure nobody finds out, that's all I'll say.

_
Edited, PM me any questions. Evenstar, Moderator_


----------



## someone1 (Aug 17, 2014)

I don't want to get into male/female safe zones, deception and on, just to point out that it's twenty first century and men impersonating women might not be the biggest ethical problem. From today's BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42609353 
"A number of Chinese mobile applications have been shut down after it was revealed women on their platforms were actually automated robots, it's reported.

According to the Modern Express newspaper, police have closed down mobile apps associated with 21 companies and arrested more than 600 suspects operating across 13 provinces, after discovering that messages from some women were being automatically generated by computer programmes.

Police in southern Guangdong province began investigating in August 2017, after suspecting one app of fraudulently charging visitors to view pornographic videos which did not exist.

Further investigation found that technical personnel from at least one company had created fake "sexy girl" accounts. They wrote computer programmes which generated greeting messages and compliments from fake accounts, and targeted these at newly registered users.

"They solicited gifts and posted other messages to lure the user into spending money, and thus illegally generating profit," the police report reads. It says that tens of thousands of people are believed to have been conned out of a total sum of one billion yuan ($154m; £113m). "


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

tkflor said:


> I don't want to get into male/female safe zones, deception and on, just to point out that it's twenty first century and men impersonating women might not be the biggest ethical problem. From today's BBC:
> http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42609353
> "A number of Chinese mobile applications have been shut down after it was revealed women on their platforms were actually automated robots, it's reported.
> 
> ...


Almost completely irrelevant to this conversation.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

boba1823 said:


> So for me, the interesting question that remains is where the ethical line is drawn - the permissibility of using a pen name, using a fake profile picture, fake biography, certain kinds of generic social interactions with readers, more involved interactions that focus on the book or general (non-intimate) aspects of life, etc.


I agree it's an interesting question and one I find important since I plan on using a gender-neutral pen name for my SF. I won't be pretending to be a man. I just won't reveal either way. Most of my character has nothing to do with being female. It has to do with being a human being. So I'll focus on those things in my bio. I'll probably have a very SFnal website and profile page on Facebook. I won't be trying to be "one of the boys". I'll trust that my book will stand on its own rather than by any personal relationship I have with readers.

I look forward to a day when we won't need to hide our gender behind pen names, but that day is not here yet.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

sela said:


> I look forward to a day when we won't need to hide our gender behind pen names, but that day is not here yet.


Well...that day'll never get here if writers continue to hide behind pen names. We need more trail-blazers. 

Which is secondary to the point of this thread, tho.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Jim Johnson said:


> Well...that day'll never get here if writers continue to hide behind pen names. We need more trail-blazers.
> 
> Which is secondary to the point of this thread, tho.


Women trying to write hard SF using feminine pen names may only find their bank accounts empty. Can't blaze many trails if your words are not being read because some are afraid to read a book written by the other gender.

When my son was 8 and we were in a bookstore looking at the shelves, he found a book with a picture of a girl riding on the back of a dragon. He asked if it was okay for a boy to read a book about a girl.

This was from a boy whose mother was at the time the primary breadwinner and whose father was working part time and looking after the kids so they didn't have to go in daycare.

It's systemic and will take more to end than just not using pen names.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

sela said:


> When my son was 8 and we were in a bookstore looking at the shelves, he found a book with a picture of a girl riding on the back of a dragon. He asked if it was okay for a boy to read a book about a girl.


Good parenting will cover that.  I hope the answer to that was "yes" by the way. That's what I'll tell my toddler if we get in a similar situation, anyway. He'll grow up to know it's okay to read any goddamn thing he wants to read, or write.


----------



## SuzyQ (Jun 22, 2017)

It almost sounds like some of you guys are casting aspersions on authors who interact heavily with their readership. I love talking to my readers, answer fan mail religiously and squee all over the place when they send me pictures of artwork they've done of my characters (I mean, that is THE BEST!). Many of my readers are teens and I alter my tone naturally in response to this. It's one of my favorite parts of the job. I'm not being duplicitous or pretending to be a teenager myself. I don't think it makes or breaks the success of the book, but it adds to the reader experience and they give me lots of feedback you can't get on GRs etc.

Maybe if this specifically an issue with sexual conversations, it could go either way? I personally don't participate in that kind of 'what is your fantasy/celebrity crush/favorite position' talk but I've seen it go down and its usually lighthearted. I would think you would have to be part of the conversation to know if it slides into creepytown or whatever.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Accusations of lying are not appropriate. That is the kind of thing that will get the thread locked, so please desist. I will be making a few edits/deletions.


Since my post was the one nerfed for this, I'll simply point out that there was no "accusation" of lying. Bob admitting that he was lying to his audience about his gender and his authentic experiences (in fact, he admitted to dozens of pen names and dozens of personas) was one of the factors for this conversation to begin with. My follow-up was simply meant to reinforce the notion that once someone's lied for gain in one instance, and they seem to have little to no remorse about it, their credibility is potentially shot, whether here or elsewhere and _whether they're telling the truth or not_. Should I have couched "lying" more euphemistically? If a male outs himself as a male after pretending to be one of the girls (or a white female outs herself after pretending to be a POC or a gay male), how do you suppose the audience will react? Will they be willing to believe anything else he tells them, even when he's telling the truth? And do I actually have to be someone in a FB group that he's personally deceived to feel like that? That's what my post posited.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

boba1823 said:


> This focus on harm lands a lot closer to my intuitions about ethical boundaries regarding deception in this context. <snip>
> 
> I do feel that there should be some reasonable threshold regarding the magnitude of the harm. <snip>


You're right about the difficulty of drawing the line precisely and in a way that everyone can agree on, but I think most people will agree it's better to err on the side of caution, restraint, and consideration for others, if for no other reason than because the possible consequences if you don't could be so serious.

Maybe one rule of thumb is, if it's not something I would want an author to do to my spouse, sibling, child, mother, father, or best friend, then it's not something I should consider doing to others.

In the end, each of us will draw that ethical line in accord with who we are and the values we believe in. But it would be wise to consider the possible consequences if that line goes way beyond where most everyone else would draw it.



> So for me, the interesting question that remains is where the ethical line is drawn - the permissibility of using a pen name, using a fake profile picture, fake biography, certain kinds of generic social interactions with readers, more involved interactions that focus on the book or general (non-intimate) aspects of life, etc.


I think it's clear everyone agrees pen names are fine. From the discussion here, it appears there are differing views on biographies and how "creative" you can be. Also it seems general social interaction on the level of "thank you for reading my book, I'm glad you enjoyed it" is okay, but go much beyond that and the consensus rapidly disappears. Which means each author has to make his or her own value judgment....then live by it if things go south.

One thing....be very careful about the fake profile picture. Many stock photo licenses carry restrictions on that sort of thing, so something you could use on a book cover may not be something you could use to be the pseudonymous "you." Read the fine print carefully. I had the perfect picture for a serial character for whom I created a FB page....then read the fine print and immediately took it down.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

SuzyQ said:


> It almost sounds like some of you guys are casting aspersions on authors who interact heavily with their readership. I love talking to my readers, answer fan mail religiously and squee all over the place when they send me pictures of artwork they've done of my characters (I mean, that is THE BEST!). Many of my readers are teens and I alter my tone naturally in response to this. It's one of my favorite parts of the job. I'm not being duplicitous or pretending to be a teenager myself. I don't think it makes or breaks the success of the book, but it adds to the reader experience and they give me lots of feedback you can't get on GRs etc.
> 
> Maybe if this specifically an issue with sexual conversations, it could go either way? I personally don't participate in that kind of 'what is your fantasy/celebrity crush/favorite position' talk but I've seen it go down and its usually lighthearted. I would think you would have to be part of the conversation to know if it slides into creepytown or whatever.


I don't think anyone is doing this, fwiw. We're talking about grossly misrepresenting yourself in way that likely would alienate and disgust your readership were they to know who you really were, with a side-dish of taking that misrepresentation so far as to solicit intimate information from people for the sake of money.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

PhoenixS said:


> Since my post was the one nerfed for this, I'll simply point out that there was no "accusation" of lying. Bob admitting that he was lying to his audience about his gender and his authentic experiences (in fact, he admitted to dozens of pen names and dozens of personas) was one of the factors for this conversation to begin with. My follow-up was simply meant to reinforce the notion that once someone's lied for gain in one instance, and they seem to have little to no remorse about it, their credibility is potentially shot, whether here or elsewhere and _whether they're telling the truth or not_. Should I have couched "lying" more euphemistically? If a male outs himself as a male after pretending to be one of the girls (or a white female outs herself after pretending to be a POC or a gay male), how do you suppose the audience will react? Will they be willing to believe anything else he tells them, even when he's telling the truth? And do I actually have to be someone in a FB group that he's personally deceived to feel like that? That's what my post posited.


If you want threads like this to remain open, those are dots you will need to leave other members to connect for themselves.

I hope this is the last on this matter.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

lilywhite said:


> If you can't see the difference between 1) politely interacting with someone on a surface level without revealing your gender, in order to protect a pen name that allows you to publish with some degree of heightened success in a specific genre, and 2) a man, *under the pretense of being a woman*, asking a woman when she had her first orgasm, I honestly don't know what more to say to you. The difference is so crystal-clear it's breathtaking, and anything further I had to say would venture into ban-hammer territory.


I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. Because I've already explained why I find the very premise of this thread to be a double standard or hypocritical. Clearly I don't agree with your point of view but I don't talk down to you or say I want to say things to you that would get me banned. Why can't we just have a normal conversation in which we disagree with each other without you resorting to trying to personally belittle me just because I have a different opinion?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Jim Johnson said:


> Good parenting will cover that.  I hope the answer to that was "yes" by the way. That's what I'll tell my toddler if we get in a similar situation, anyway. He'll grow up to know it's okay to read any goshdarnn thing he wants to read, or write.


You overestimate the influence of parents v peers, I fear. (I speak as a mother of adult children.) The prevailing culture is a powerful thing.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

bobfrost said:


> Is it ok for me to write the book and publish it under a female penname in the first place? *Is the book itself not "engaging my readers with sex", given the highly explicit content matter within?*


You're being disingenuous. 
You hand the book to the reader and the reader goes off on his/her own to read it in private. You no longer have any presence in that scene. 
When you then ask them questions about their intimate reactions to it while disguising yourself because you believe they wouldn't answer if you weren't disguised, you have entered an entirely new territory, and you know it.

Know how I know you know it? 
Because you've said several times that what you've learned is not to be open about what you're doing. Not to admit it.

If you truly didn't believe there was anything wrong with it, you wouldn't have a problem letting your readers - who came to you because you were Susie Allgirl, but have stuck with you because you write a good story - in on the secret.

You could create a private group, pitch it as 'get up close and personal with your favorite author!' to "maximize engagement" and "connect with your fans," promise them exclusive details about your life - hey, since you want to get as much profit out of people as you can, you could probably charge them a dollar a month to join! - and in that private group you could reveal yourself as Buck Johnson, secure in the knowledge that your readership would simply teehee at it and feel superior to the plebian non-members who are still in the dark.

In fact, I kind of dare you to do that. You mention dozens of pen names; pick one that has reasonable Facebook engagement. Not your most popular one, just a middle-of-the-road one, but one that you've quizzed about the 'steamy scenes.' Offer a super-exclusive private members-only fan club. Then reveal to that group, full of super-fans, that their discussions about what really revved their engines were not with Susie Allgirl but with Buck Johnson. See how many stick around.

You'll never do that, because you know that those readers would feel betrayed, exploited, and violated.



> If we drill down, are you saying that me asking readers to tell me what scene they liked most in the book an issue, or are you saying me writing the book in the first place and publishing it as a woman is an issue?


If we drill down, most of us have been saying since the beginning that using a female pseudonym is not an issue, but engaging in intimate, personal discussions while posing as someone you're not is a major issue. 
It's been said countless times in this thread. You keep trying to shift it to make it seem like people are saying you shouldn't write under a female/neuter pseudonym, and people keep saying "That's not the issue, writing under a female/neuter pseudonym is fine," and you come back with "So you're saying I shouldn't write under a female/neuter pseudonym."

Almost no one is saying that. 
We don't have to drill down. We keep laying it out for you right on the surface.

And you know, it's not like you're barely scraping by, and your female IDs are all that stand between you and the gutter. It would still be wrong, but I'd be able to understand it better. But from what you're saying, you've got a thriving business going. But behaving more ethically might make you slightly less wealthy, so nah.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

lilywhite said:


> ^^ This.
> 
> I also don't give a [crap] if it's legal. I try to do the right thing even when I'm not constrained to do so by law or contract. It's called "integrity."


Honestly. Making a distinction of "It's illegal to pretend to be Category A for purposes of profit, but the law doesn't say anything about Category B, so there's nothing wrong with that" is like saying "Well, Leviticus says you can't sleep with your mother, aunt, sister, or female in-laws, but it doesn't say anything about daughters so I'm AOK there."


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I can't like Sela's post enough. For me it points out the terribleness of this practice and the greed behind it.
> 
> Also, this keeps devolving into men vs. women issue --- it's so much bigger than that. So many of the posts are letting women off the hook for doing the exact same thing! And I think that is wrong. This whole catfishing scheme is part of a business plan that's being followed by both men and women.
> 
> ...


I (and, I think, most people) agree that it is just as wrong for women to deceive by creating and using a false internet persona of a race or sexual orientation different from their own (NOT, note, merely a pen name). Personally, I'd take it a step further and say that if a woman were doing what Bob Frost gives as one 'innocuous' example- writing about cinnamon buns when they have zero knowledge or interest in the subject based on some calculation of what they think will get their fans to engage I would also find that repugnant. And I would be pretty angry and disgusted if I found out I'd developed a personal relationship with another woman on the basis of what I thought were heartfelt discussions of shared interests and values and found out she had been cynically writing whatever seemed likely to give her the best ROI. Bottom line: it's wrong to form a personal connection with someone purely for the purpose of exploiting them for your own gain and with absolutely no concern for their feelings or personal dignity. Adding overtones of sexual predation just adds a special 'ick' factor.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Sarah Shaw said:


> ... Personally, I'd take it a step further and say that if a woman were doing what Bob Frost gives as one 'innocuous' example- writing about cinnamon buns when they have zero knowledge or interest in the subject based on some calculation of what they think will get their fans to engage I would also find that repugnant.


Steady on! I'm writing a series and am setting one book in L.A. which is a place have zero knowledge of and no interest in. I am doing it 'based on some calculation' of what I think will engage the fans. Most of the books are very British but a large percentage of the readers are U.S. so I thought it would be a good draw to add some U.S. locations as well as European ones. I noticed a fair amount of mailing list subscribers are from the area so selected it accordingly. It's a selling technique; why is that repugnant?

However, you do go on to say this below and I'm guessing the "personal relationship" is the heart of the issue? So it changes if I were to pretend to be fascinated by L.A.? I'm not defending anything, I just think there's a limit, and our pen names don't have to be completely honest about how we really feel about everything. I could care less about pop music, but I'll express an interest if a reader want to email me to chat about what songs they think the characters are dancing to (an actual conversation that did happen). Was that repugnant of me?



Sarah Shaw said:


> ... I would be pretty angry and disgusted if I found out I'd developed a personal relationship with another woman on the basis of what I thought were heartfelt discussions of shared interests and values and found out she had been cynically writing whatever seemed likely to give her the best ROI.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Sarah Shaw said:


> And I would be pretty angry and disgusted if I found out I'd developed a personal relationship with another woman on the basis of what I thought were heartfelt discussions of shared interests and values and found out she had been cynically writing whatever seemed likely to give her the best ROI.


I think you just described dating.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Anarchist said:


> I think you just described dating.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Sigh.  Do I really need to ask some of the guys here not to make light of a topic that fellow members take very seriously?  If you don't think this is a serious topic, please find another thread.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Used To Be BH (Sep 29, 2016)

Puddleduck said:


> 2. Pen names, in my opinion, should be used for one of three things. First, to maintain anonymity, in which case the author should carry that anonymity through in all interactions with fans, which means keeping a distance where you just choose not to talk about personal things. Withholding information about yourself is totally fine. Making up information that isn't true is lying. Second, to differentiate your brands, while being open about what all your various pen names are and pointing them all back to you. This, again, does not involve any lying about yourself. Third, to clarify (not hide) your identity before the world. That's how I use my pen name. There are enough people with my real name that I'd actually be more anonymous posting online with my real first and last name than I would with my pen name. I created my pen name to be more unique than my real name, as unique as I could, so that someone who searched for it would get me and only me. And I show my real picture, everything I say about myself is true, and I portray my real personality in any online postings. So in summary, none of the three legitimate reasons for using a pen name involve lying about who or what you are.


I couldn't agree more.

Pen names developed in an age long before the internet and catfishing. Some famous authors did create a fictional persona in the past, but that was in radically different circumstances than exist today. In Stephen King's case (Richard Bachman), it was because his publisher wouldn't let him put out more than one novel per year in his own name. Bachman was given an actual biography, but only to camouflage the fact that he was really King, so basically for anonymity. I believe I've read that JK Rowling's male persona was insisted on by the publisher, and she started publishing long enough ago that the publisher didn't bother with ebook rights. That should give us a sense of how much things have changed.

Writers should feel free not to interact with readers on a personal basis if they don't want to. If they do interact, however, then they need to interact honestly. The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes. We all agree miscategorizing a book is wrong. Manipulating the page length to make it look longer or shorter is wrong. How is pretending the author has background he or she doesn't really have not exactly the same thing? Any of those examples are using misleading techniques to move more books. I know some folks using a false persona don't see it that way, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Some time ago, there was a thread about advances in novel writing AIs, and people were speculating that at some point Amazon would replace us with AIs for which fictional biographies would be provided. I think it's too early to worry about that--yet. However, if a distributor or a publisher tried that approach, I bet every single one of us would denounce the practice of pretending that machine-generated content was written by human beings. We'd have a hard time not being hypocrites, though, if we'd embraced the practice of authors pretending to be something they weren't.


----------



## Sarah Shaw (Feb 14, 2015)

Evenstar said:


> Steady on! I'm writing a series and am setting one book in L.A. which is a place have zero knowledge of and no interest in. I am doing it 'based on some calculation' of what I think will engage the fans. Most of the books are very British but a large percentage of the readers are U.S. so I thought it would be a good draw to add some U.S. locations as well as European ones. I noticed a fair amount of mailing list subscribers are from the area so selected it accordingly. It's a selling technique; why is that repugnant?


No, that's not what I'm saying. While it's not a choice I would make I see nothing wrong in writing fiction about something you're not actually interested in. It's the same as the pen name versus fake identity interacting as if real distinction we've made here all along.



Evenstar said:


> However, you do go on to say this below and I'm guessing the "personal relationship" is the heart of the issue? So it changes if I were to pretend to be fascinated by L.A.? I'm not defending anything, I just think there's a limit, and our pen names don't have to be completely honest about how we really feel about everything. I could care less about pop music, but I'll express an interest if a reader want to email me to chat about what songs they think the characters are dancing to (an actual conversation that did happen). Was that repugnant of me?


Yes, if you go on to build personal relationships on the strength of your supposedly shared interest in LA, that changes. With the example you've given it doesn't sound like you've yet crossed the line. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you haven't solicited any fan interaction based on your supposed love of LA or 'your' 'favorite' songs. You haven't talked about your favorite restaurants near 'your' house there, growing up in that city or the drive along the coast highway you took with your family in '95. Even if you were to do so, writing these things wouldn't begin to really cross the line with me until you started to develop personal relationships with your readers based on these false experiences. That's where you begin to risk readers feeling a sense of personal betrayal. Because you've made it personal at that point. And yes, it's totally different than leaving readers to assume things about you based on the book. As long as you aren't actively making yourself into a fictional character and building real human relationships on that basis, you're good to go as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Sarah Shaw said:


> I would be pretty angry and disgusted if I found out I'd developed a personal relationship with another woman on the basis of what I thought were heartfelt discussions of shared interests and values and found out she had been cynically writing whatever seemed likely to give her the best ROI.





Anarchist said:


> I think you just described dating.





Puddleduck said:


> I feel like the fact that men apparently think it's funny/true/appropriate that "dating = a man pretending to care about a woman to get sex from her" kiiiiind of underlines the entire problem at the core of this discussion.


The above series of quotes explains my raising of LGBTQ matters at the start of the thread, as these types of threads often sleepwalk into anti-LGBTQ areas. Although Sarah was not talking about dating she was quoted by Anarchist as if talking about a romantic relationship with another woman, which Puddleduck then rewrites as a man manipulating a woman.

I'm middle-aged but mostly work with millennial colleagues, most of whom would find much of this conversation Jurassic, although would also likely agree that anyone using social media to get others to talk about intimate details was asking for a storm or doxing or something else that I would have to look up in an urban dictionary to find out what it meant.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Puddleduck said:


> Because it was extremely obvious from context that the guy who posted it and the guy who thought it was funny were seeing it that way.


See, and I read it as a man saying that's how women are with respect to dating.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Puddleduck said:


> Because it was extremely obvious from context that the guy who posted it and the guy who thought it was funny were seeing it that way.


You cannot quote quotes on kboards, otherwise I would have quoted it so you were reminded directly that Anarchist quoted Sarah talking about a relationship with another woman. Erasing women loving women relationships is what my British millennial colleagues would find Jurassic with the term heteronormative thrown around at lot.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

Mercia McMahon said:


> The above series of quotes explains my raising of LGBTQ matters at the start of the thread, as these types of threads often sleepwalk into anti-LGBTQ areas. Although Sarah was not talking about dating she was quoted by Anarchist as if talking about a romantic relationship with another woman, which Puddleduck then rewrites as a man manipulating a woman.
> 
> I'm middle-aged but mostly work with millennial colleagues, most of whom would find much of this conversation Jurassic, although would also likely agree that anyone using social media to get others to talk about intimate details was asking for a storm or doxing or something else that I would have to look up in an urban dictionary to find out what it meant.


and this is ageist... so...


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

There are days I really freakin' _hate_ WC and wonder why I bother to come back.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Cassie Leigh said:


> See, and I read it as a man saying that's how women are with respect to dating.


I read it as dating, period. Whoever it may be, gender-wise, race-wise, etc. Taking life experiences, such as dating, and pulling them into fiction is nothing new.

That's how I read it anyway.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> I understand that people want to change the world but to keep my sanity while here, I spend a lot of time writing posts that I delete before I post. There's just no other way to survive this place.


Yeah. I delete at least 90% of mine without posting. If I was smarter it would probably be 95%.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

KelliWolfe said:


> Yeah. I delete at least 90% of mine without posting. If I was smarter it would probably be 95%.


Welcome to the world of a moderator. 

Bottom line, people. Golden rule. Treat people with the respect you'd like to receive in return. Not the respect you think they deserve. An awful lot of the brouhahas that roil up here would never happen if people would post respectfully. And our job would be much easier.

I appreciate that this thread has gone as well as it has. Thanks to all of you for that.

Betsy


----------



## DonovanJeremiah (Oct 14, 2017)

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> I understand that people want to change the world but to keep my sanity while here, I spend a lot of time writing posts that I delete before I post. There's just no other way to survive this place.


I just got here and I feel that way. It's why my post count is so low.



Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> An acquaintance of mine died last night suddenly, and to be honest, I'm spending a lot of time this morning thinking about just what it is that I find important enough to care about.


I'm so sorry to hear this. Sometimes it takes a loss like that to step back and see where priorities are.



Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> Someone sharing stories about a fake cinnamon roll on social media to get likes and shares just doesn't fall anywhere near my line of what's unethical behavior. Fake bio? Over my line. But I don't actually care about it. I just don't think it's smart. I certainly wouldn't be out there trying to take that person down.


There are times when I believe that much of social media is a false construct of friendship interaction. So many times on facebook, people equate Likes and Shares and "friends" as friendship currency and use it for validation. They have a lot of emotional energy tied up in it. Then the hurt and anger and disappointment start to come in when they don't feel like someone is being a genuine friend when interacting. Talking about cinnamon buns? That's the line someone won't cross in whether a person is lying? If they lie about cinnamon buns, what else are they lying about? Seriously?

Yet I have watched people draw blood over innocuous stuff like that over the decades I've spent online. The noise drowns out the serious issues social media can present many times.



Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> I expressed my disappointment about JK Rowling at the time her fake bio for Galbraith became known, and that's that. I'm not going to label her a lying b**** that I would never read again (I actually haven't read any of her books, funnily enough).


I understand why she did and certainly didn't hate on her when I found out. I just thought to myself that it was sad she had to do it that way, and that someone felt the need to out her when I think she had good reasons for doing it.

In any case, this has certainly made me consider even trying to establish a pen name social presence online to help with marketing. Even if both my pen name and my real name match in gender and we both like cinnamon buns.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

Sigh.  I apologize to anyone who was offended by my laughing at the cinnamon bun story.  I had visions of disgruntled readers throwing cinnamon buns at him when they find out that he basically lied about everything.  Are cinnamon buns important in the grand scheme of things?  Certainly not.  But, I am on record as thinking that if you lie about small things, you lie about big things.

Everybody, go out and do your own marketing.  Do whatever you want.  It will all level out in the end.  And, I want to thank the mods for being so articulate and patient.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

RedAlert said:


> But, I am on record as thinking that if you lie about small things, you lie about big things.


That's my experience as well.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

RedAlert said:


> Sigh. I apologize to anyone who was offended by my laughing at the cinnamon bun story. I had visions of disgruntled readers throwing cinnamon buns at him when they find out that he basically lied about everything. Are cinnamon buns important in the grand scheme of things? Certainly not. But, I am on record as thinking that if you lie about small things, you lie about big things.
> 
> Everybody, go out and do your own marketing. Do whatever you want. It will all level out in the end. And, I want to thank the mods for being so articulate and patient.


I'll go on record as thinking that everyone lies about small things at some point in their life. If someone never has then I would like to nominate that person for sainthood. So I guess everyone who has ever lied about something small must be running around lying about everything big too. In my experience things are never so black & white; things are usually somewhere in the middle. Most people are not demons or saints but a mix of everything in between.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

writerlygal said:


> I'll go on record as thinking that everyone lies about small things at some point in their life. If someone never has then I would like to nominate that person for sainthood. So I guess everyone who has ever lied about something small must be running around lying about everything big too. In my experience things are never so black & white; things are usually somewhere in the middle. Most people are not demons or saints but a mix of everything in between.


We were talking about marketing. If I found out about these lies, I would never sign a contract with this guy. That's all.

And yes, intent means a lot. If you want to accept blatant lies as a marketing method, be my guest. If you were on the receiving end of a deceitful relationship like this, you may forgive cinnamon buns, but not something else. But, it's the same lie.

I'll stop now because I have lost track of what we can say versus what we cannot. I hope I haven't crossed the line talking about the obvious. I never demonized the OP. I just laughed at his cinnamon bun story. He offered that up as an innocent version of his methods. I wasn't persuaded.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

In my experience, people who lie a lot are _absolutely convinced_ everyone else does it too. They think "honest people" are just the people who are better at lying than everyone else.

There is no convincing these people that there is anything wrong with deception.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

MyraScott said:


> In my experience, people who lie a lot are _absolutely convinced_ everyone else does it too. They think "honest people" are just the people who are better at lying than everyone else.
> 
> There is no convincing these people that there is anything wrong with deception.


This. When I was working in the Criminal Justice system, we had a huge folder of common criminal thinking errors. Criminals thinking everyone was doing what they did and just not caught at it yet was a biggie.


----------



## writerlygal (Jul 23, 2017)

There is certainly something wrong with deception & my point is that using a pen name is already a form of deception/lying. Therefore, IMO, any author not writing under their real name & holding themselves out to their readers as exactly who they are in real life is already engaging in some level of deception & it is up to the individual author to decide how far they want to take it & the line they are willing to cross. Anyone acting like they have never told a lie or engaged in any kind of deception in their life are the ones that I do raise my eyebrows at. I'm not saying that everyone goes around lying all the time but I'm saying most people do lie to some extent sometimes & then some act like they never do.


----------



## MyCatDoesNotConsent (Sep 11, 2017)

Я не согласен с новым TOS


----------



## K&#039;Sennia Visitor (Jan 14, 2014)

If you really feel that using a pen name is lying then tell peeps in your author bio that your name is a pen name. There, problem solved. You don't have to lie and you don't have to use your real name, either. 

I use lots of pen names. I don't usually say this is a pen name, but I don't create fake bios for any of them. My Audra Black one is maybe stretching it a bit, but it's erotica for men, and I never ever communicate with any of my readers. Not that I don't want to, it's just that most of them are shy and don't want to admit they read me. 

But I do chat a lot with other authors, etc and whenever I do start personally communicating with anyone under a pen name I always tell them that it's a pen name and I'll give them my real name if asked. I don't have a lot of personal boundaries with people who don't have any power over me. So I tend to overshare.  

If I'd been chatting with someone I thought was a girl and they turned out to be a bloke, I personally wouldn't be upset. But that's just me. I'm neuro-atypical, and I always kinda have it in the back of my mind that anyone online could be lying at any time. 

Normal people find it to be a violation and are very hurt by it though, so that should be a sign to everyone to not lie to people, especially about things like your sex/gender/sexual orientation, and race. Even if it doesn't personally upset or offend you. Being kind is nice.  

if you don't want to tell people who you are, just say you don't want to tell people and be anonymous. If you explain why and tell your story using lots of feeling words people will understand. At least I think they will.


----------



## SaraBourgeois (Aug 17, 2016)

This seems fitting. It has to do with cinnamon rolls and sexual misconduct. It seems fitting.

https://medium.com/@everywhereist/i-made-the-pizza-cinnamon-rolls-from-mario-batalis-sexual-misconduct-apology-letter-ef927659cab6


----------

