# Dear Jane Litte / Dear Author



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

As some people know, a fairly big thing happened in Romancelandia recently. To summarize, Jane Litte of Dear Author (a major influencer in the Romance genre) is also writing Romance under a pen name, Jen Frederick. As Jen Frederick, she joined closed author groups, some of which had declined to allow her entrance as Jane Litte. Further, she is currently embroiled in a legal battle with Ellora's Cave, and so anything which she sees or hears as either Jane or Jen is open to discoverability, regardless of whether the author wished to be involved or not. Also, a sizable defense fund was raised for her (I believe over $30,000), with the contributors not knowing that she was also writing. Many have said they would have contributed regardless, some have said they would not have. Regardless, they didn't have the information with which to make that choice.

I've pasted links below to some blog posts about the situation.

http://dearauthor.com/misc/a-letter-to-the-da-readership/
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/03/2015/jane-littejen-frederick/
http://deirdre.net/dear-author-more-on-jane-littejen-frederick/
http://smartb*tchestrashybooks.com/2015/03/answering-questions-jane-littejen-frederick/
(EDIT: or a bitly link which takes care of the filtered word http://bit.ly/1Ii2zVW --Betsy)
http://jillmyles.com/2015/03/24/my-statement-about-jen-frederick/

For myself, it's not about her writing under a pen name (if that were the case, most authors would be guilty ;-) ), nor is it about her being a reviewer (I firmly believe that one can both write and review). I am not okay with the fact that she basically catfished author groups, nor am I okay with an industry professional in the vein of an acquiring editor or similar joining closed groups without disclosing who they are. And, finally, Jane has in many instances set herself up as the arbiter of author behavior. She has, many times, castigated authors for "behaving badly," and not always justifiably. In some cases she has been wrong, but yet no apology nor retraction was offered. I feel that if this were any other author, she'd be passing out torches and pitchforks, so the double standard bugs me.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm a bit surprised no one else has started a thread on this, so I figured I would.

_Edited to add bitly link for link broken by filtered word. --Betsy_


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

I've been reading about it on the Passive Voice blog. The situation has gotten extensive coverage on PV, and lots of comments. Most of us read PV, so that's probably why nobody started a thread here.

It looks to me as though neither Jane nor Ellora's Cave has clean hands. We will have to wait and see how things get sorted out in court.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I honestly don't think the situation has much to do with the lawsuit. Well, aside from the fact that the lawsuit is why she revealed her pen name (it was going to come out anyway). The two things are separate issues, aside from the fact that her decisions will drag some authors unwillingly into her legal proceedings.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Thanks for sharing this, Anne. I'll also second that Jane of Dear Author is known for leading crusades against "badly behaving authors" in Romanceland -- many authors live in fear of being targeted by her and her fans, which is why she was often blocked on social media by authors who she later friended as Jen Frederick.

If you're in any closed author groups, you know that these are meant to be safe spaces for authors to discuss business, marketing, and the daily ins and outs of writing life, including reviews. Jane as Jen was privy to conversations that authors NEVER would have allowed Jane to hear -- all because Jane, as Jen, wanted to benefit from the marketing and business wisdom these authors shared with each other in private groups.

Additionally, Jen's books were promoted on the Dear Author blog -- and in the podcast Jane runs with Smart Bitches Trashy Books' Sarah Wendell.

The fact that Jane refused to disclose that her role as Jen might compromise the Ellora's Cave case (conflict of interest issues, discovery of private author conversations about EC, etc) is just the cherry on top of all the other lies and deception. Suffice it to say that if Jane were not Jen, Jane would have crucified Jen by now.

The romance community is small, and this is a fiasco that's not going to be forgotten by authors anytime soon. But I think readers of romance should realize, too, that many major book review blogs are run by people who are NOT purely readers -- they are people who have a financial interest in the industry, in the success of certain genres or authors, and so on.

It also worth noting that Jane Little's pen name was highly successful, thanks in large part to the connections she'd already made in the industry. When you see a debut author's pen name shoot to the top of the charts, I think it's important to realize that there are lot of unseen things going on, too. There are folks out there who spend thousands on advertising. And connections matter in this industry. This is something I didn't realize for a long time, and I think it's easy for us to beat ourselves up for not achieving _organically_ what, for others, is highly manufactured.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

ETA: Sorry - I see you covered this point in the OP. I was responding to your later comment: "I honestly don't think the situation has much to do with the lawsuit"

I was also surprised no one posted this here. I agree with most of your statement, Anne, except for your point about the fundraiser. It's my belief that the situation for the fund was misrepresented. Had it been revealed that not only does Jane Litte run a review/industry blog, she's also a USA Today bestselling author (in a writing partnership with an NYT bestselling author and tangentially a competitor to Ellora's Cave), I would not have donated. I can understand the people who say it doesn't change their decision. But it does change mine, and a number of other people have said the same thing.

I believe the fund is closer to $55k: http://www.gofundme.com/DA-DefenseFund.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Dsg said:


> The romance community is small, and this is a fiasco that's not going to be forgotten by authors anytime soon. But I think readers of romance should realize, too, that many major book review blogs are run by people who are NOT purely readers -- they are people who have a financial interest in the industry, in the success of certain genres or authors, and so on.
> 
> It also worth noting that Jane Little's pen name was highly successful, thanks in large part to the connections she'd already made in the industry. When you see a debut author's pen name shoot to the top of the charts, I think it's important to realize that there are lot of unseen things going on, too. There are folks out there who spend thousands on advertising. And connections matter in this industry. This is something I didn't realize for a long time, and I think it's easy for us to beat ourselves up for not achieving _organically_ what, for others, is highly manufactured.


I am just a reader and I read Dear Author on a daily basis. Along with SBTB and other romance site. I am a huge romance reader and I like to know whats going on in that genre. I also am not totally sheltered. I never thought of such huge book bloggers as purely readers. I think its very clear they have connections. I just don't see any issues with someone having those connections. I am not a blind sheep to be lead to the books. . I mean its just a part of everything I read as a reader.

I am also not a "fan" of anyone and I never seen in all my years reading the blog daily of any "fans" targeting any authors. Unless of course lower rated reviews are now somehow considered targeting. To me they are just opinions like any other review. Some are more helpful than others.

Oddly enough as someone that has read DA for years on a daily basis, is a huge romance reader, I had never even heard of the name Jen Frederick, nor have I ever read or seen a book of hers. I also never seen them advertised on DA. It was cleared up that it was only mentioned once on DA in a post by someone that beta read one of Jen Fredericks books and named it along with others in her favorite of the year or such thing. No other mention on DA. There was apparently a mention in a pod cast on the other site. I don't listen much to podcasts as I prefer to read news.

I just find it amusing that that pen name became so successful yet I never even heard it once before this. Odd how that goes. Just shows you how huge the romance genre is and even someone like me that reads a lot about the genre, browses in many places about it, can totally be out of the loop on certain authors. Its why I still discover new to me authors ever day from other readers. I hope that never stops.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Read it a couple of weeks back.  Didn't bother me at all.  Honestly, whether a group is closed or open, I'm the same person and I advocate the same professionalism wherever I might be (when discussing writing at least .  Never felt a need to hide from anyone in the blogging community.  Quite frankly, I've seen far worse behavior from authors...usually the type of stuff she would out on her blog, and that's the type of behavior I care most about seeing stop.  

Non issue for me.  Happy to still support her.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Maia said:


> ETA: Sorry - I see you covered this point in the OP. I was responding to your later comment: "I honestly don't think the situation has much to do with the lawsuit"
> 
> I was also surprised no one posted this here. I agree with most of your statement, Anne, except for your point about the fundraiser. It's my belief that the situation for the fund was misrepresented. Had it been revealed that not only does Jane Litte run a review/industry blog, she's also a USA Today bestselling author (in a writing partnership with an NYT bestselling author and tangentially a competitor to Ellora's Cave), I would not have donated. I can understand the people who say it doesn't change their decision. But it does change mine, and a number of other people have said the same thing.
> 
> I believe the fund is closer to $55k: http://www.gofundme.com/DA-DefenseFund.


Thanks for the info, Maia. Yeah. I was only responding to the one post that said EC and JL were equally at fault. I don't think that. I think what she did was unethical, and the double standard kills me. That's before I even factor in the lawsuit and legal defense fund that was raised. That adds a whole 'nother level to whole thing, but I don't think it's at the heart of the issue. At least not for me. And I stand by my statement about the defense fund--to me whether you would or wouldn't have changed your mind about donating had you known isn't necessarily the issue (because different people will answer that question differently). But you should have had that choice. You should have had the information you needed in order to make that choice.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Well, some people do read review blogs and expect them to be honest -- that is, free of conflicts of interest, whether by not having conflicts of interest, or by disclosing those conflicts of interest when they occur. Having a conflict of interest doesn't preclude you from being honest, after all. Sometimes it's as simple as, "I write/work for X publisher, who also published this book I'm reviewing." Or, "My friend wrote this book I'm reviewing." Or, "I received this book for free in exchange for an honest review." 

A lot of people read blogs/reviews and take them at face value; they're not thinking of the possible conflicts of interest. I think this is especially true of the more casual reader, who is less familiar with the ins and outs of the industry. Who maybe doesn't hang out with authors on a regular basis  Dear Author, as a major blog, attracts all sorts.

She claims she didn't disclose her pen name because she wanted to keep her reviewer and author identities separate. Yet she DID benefit from her Jane identity, as Jen. And she eschewed the consequences of her Jane identity, as Jen. She wanted to have her cake and eat it, too. 

When I say targeting, I definitely do NOT mean poor reviews. I mean harassment on social media, via email, unfounded accusations of plagiarism, etc. Jane likes to try others in the court of public opinion, and she has a lot of sway over public opinion, unfortunately. 

And I'd say Jen Frederick was successful by most standards. That doesn't mean everyone will have heard of her -- as you said, the romance genre is huge!


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2015)

I'm actually more sympathetic to Jane Litte in all this than I am to the writers who were supposedly harmed. It's not unusual for people to write under a pseudonym in order to mask their identity--writers do it all the time, for all sorts of different reasons. Shouldn't Jane Litte be able to do the same? So she runs an influential review blog. So what?

In today's world of unprecedented interconnectedness, I don't believe for a second that a single person has the power to singlehandedly destroy someone's career.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2015)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Read it a couple of weeks back. Didn't bother me at all. Honestly, whether a group is closed or open, I'm the same person and I advocate the same professionalism wherever I might be (when discussing writing at least . Never felt a need to hide from anyone in the blogging community. Quite frankly, I've seen far worse behavior from authors...usually the type of stuff she would out on her blog, and that's the type of behavior I care most about seeing stop.
> 
> Non issue for me. Happy to still support her.


Bravo to you, sir. I completely agree. It doesn't matter whether an online community is opened or closed--the person you are in the dark should be the same person you are in the light.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Dsg said:


> Well, some people do read review blogs and expect them to be honest -- that is, free of conflicts of interest, whether by not having conflicts of interest, or by disclosing those conflicts of interest when they occur. Having a conflict of interest doesn't preclude you from being honest, after all. Sometimes it's as simple as, "I write/work for X publisher, who also published this book I'm reviewing." Or, "My friend wrote this book I'm reviewing." Or, "I received this book for free in exchange for an honest review."
> 
> A lot of people read blogs/reviews and take them at face value; they're not thinking of the possible conflicts of interest. I think this is especially true of the more casual reader, who is less familiar with the ins and outs of the industry. Who maybe doesn't hang out with authors on a regular basis  Dear Author, as a major blog, attracts all sorts.
> 
> ...


I also read blogs and expect them to be honest. And I have and still find the whole Dear Author blog that, honest. I don't see a conflict of interest. As the books by that pen name were never featured or reviewed on the site, I don't see any issues. I was always well aware about the industry being involved, it was always disclosed when a publisher offered books for a drawing and such. And again, the books were never reviewed on DearAuthor so even a casual reader would not have had to worry about any conflict of interest.

Lets also remember there are more than one reviewer and blogger on the site, its not just one person. I can't speak to any harassment or accusations as I never saw any. Or it might be that I don't consider what I read as harassment. I do also follow many of the bloggers including those from DA on twitter.

I think the problem with this whole thing is also that a lot of accusations are being slung around, might be why it hasn't been discussed here on KB.

Oddly enough in the OP, the most important link, the one from the horses mouth isn't even listed. The one where Jane Litte put the announcement on Dear Author.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

It is always a good practice to know exactly who you are talking to, and even then, people lie. Pick and choose your friends in this business VERY carefully.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Bravo to you, sir. I completely agree. It doesn't matter whether an online community is opened or closed--the person you are in the dark should be the same person you are in the light.


Yes, but I think you should have a right to know if you are saying something in front of someone who would be COMPELLED to report it to, say, your boss. Many authors in those closed groups discussed the particulars of their situation at Ellora's Cave. They had no wish to testify. But due to Jane / Jen's not being forthcoming, those statements will now be part of the EC legal dispute. The records from those chats / forums / groups and those authors can be subpoenaed. You don't think they had a right to know that that might be the case?


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

I think it's also important to note that Jane is a LAWYER in real life. Some of the things she is being accused of doing seems to be unethical for an author, let alone a LAWYER.

According to the comments on TPV, Jen F. befriended authors who blocked Jane Litte. There is no 'good' reason for her to do that.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2015)

Anne Victory said:


> Yes, but I think you should have a right to know if you are saying something in front of someone who would be COMPELLED to report it to, say, your boss. Many authors in those closed groups discussed the particulars of their situation at Ellora's Cave. They had no wish to testify. But due to Jane / Jen's not being forthcoming, those statements will now be part of the EC legal dispute. The records from those chats / forums / groups and those authors can be subpoenaed. You don't think they had a right to know that that might be the case?


Can they really be subpoenaed, though? Or is this just a meme that's bounced around the echo chamber long enough for everyone to believe it?


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> So she runs an influential review blog. So what?


I'm not a romance writer, have never been reviewed by Jane and never will be. My only connection to DA is that I've read some industry news there over the years. I've done a fair bit of reading through discussions and archives since this particular story broke, probably because I donated to the fund.

I haven't seen a single writer who got a bad review from Jane make any comment about it other than it's just the way the business works.

_Edited to remove reference to now removed content. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Can they really be subpoenaed, though? Or is this just a meme that's bounced around the echo chamber long enough for everyone to believe it?


Maybe you should have some idea of what you're talking about before you toss around words like "meme" and "echo chamber" in regards to this. The issue was brought up by Courtney Milan who knows a hell of a lot more about all of this than either of us.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Also, and I think some people who are all "She used a pen name, so what?" aren't parsing it the lawsuit angle. Totally what Diana said about there not being a good reason to friend people under a separate name after being declined already, but also this:

A huge issue is for those Ellora's Cave author. Anything said in those closed groups is now going straight to Ellora's Cave as part of discoverability. The records from those groups will be subpoenaed from the servers (so it's not even a matter of if Jane / Jen remembers it being said or whether it was said directly to her or not), lawyers will pore over the transcripts, and if they see something they want to have come out in the lawsuit, those authors will HAVE to testify. Never mind that they wouldn't have chosen to as it could affect their career and livelihood. That choice has now been taken away from them. I don't see how anyone thinks that's okay.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Anne Victory said:


> Also, and I think some people who are all "She used a pen name, so what?" aren't parsing it the lawsuit angle. Totally what Diana said about there not being a good reason to friend people under a separate name after being declined already, but also this:
> 
> A huge issue is for those Ellora's Cave author. Anything said in those closed groups is now going straight to Ellora's Cave as part of discoverability. The records from those groups will be subpoenaed from the servers (so it's not even a matter of if Jane / Jen remembers it being said or whether it was said directly to her or not), lawyers will pore over the transcripts, and if they see something they want to have come out in the lawsuit, those authors will HAVE to testify. Never mind that they wouldn't have chosen to as it could affect their career and livelihood. That choice has now been taken away from them. I don't see how anyone thinks that's okay.


Here is my take on this:
If they didn't want it known publicly, they should not have put those words anywhere on the internet. Closed group just means not everyone can join. But it is still on a very public site. 
There is another website that you have to be a member of to see anything on it. Posts from that website were used in a divorce case. Yes, the poster lost custody because of 1 her behavior and 2 things she posted.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

So, say Jane Litte is snarky to Successful NA author, disparages her book on Twitter and is in general a Mean Girl to/about Successful NA author and then two months later Jen Frederick emails Successful NA author and says, "Hey we both write the same genre. I'm looking for marketing ideas/advice/cross promo. Let's talk." So Successful NA Author feels she is making a friend and helps out, does some cross promoting, in general thinks she's made a friend. Only Successful NA author has blocked Jane Litte because her tolerance for Mean Girls is zero. She wants nothing to do with Jane Litte. 

Do you think Successful NA Author would have ever agreed to work with Jen Frederick if she'd known Jen was Jane? 

I don't either. Ps that's catfishing.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Can they really be subpoenaed, though? Or is this just a meme that's bounced around the echo chamber long enough for everyone to believe it?


The answer is yes. NINC members were notified all messages on the private loop were subpoenaed in the HQ trial because issues were discussed there. This is no different.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I feel a little horrified at the thought that the first question the Ellora's Cave authors will be asked in a deposition is:

State your name for the record? 

And the second one:

Have you ever gone by any other names?

How many of them write erotica for EC under a pen name and do not want their employers to know that? School teachers, professionals, or just anyone expecting the privacy a pen name affords?


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

LKRigel said:


> I feel a little horrified at the thought that the first question the Ellora's Cave authors will be asked in a deposition is:
> 
> State your name for the record?
> 
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2015)

Monique said:


> Maybe you should have some idea of what you're talking about before you toss around words like "meme" and "echo chamber" in regards to this. The issue was brought up by Courtney Milan who knows a hell of a lot more about all of this than either of us.


I'm sure she does, and I have a lot of respect for the woman. At the same time, she's just one person. She may be wrong.

How many other lawyers familiar with the DA/EC case have made a cogent argument citing legal precedent that the court may subpoena Jane Litte to disclose those online conversations in which she participated as her pen name?

KBoards is an echo chamber, as is TPV--large echo chambers, but echo chambers nonetheless. And a lot of people have been repeating this idea within those echo chambers, which makes it a meme.

I'm not saying that it's wrong. I'm just being skeptical.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

See Deanna's post just upthread about three or four posts:

"The answer is yes. NINC members were notified all messages on the private loop were subpoenaed in the HQ trial because issues were discussed there. This is no different."


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

People lie all the time, true. Does that mean we shouldn't point out when people are lying?

Being attacked by someone publicly and then friended by that same person under another name, and sharing personal comments about your business and your personal life (your family, friends, kids, health, writing) with that person -- that sucks no matter who you are, or who you think you are.

(When I say attacked, I am referring to situations in which Jane ridiculed authors for opinions they shared on twitter, for having a stock photo as their profile pic, and - believe it or not - for reviewing books they had a financial interest in. I will not elaborate further on these instances because they're not my stories to tell. But these things happened, and if you go looking you can find the evidence and see for yourself.)

Look, I understand why people think this is no big deal. To some people, particularly those outside of Romancelandia, it doesn't matter much. I also think that many readers will find it very difficult to understand the level of betrayal felt by so many of their favorite authors. But many, many authors were affected, and they care. A lot. No one's calling for pitchforks or anything -- but we do want people to know that this happened. And many authors are afraid to speak out about it BECAUSE of DA's influence. But people WERE hurt. Dear Author has influence in this segment of the industry, and what people think about the integrity of Jane as a reviewer and an author does matter.

But now I'm bowing out of the conversation. I hope that people will take the time to understand this situation at more than a surface level. But this is the internet, and I'm a realist...

_Edited to remove reference to now edited content. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2015)

Deanna Chase said:


> The answer is yes. NINC members were notified all messages on the private loop were subpoenaed in the HQ trial because issues were discussed there. This is no different.


Interesting. That's the sort of confirmation I was looking for.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Alana said:


> To Rick and Joe: Have you ever been in the path of Jane Little? Have you ever seen her in action? It's not about a "pen-name".
> 
> To Atunah: So you didn't "see things" - it doesn't mean it didn't happen. And can you still call them accusations when these incidents happened in real time with an internet trail to back them up?
> 
> ...


No it has nothing to do with privacy but figure the other person might appreciate a non public opinion. 
I know pms can possibly be used in court.
Bowing out to because my words were misunderstood. 
i was not being dismissive.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Cin -- your comments betray a serious lack of knowledge about the purpose of private author loops. These are the ONLY places where authors can talk business -- they're not just places of gossip. These are places where professionals talk about sensitive business issues, such as which publishers or agents are safe to work with, what contract terms are fair, or how to manage things like rights issues. Salaries and advances are discussed, as are many other workplace issues such as co-writing, boxed sets, marketing/advertising, etc. And yes, these are also places where authors become friends - they do talk about their lives, commiserate (PROFESSIONALLY) when they get a poor review, etc. Writers don't have an actual physical workplace to talk shop -- so they use private author groups.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> How many other lawyers familiar with the DA/EC case have made a cogent argument citing legal precedent that the court may subpoena Jane Litte to disclose those online conversations in which she participated as her pen name?


Courtney Milan has been doing semi-regular blog posts about the progress of the case, with a good analysis of each step, which I've been following (I followed her blog before all this started). I'm very comfortable she has an excellent grasp of the situation.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2015)

Dsg said:


> People lie all the time, true. Does that mean we shouldn't point out when people are lying?
> 
> Being attacked by someone publicly and then friended by that same person under another name, and sharing personal comments about your business and your personal life (your family, friends, kids, health, writing) with that person -- that sucks no matter who you are, or who you think you are.
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure people aren't calling for the pitchforks. When I read some of the stuff on STGRB about Jane Litte, it makes me feel more than a little sick inside.

I think everyone who writes books for fun and profit could benefit from growing a thicker skin. Yes, attacks happen, however you want to define what an "attack" is. Some of the most vociferous bullies on the internet are people who firmly believe that they are the victims.



Alana said:


> To Rick and Joe: Have you ever been in the path of Jane Little?


No, but I'm pretty sure my skin is thick enough that no matter what she said, I could shrug it off and move on to something more productive than brooding online about it. In fact, the publicity from getting slammed by DA might interest more people to try out my books.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> <snip>
> I think everyone who writes books for fun and profit could benefit from growing a thicker skin.
> </snip>


How is the second grade teacher who loses her job when the district finds out she writes erotica for fun and profit benefited by growing a thicker skin?


----------



## Sandy_Williams (Mar 14, 2015)

Can't the court keep people's pen name's secret from the public?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Sandy, I think so. I'd definitely contact a lawyer if I got subpoenaed. Which also sucks. You're then having to spend money to protect your privacy for something that shouldn't have come up.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2015)

Maia said:


> Courtney Milan has been doing semi-regular blog posts about the progress of the case, with a good analysis of each step, which I've been following (I followed her blog before all this started). I'm very comfortable she has an excellent grasp of the situation.


Courtney Milan is a very sharp individual and I have a lot of respect for her. I admit that I haven't been following her analysis of this case too closely--most of what I've read about the DA/EC case has been on KBoards threads or on TPV. If she makes a good case, and if previous precedents like the NINC thing can show that this sort of subpoena has been issued before, then I'm more inclined to believe it. I just want to be careful not to believe something just because it gets repeated over and over in the same online circles.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Alana said:


> To Rick and Joe: Have you ever been in the path of Jane Little? Have you ever seen her in action? It's not about a "pen-name".


Can't say that I have. Not really sure the relevance of it though. I simply said I personally had no problem with her pen name and that most of the behavior she's called out in the past are behaviors I'm not particularly fond of either. That's pretty much the extent of my opinion on this matter.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

multiple reports . . . and it's dinner time . . . one of us will look more closely later.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, people...

I've read this thread through from start to finish several times. I've done some heavy pruning in order to allow this discussion to remain open and in an effort to keep it from  getting sidetracked.  Let's stay on topic.  Let's also stay civil.  Address on-topic points made and don't make it personal.  Remember, even though it's the Internet, not every post needs to be responded to.

As I read the OP, the topic is the ethics of Jane Litte / Jen Frederick and the impact on the industry.  This is a worthwhile topic; let's keep it open.  Bear in mind that some people's minds may not be changed even by civil discussion.  Agree to disagree if necessary.

The goal is to allow this conversation to continue.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

I think what bothers me the most about this situation is the emotional impact of so many authors. I get it that we're supposed to act like we aren't emotionally invested in our work, but we are. Particularly those of us who extend ourselves to help other authors. Please, let's not dismiss the fact that she basically manipulated successful authors into becoming her friend and/mentor. It bothers me to see so many authors afraid to speak out against her.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Courtney Milan is a very sharp individual and I have a lot of respect for her. I admit that I haven't been following her analysis of this case too closely--most of what I've read about the DA/EC case has been on KBoards threads or on TPV. If she makes a good case, and if previous precedents like the NINC thing can show that this sort of subpoena has been issued before, then I'm more inclined to believe it. I just want to be careful not to believe something just because it gets repeated over and over in the same online circles.


The thing is, this isn't even remotely controversial if you know about discovery. The rule for the scope of what parties can discover is this:



> Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense-including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 FRCP Rule 26 (b)(1)

In fact, if Jane relied upon disclosures from other authors as expressed on author loops in writing her post--or even if she saw those posts and knew that they existed--I believe that she may be _required_ to divulge them under US discovery laws:



> (1) Initial Disclosure.
> 
> (A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, [em]without awaiting a discovery request,[/em] provide to the other parties:
> 
> ...


If you want to see the kind of discovery that courts have allowed, this case is instructive: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31921843/EEOC-v-Simply-Storage-Mgmt-LLC

This is what the court allowed to be discovered from the parties' Facebook and Myspace accounts:



> The court determines that the appropriate scope of relevance is any profiles, postings, or messages (including status updates, wall comments, causes joined, groups joined, activity streams, blog entries) and SNS applications for claimants Zupan and Strahl for the period from April 23, 2007, through the present that reveal, refer, or relate to any emotion, feeling, or mental state, as well as communications that reveal, refer, or relate to events that could reasonably be expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mentalstate.


Read through that piece, and see what the judge says about relevance and the scope of discovery. What it comes down to is this: Information that was available to a party to the lawsuit (Jane) and directly on point to the material at hand (Ellora's Cave) is 100% discoverable, and it may even be _required_ that Jane divulge it without even being asked.

I know some people have said that I'm being alarmist. I'm not. The scope of modern American discovery is huge. This would not remotely be a controversial request at discovery.


----------



## DanaG (Feb 13, 2011)

Just adding my voice to say that I still support Jane Litte one hundred percent in the case of this lawsuit.  I contributed to her legal defense fund, and the fact that she's a successful author doesn't make me regret that one bit.  I mean, I already knew she was a lawyer, and assumed she made a good living at it, and that didn't bother me; I contributed because as a former journalist, I feel that the lawsuit was wrong and might have a potentially chilling effect, and I still do.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

If this were a sewing circle and people made fun of our knitting, that would be different. But writing is a way for people to make a second, if not a first income. Being the object of their authors behaving badly game has destroyed many authors. I know, because I've seen it first hand. Hopefully, this will be an end to it and maybe, just maybe, Amazon will finally delete all their nonsense.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Dsg said:


> Cin -- your comments betray a serious lack of knowledge about the purpose of private author loops. These are the ONLY places where authors can talk business -- they're not just places of gossip. These are places where professionals talk about sensitive business issues, such as which publishers or agents are safe to work with, what contract terms are fair, or how to manage things like rights issues. Salaries and advances are discussed, as are many other workplace issues such as co-writing, boxed sets, marketing/advertising, etc. And yes, these are also places where authors become friends - they do talk about their lives, commiserate (PROFESSIONALLY) when they get a poor review, etc. Writers don't have an actual physical workplace to talk shop -- so they use private author groups.


I am sorry to say that a group of business people (authors) who get together to talk business, but hide their identities, and exclude other business persons (authors) doesn't sound particularly ethical or safe. If I did that in my day job, I would go to prison. I think that whole notion is fundamentally flawed, and if you're going to talk the talk that affects people's careers, you have an obligation for self-disclosure. And yes, you can easily find who I am via the links in my sig.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

555aaa said:


> I am sorry to say that a group of business people (authors) who get together to talk business, but hide their identities, and exclude other business persons (authors) doesn't sound particularly ethical or safe. If I did that in my day job, I would go to prison. I think that whole notion is fundamentally flawed, and if you're going to talk the talk that affects people's careers, you have an obligation for self-disclosure. And yes, you can easily find who I am via the links in my sig.


LOL, what?  I don't even know where to start, so I guess I'll just say: clearly you've never been in such a group, because ethical and safe are exactly what these groups are. Or were, until Jane/Jen.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, let's agree or disagree with points made.  Removing the last few comments as NOT advancing the conversation.

Betsy


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Martitalbott said:


> But writing is a way for people to make a second, if not a first income. Being the object of their authors behaving badly game has destroyed many authors. I know, because I've seen it first hand. Hopefully, this will be an end to it and maybe, just maybe, Amazon will finally delete all their nonsense.


Nobody has a right to sales, there is only the opportunity. While I don't think anyone here wants to see someone else falsely vilified, I'm pretty sure there are a lot here besides me who don't see an issue with someone being called out for unethical, anticompetitive, or just downright unprofessional behavior.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Nobody has a right to sales, there is only the opportunity. While I don't think anyone here wants to see someone else falsely vilified, I'm pretty sure there are a lot here besides me who don't see an issue with someone being called out for unethical, anticompetitive, or just downright unprofessional behavior.


Yes, and that's exactly what people are doing in pointing out what this person did.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Nobody has a right to sales, there is only the opportunity. While I don't think anyone here wants to see someone else falsely vilified, I'm pretty sure there are a lot here besides me who don't see an issue with someone being called out for unethical, anticompetitive, or just downright unprofessional behavior.


Not sure who you are talking about here. Who is being falsely vilified in my comment? No one has the right to post false reviews just to destroy an author's opportunity either. Agree?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Atunah said:


> Oddly enough in the OP, the most important link, the one from the horses mouth isn't even listed. The one where Jane Litte put the announcement on Dear Author.


I've added that link now. I didn't add it originally because I thought I'd summarized the situation, and frankly to me her letter read like a politician's mea culpa (after they'd been caught in wrongdoing). Basically not sorry for the action, just sorry to be caught. But it should have been linked to, and I've rectified that.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2015)

Courtney Milan said:


> The thing is, this isn't even remotely controversial if you know about discovery. The rule for the scope of what parties can discover is this:
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 FRCP Rule 26 (b)(1)
> 
> ...


Thanks, Courtney. As always, it's enlightening to get your perspective.

I've changed my position a little bit since the start of this thread. I'm still not convinced that there's an inherent ethical conflict in a successful book blogger writing under a pseudonym and not disclosing their identity, but in the specific case of Jane Litte, I think she had a moral obligation to let the authors know that there was a possibility they could be subpoenaed for interacting with Jen Frederick. But if one of us wanted to start a book review blog under a pseudonym and keep the writer identity separate from the reviewer identity, I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> But if one of us wanted to start a book review blog under a pseudonym and keep the writer identity separate from the reviewer identity, I don't have a problem with that.


I wouldn't either. So far as the website Dear Author goes, I think (from an author perspective), it's the "industry journalist" role that caused the conflict of interest. From a reader perspective, Dear Author was big on promoting author transparency and touting themselves about being "by the reader, for the reader" and also is / was a huge advocate of review space being for readers only. Add in what some see as a double standard, and there you go. That's before you even get to the whole issue surrounding the lawsuit, which is a whole 'nother issue.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2015)

Anne Victory said:


> I wouldn't either. So far as the website Dear Author goes, I think (from an author perspective), it's the "industry journalist" role that caused the conflict of interest. From a reader perspective, Dear Author was big on promoting author transparency and touting themselves about being "by the reader, for the reader" and also is / was a huge advocate of review space being for readers only. Add in what some see as a double standard, and there you go. That's before you even get to the whole issue surrounding the lawsuit, which is a whole 'nother issue.


Here's the problem, though: what's an "industry journalist"? Because if that's just another way of saying "successful book blogger," then you're basically punishing book review bloggers for their success. If it's fine for any of us to start a book review blog under an undisclosed pseudonym, why isn't it okay for a writer whose review blog becomes as influential as Dear Author?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I don't consider a book blogger or reviewer to be an industry journalist. I consider her to be an industry journalist because she reports on industry news, including exposes on what she calls "authors behaving badly." Her lawsuit with Ellora's Cave came about as a result of said journalism (and for the record, I applaud her for speaking out about that situation). So no, I'm not equating reviewing to journalism; the two are entirely separate.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

A couple of points:

*Those effected by this aren't complaining about pen names (who doesn't have those?).

*They're not trying to "get even" for negative reviews on DA. Many have gone out of their way to emphasize that they've had no personal issues with Jane Litte, or even that they've had positive exposure on DA in the past. It disturbs me to see these authors legitimate concerns made light of. 

*I'm seeing a bit of misunderstanding about what private groups are. Private author groups are neither illegal, unethical, or (necessarily) snobbish. It's like inviting only people you know to your home, versus strangers. Only instead of your living room, it's your internet space.

* Although not every career is necessarily ruined by a highly public accusation of "bad behavior", the damage to an author's reputation is real and can take years to recover from - depending on what they're accused of and on how high profile the blogger is. There are certain authors whose names I'll always associate with specific scandals centered around them. So it's not a simple question of growing a thicker skin or weathering a possible misunderstanding.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

555aaa said:


> I am sorry to say that a group of business people (authors) who get together to talk business, but hide their identities, and exclude other business persons (authors) doesn't sound particularly ethical or safe. If I did that in my day job, I would go to prison. I think that whole notion is fundamentally flawed, and if you're going to talk the talk that affects people's careers, you have an obligation for self-disclosure. And yes, you can easily find who I am via the links in my sig.


I'm not sure writers in online groups need to reveal their real identities unless those identities are somehow relevant. Running a romance review blog is certainly relevant.

IMHO, authors should not be running review blogs, period. But it's so much worse if the blog (and I've never read DA but this seems to be the consensus) is snarky & mean. Then you are using your platform to trash your competition. That is super unethical.


----------



## desamo (Feb 15, 2014)

Anne Victory said:


> Yes, but I think you should have a right to know if you are saying something in front of someone who would be COMPELLED to report it to, say, your boss. Many authors in those closed groups discussed the particulars of their situation at Ellora's Cave. They had no wish to testify. But due to Jane / Jen's not being forthcoming, those statements will now be part of the EC legal dispute. The records from those chats / forums / groups and those authors can be subpoenaed. You don't think they had a right to know that that might be the case?


This is a concern I have, however, I still think it's pretty unlikely that the authors themselves will be subpoenaed, and here's why.

Let's say Jane Doe is a pseudonym, and that's the same pseudonym she used for books she wrote for EC. She complains about late payments.

Well, EC _already has_ the information at hand to prove or disprove whether that person was paid late.

It would only be an issue if the pseudonym being used on that mailing list was not known to EC, and that person happened to post something Jane/Jen relied on in her Curious Case post, and the case can't be made another way.

I'm really hoping that won't be necessary for _either_ side.

Of course, this doesn't modify anything Courtney said up-thread.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I don't have a dog in this fight per se. I've never been reviewed by DA, I don't write in that genre and don't plan to. I've never had any substantial interaction with DA or Jane Litte. Some of my friends have been reviewed favorably by DA, some have not. That's the extent of my personal *links* on this issue. My personal feelings on DA are another matter, and those should be clear from the rest of this post.

I also want to state that I'm certainly no supporter of Ellora's Cave, and when the (in my mind) groundless suit was launched against DA, I was happy to tweet my support and raise awareness of the issue, and share a link to the fundraising efforts.

I haven't said anything on this publicly, and wasn't planning to for all sorts of reasons, but I have so many issues with the way people are trying to brush all this under the carpet. I also know that some of my friends are afraid to speak out because they DO write in genres that DA covers, and they fear retaliation (but I should be clear that I'm only speaking for myself).

*Some things everyone might consider:*

1. People have been hurt by this. Real people, with feelings, so don't be dismissive just because it's something that doesn't affect you. If you don't care, that's your right, but posting to essentially say that you don't care is selfish and self-centered. If you really don't care, this discussion probably won't benefit from your contribution (a good rule in general).

2. This is not simply about Jane being an author, using a pen name, and having a review blog. There are actual conflict of interest issues here. DA is a powerful and influential blog. DA has reviewed Jane's books favorably, and her competitor's books unfavorably. Presumably DA makes quite a bit of money from things like the affiliate income generated by click-throughs on these reviews, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if at least some of the contributors are paid by DA to write reviews, given that it generates a non-trivial amount of money. So there are multiple issues there right off the bat. If you can't see them, I can't help you. And I haven't even gone into various disclosure issues regarding Jane's/Jens' publisher and Jane/DA reviewing its books.

3. Of course, DA isn't any old review blog. DA is famous for a certain kind of review, and probably even more famous for the aftermath of same. People talking about "butthurt" don't have a clue. It's an internet pile on of the worst kind, often deliberately straying into cyberbullying, as well as spilling over into drive-by one stars, and Goodreads lynch mobs. The word unpleasant doesn't begin to describe it. It's the kind of thing that can end careers or kill pen names, or just make people want to give up, or curl into a ball and cry for days. I like a snarky review as much as the next person, but the atmosphere at DA at times has been absolutely poisonous.

4. I can't understand why anyone has an issue with authors finding a private place online to converse. Do these people think no-one is entitled to any privacy whatsoever? It's a pretty strange position to take when authors have received one-star reviews because of disputes they have had here. On this forum. It's happened to me, and it's happened to plenty of others. Also, there are innumerable issues that one may wish to discuss privately, such as contract offers, legal disputes, personal matters, or health issues. And sometimes authors simply need a private place to get consoled after a crappy review and internet pile on.

5. Jane Litte, under her Jen Frederick name, joined several private author loops without disclosing that she was Jane Litte. Several members of these loops had received the full DA treatment. Some had actually blocked Jane Litte. They didn't know Jen was Jane, and certainly wouldn't have shared so much with her, or helped her, if they knew. This is gross for so many reasons.

6. As others have noted above, those private conversations may now be discoverable in the EC case. Aside from obvious moral issues in the last point above, Jane's actions may end up putting those private conversations into the public domain. And aside from revealing all the private stuff noted above, authors' private pen names could also be revealed. Which is also gross, but with the potential to be really awful too.

7. As far as I'm aware, Jane Litte is a lawyer in real-life, so it's not like she would be unaware of the various legal and moral implications here, and it's not like this isn't the EXACT kind of thing that she railed against regularly. That's the thing about petards, one always ends up being hoisted by them.


----------



## heynonny (Mar 12, 2014)

dgaughran said:


> 3. Of course, DA isn't any old review blog. DA is famous for a certain kind of review, and probably even more famous for the aftermath of same. People talking about "butthurt" don't have a clue. It's an internet pile on of the worst kind, often deliberately straying into cyberbullying, as well as spilling over into drive-by one stars, and Goodreads lynch mobs. The word unpleasant doesn't begin to describe it. It's the kind of thing that can end careers or kill pen names, or just make people want to give up, or curl into a ball and cry for days. I like a snarky review as much as the next person, but the atmosphere at DA at times has been absolutely poisonous.


Indeed. I mostly lurk here but I do personally know of one well-known author who was the recipient of a DA witchhunt. This author literally stopped writing for months because of it; then she withdrew from online interaction because of more retaliation. And the reason DA set the hounds loose was because this author made an innocuous one-sentence observation in a blog post. To find out that Jane Litte has been catfishing the very authors she sought to destroy to leverage her own career makes me ill.


----------



## AshRonin (May 5, 2013)

I think it's incredibly ironic that a snaky and slimy publisher files a SLAPP lawsuit against a prolific review blog only to cause the revelation that the review blog is just as snaky and slimy.

At the end of the day, I hope Ellora's Cave shuts it doors and Jane Little/Jen Fredrick gets a taste of her own medicine and is ruined and needs to start from scratch in this industry and that not too many author's have to deal with fallout from their conversations being revealed during the discovery process.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Anne Victory said:


> Well, aside from the fact that the lawsuit is why she revealed her pen name (it was going to come out anyway).


That's the one thing I didn't and still don't understand in all this. Why would her pen name _come out anyway_ in the course of a law suit which - as I thought - only deals with how she reported about EC's business practices?


----------



## AshRonin (May 5, 2013)

Nic said:


> That's the one thing I didn't and still don't understand in all this. Why would her pen name _come out anyway_ in the course of a law suit which - as I thought - only deals with how she reported about EC's business practices?


I'm assuming it would come out as part of discovery then she felt it would be used against her in a negative way as EC might release the information. It's basically an admission that she did something wrong and if it came out anywhere else but her mouth, it would probably be even worse.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

I also think it would come out as part of discovery. From my understanding, she was sending emails as Jen to other authors. They responded back to Jen.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> 3. Of course, DA isn't any old review blog. DA is famous for a certain kind of review, and probably even more famous for the aftermath of same. People talking about "butthurt" don't have a clue. It's an internet pile on of the worst kind, often deliberately straying into cyberbullying, as well as spilling over into drive-by one stars, and Goodreads lynch mobs. The word unpleasant doesn't begin to describe it. It's the kind of thing that can end careers or kill pen names, or just make people want to give up, or curl into a ball and cry for days. I like a snarky review as much as the next person, but the atmosphere at DA at times has been absolutely poisonous.


This exactly. They have tried repeatedly to sink me. Why? What did I do? If you have an old one star review that gets 85 up votes in one day, making it the first review readers see, it's not hard to tell you've been hit. I just never knew where they were until now. They used to be in a private group on Goodreads, but I think Amazon shut that down. If I could prove they cost me sales, I would sue them myself.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

AshRonin said:


> I'm assuming it would come out as part of discovery then she felt it would be used against her in a negative way as EC might release the information. It's basically an admission that she did something wrong and if it came out anywhere else but her mouth, it would probably be even worse.


I still don't understand this. Sorry, I'm not versed in US law.

Why ever would she have to own up to having a pen name OTHER than Jane Litte? What does her author persona have - at all - to do with EC trying to shut up DA and _Jane Litte_?

I do not understand where these two entities are connected. As far as I know, at the moment, the Jen Frederick persona has never been published by EC and also has never been in any way connected to them? So why did she out her author pen name? If she hadn't, how could anyone have known?


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Nic said:


> I still don't understand this. Sorry, I'm not versed in US law.
> 
> Why ever would she have to own up to having a pen name OTHER than Jane Litte? What does her author persona have - at all - to do with EC trying to shut up DA and _Jane Litte_?
> 
> I do not understand where these two entities are connected. As far as I know, at the moment, the Jen Frederick persona has never been published by EC and also has never been in any way connected to them? So why did she out her author pen name? If she hadn't, how could anyone have known?


If Jen was emailing another author about EC, particularly an author who was published by EC, then those emails can be discoverable.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Moist_Tissue said:


> If Jen was emailing another author about EC, particularly an author who was published by EC, then those emails can be discoverable.


How? If she doesn't tell anyone she is Jen, how could anyone discover this?


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Nic said:


> How? If she doesn't tell anyone she is Jen, how could anyone discover this?


Are you asking what would happen if she didn't provide those emails? I'm trying to understand what's confusing.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> How? If she doesn't tell anyone she is Jen, how could anyone discover this?


The word "discover" here is a legal term of art referring to the point in a lawsuit where people ask questions and a party is required, in response, to provide answers and documents in response. Those answers must be complete, and are made under penalty of perjury.

One way this could come up is that she was giving a deposition (legal term for being questioned by lawyers under oath before trial; the deposition is taken down by a court reporter, to let people know what the issues in the lawsuit are) and she was asked to name all the ways in which she saw information about Ellora's Cave prior to writing a post. If Jane saw information about Ellora's Cave on an author loop as Jen Frederick, and she did NOT disclose it at that point, she would be perjuring herself.

Or she could have received a document production request for all emails she has sent or received relating to Ellora's Cave. That request would not have been limited to her persona as Jane Litte.

The option of "just not telling people" about the pseudonym and not sending those documents on could potentially lead to getting tossed in jail for perjury. There was probably no way to hide the other pseudonym without actively committing a crime.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Okay, that explains it somewhat. Still, three further questions: 

1) Isn't then her self-outing the public admission that she had been - actually - collecting information about EC as Jen Frederick?

2) What about non-disclosure clauses and/or contracts? Wouldn't those be exempt?

3) What about self-incrimination? Isn't there any provision to exclude that?


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> Okay, that explains it somewhat. Still, three further questions:
> 
> 1) Isn't then her self-outing the public admission that she had been - actually - collecting information about EC as Jen Frederick?
> 
> ...


1. No, not necessarily. We don't know how this issue came up exactly. Discovery/depositions are far-reaching enough that they might have asked questions like, "Disclose all pseudonyms you have used," in hopes that they might find that she was posting as one of the anonymous commenters on her thread, and she'd still have to respond. Until we have the exact context, we can't jump to that conclusion.

2. The discovery rule encompasses all non-privileged information. (Privileged information is something like what you tell your therapist, your doctor, your lawyer, or your spouse--something where legally that person cannot be compelled to testify about what you've said). NDAed information is not privileged and so is discoverable. The court can apply protective orders to keep confidential, nonprivileged from getting out in public but it is still discoverable by the parties.

3. The principal against self-incrimination doesn't apply here because the principal of self-incrimination says that you can't be compelled to testify against yourself in a criminal matter. This is not a criminal matter, and it's not a crime to be both a blogger and an author. The disclosure was just potentially embarrassing for Jane, and the fifth amendment doesn't care about that.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Thank you for explaining!

1. How can they ask about pseudonyms if said pseudonyms aren't related to the case? I mean, that would open up anyone to completely have to pour out their most private stuff nillywilly, just because they were sued. Doesn't that mean a lot of people pay up or shut their blog down, simply to keep their privacy? Sounds like a too hefty weapon.

2. Seriously? That would, depending on what it is, open you to multibillion dollar lawsuits from the companies whose secrets you disclosed in such lawcases. Again a neat weapon in the hands of industrial competitors.

3. Well, who could make that call? Who says you wouldn't out committing some felony that way?


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

Thank you, David.


----------



## wildwitchof (Sep 2, 2010)

dgaughran said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight per se. I've never been reviewed by DA, I don't write in that genre and don't plan to. I've never had any substantial interaction with DA or Jane Litte. Some of my friends have been reviewed favorably by DA, some have not. That's the extent of my personal *links* on this issue. My personal feelings on DA are another matter, and those should be clear from the rest of this post.
> 
> I also want to state that I'm certainly no supporter of Ellora's Cave, and when the (in my mind) groundless suit was launched against DA, I was happy to tweet my support and raise awareness of the issue, and share a link to the fundraising efforts.
> 
> ...


Coming out of lurkdom to thank David for this post. It says so much that I was thinking but didn't know how to express.

And thanks also to Anne for the OP.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Let's not make assumptions about the motivation behind people's posts or characterizations about the poster. 

EDIT:  That being said, yes, if this discussion seems unimportant to someone, they'd be best checking one of the hundreds of other active threads.

Thanks.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Gwen Hayes (Apr 24, 2011)

Wouldn't pseudonyms be related to the case because they are claiming that Jane/DA was trying to malign their reputation for personal gain? If Jane were just a blogger or journalist, she would gain nothing from blogging about EC troubles. However if Jane were a competitor, she would.

Like if Netflix sued a journalist for saying the company was in financial trouble, and the journalist said she was only reporting facts...but later it comes out the journalist is also on the board of directors at Amazon Instant Video. 


Nic said:


> Thank you for explaining!
> 
> 1. How can they ask about pseudonyms if said pseudonyms aren't related to the case? I mean, that would open up anyone to completely have to pour out their most private stuff nillywilly, just because they were sued. Doesn't that mean a lot of people pay up or shut their blog down, simply to keep their privacy? Sounds like a too hefty weapon.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

There's bad behaviour on the part of everyone involved. Authors, bloggers, readers, publishers. It's a soap opera. I shake my head frequently over the drama I witness in the publishing world and do my best to keep my nose clean and stay away from the drama queens and kings.

I agree that it is not acceptable to pretend that you don't have a history with people by having a separate pen name and public identity and presenting yourself as a different person. That is unethical to me although I am sure we all understand the desire to be a fly on the wall amongst our detractors/enemies.

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. People should remember that bit of Biblical advice. There is far too much vitriol and criticism and attack on the net. There is a sad lack of tolerance and just plain kindness out there. The former makes life less tolerable, the latter makes it worthwhile. Why can't people promote the things they love instead of focusing on the things they dislike/hate?

Why can't we all just get along?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

I think everyone who doesn't get why a good portion of authors are upset or disturbed should read David's (dgaughran's) post carefully above then hop over to The Passive Voice blog on it (first post) and then read the comments on Smart Bitches Trashy Books. At first I was one of those authors who _didn't get it_. Because I'd had no interactions with DA and didn't write in romance land. It took some serious reading to understand the sense of betrayal and hurt coming from authors on top of the hypocrisy of 'do what I say, not as I do'.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Gwen Hayes said:


> Wouldn't pseudonyms be related to the case because they are claiming that Jane/DA was trying to malign their reputation for personal gain? If Jane were just a blogger or journalist, she would gain nothing from blogging about EC troubles. However if Jane were a competitor, she would.
> 
> Like if Netflix sued a journalist for saying the company was in financial trouble, and the journalist said she was only reporting facts...but later it comes out the journalist is also on the board of directors at Amazon Instant Video.


I probably am wrong, but that's not how I understand that particular lawsuit. Which is why I am so astonished that this stretches into different areas of Litte's activity.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> Thank you for explaining!
> 
> 1. How can they ask about pseudonyms if said pseudonyms aren't related to the case? I mean, that would open up anyone to completely have to pour out their most private stuff nillywilly, just because they were sued. Doesn't that mean a lot of people pay up or shut their blog down, simply to keep their privacy? Sounds like a too hefty weapon.
> 
> ...


1. The discovery rules in the US are very, very broad. As long as there's the potential for discoverable materials being found, it's open. If you read the case I posted earlier, then yes, basically what it means is that if you are a party to a lawsuit, you could end up with no privacy whatsoever. Just as a note: The full contents of discovery won't generally be public record--only those portions that are admissible as evidence. In this case, one of the defenses is that Jane did not act with actual malice. That means her state of mind is 100% relevant to questions of discovery, and basically anything as relates to it could end up getting discovered.

Yes, that sucks.

The rules for non-parties are slightly more protective.

2. No. This wouldn't happen Those multimillion dollar corporations have the option to ask that the material be reviewed only under seal. If they fail to do that, it's their fault the secret gets out.

Most NDAs state that they don't apply to compelled speech (which testifying under a subpoena would be). Even if the NDA explicitly said otherwise, nobody can be sued for breach of an NDA for doing something you are legally required to do, because a contract that requires you to perform an illegal act is void.

3. There is a long and complicated body of case law on this question, and it's not one I've had a lot of experience with. The basic idea, though, is that you can't just have some airy-nairy fear of criminal proceedings; there has to be a real danger of actual prosecution. As to who makes the call, the lawyer overseeing the deposition needs to know the full history before hand, and hopefully will have ascertained if there are any fifth amendment issues likely to come up. But it's not a total toss-up "Who can tell?" thing. There are standards, and rules, and if you invoke the Fifth Amendment you darned during a deposition you darned well better be prepared to justify yourself. This is a pretty good overview of how it works and what the law is on this point: http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

In that case she may have better simply folded.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> In that case she may have better simply folded.


If she had, she would have had to pull down a major post that started it all saying that EC was a sinking ship and give her thousands of readers a reason why she was wrong in addition to revealing the psuedonyms or pen names of dozens of authors who commented AND give EC $25,000+. Her reputation would be shot either way.

-----------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-erotica-publisher-elloras-cave-sues-dear-author-book-blog-20140929-story.html

Erotica publisher Ellora's Cave has sued the Dear Author book blog and its proprietor Jane Litte, alleging defamation. The publisher is seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages of $25,000 or more and the identity of the blog's commenters.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Yes, I read that. But that might have been preferable to outing the rest. 

As to giving pen names away, who says she knows who is who behind a pen name? How could she know? All she could know is the alias and the IP address, nothing more.


----------



## Thisiswhywecan&#039;thavenicethings (May 3, 2013)

Nic said:


> Yes, I read that. But that might have been preferable to outing the rest.
> 
> As to giving pen names away, who says she knows who is who behind a pen name? How could she know? All she could know is the alias and the IP address, nothing more.


I believe you are missing the point here. They will not be asking Jane/Jen to provide this information because that would amount to nothing more than speculation. They will be obtaining transcripts from the site owners/operators who will now have been dragged into these proceedings along with the people who posted there.


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

Nic said:


> All she could know is the alias and the IP address, nothing more.


In an every day, regular usage scenario where a writer is accessing an Internet resource from a home office, determining identity from their IP (yu don't even need the alias) is a trivial task.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> In that case she may have better simply folded.


I am not privy to Jane's thoughts on strategy, but she may have initially thought something like this: win TRO hearing big, demonstrate to EC they don't have a case, get relatively favorable settlement prior to discovery. In which case she would have been home free without having to disclose her pen name.

EC dropped the TRO hearing, though, and so there wasn't that early win to force a settlement from EC. At that point, Jane was publicly locked into a defense, and EC was probably more pissed off by the public response to their suit and unlikely to back down.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> Yes, I read that. But that might have been preferable to outing the rest.
> 
> As to giving pen names away, who says she knows who is who behind a pen name? How could she know? All she could know is the alias and the IP address, nothing more.


The defense in this case has already subpoenaed a third party to try and get identifying information for a pseudonym. There is no reason that the plaintiff could not do the same.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Boyd said:


> Sometimes, that's enough. Nothing on the internet is truly private, nothing.


It depends on so much, starting with where these people reside, that I doubt EC could do much with such data.



ReGina W said:


> I believe you are missing the point here. They will not be asking Jane/Jen to provide this information because that would amount to nothing more than speculation. They will be obtaining transcripts from the site owners/operators who will now have been dragged into these proceedings.


I said it would have been preferable (as per what Courtney Milan explained) for Litte to simply have folded entirely and in the first place to the demands of EC if things are as she detailed. At least that would have spared outing the Jen Frederick pen name and alongside opening up all those private conversations with authors in private author groups. If she had folded there would be no deposition to be made. Instead she could have paid the fine, retracted the article and given them some blather of where she overheard some authors yak away.

What I also don't understand is why journalistic rights don't apply to her, but as I said, I'm astonished these things can go so deeply without any curbing agent anyway.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Courtney Milan said:


> The defense in this case has already subpoenaed a third party to try and get identifying information for a pseudonym. There is no reason that the plaintiff could not do the same.


Who whose pseudonym?


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

We _know_ that the EC lawsuit is the reason Jane had to out herself as Jen because Jane admitted as much in her original post:



> The suit has had many effects on my life, not the least of which is that I have lost every bit of anonymity, including the anonymity of my Jen Frederick penname.


And Courtney has outlined in detail the possible reasons behind that loss of anonymity.

But the _point_ is that she did lose her anonymity -- and the issues at hand are the many damaging consequences of how she managed her Jane/Jen identities _for self-gain_. Including, as many have pointed out, the fact that many authors who do not wish to participate in the EC lawsuit may now be dragged into the proceedings, thanks to Jane/Jen's deception and infiltration of author groups.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> Who whose pseudonym?


A twitter account answering to the name of @pubnt. We don't know whose pseudonym it is at this point yet.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Dsg said:


> We _know_ that the EC lawsuit is the reason Jane had to out herself as Jen because Jane admitted as much in her original post:
> 
> And Courtney has outlined in detail the possible reasons behind that loss of anonymity.
> 
> But the _point_ is that she did lose her anonymity -- and the issues at hand are the many damaging consequences of how she managed her Jane/Jen identities _for self-gain_. Including, as many have pointed out, the fact that many authors who do not wish to participate in the EC lawsuit may now be dragged into the proceedings, thanks to Jane/Jen's deception and infiltration of author groups.


I am talking about the past. About the initial reaction of EC to her article. Not about the current stage of the affair. It looks as if she miscalculated and was more interested in playing white knight or whatever. As a lawyer I would have expected her to know she might be stripped to naked.



Courtney Milan said:


> A twitter account answering to the name of @pubnt. We don't know whose pseudonym it is at this point yet.


At what stage was that brought into the play? And how should Litte know who is behind some twitter account? She couldn't provide such data in the first place, only what takes place on her own website.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> At what stage was that brought into the play? And how should Litte know who is behind some twitter account? She couldn't provide such data in the first place, only what takes place on her own website.


I think that you're having some difficulty following this because you're unused to legal lingo and still haven't quite grasped the scope of discovery.

When I said that the defense had requested a subpoena from a third party, that means that Jane Litte subpoenaed Twitter to divulge any potentially identifying information for that twitter account. There are still pending motions here, but this is pretty par for the course in litigation.

Being party to a lawsuit allows you to subpoena third parties who have potentially relevant information. Third party = Everyone not party to the lawsuit. That means that EITHER Jane or Ellora's Cave can subpoena Twitter or Comcast or T-Mobile and ask, "What real name corresponded with this IP address at this date and time?" and under many circumstances, they may be able to get an answer.

Discovery doesn't just mean that parties to the suit have no privacy. Third parties who may possess relevant information can also be subpoenaed, and if those people are talking under a pseudonym, the parties can ask for information from others that will help them track down the real person behind the pseudonym to make them testify.

This is not hypothetical. Someone is already trying to do it in this very suit. That someone is Jane Litte, not Ellora's Cave.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Nic said:


> I am talking about the past. About the initial reaction of EC to her article. Not about the current stage of the affair. It looks as if she miscalculated and was more interested in playing white knight or whatever. As a lawyer I would have expected her to know she might be stripped to naked.


If you're trying to understand why Jane didn't try settle the lawsuit rather than out her own pen name, then I think it's worth considering the dozens and dozens of times she put herself, her platform, her career, and her needs over the well-being of others.

I agree with others that you should read up on the case if you have more questions about specifics. Courtney and others have done very thorough write-ups.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Dsg said:


> If you're trying to understand why Jane didn't try settle the lawsuit rather than out her own pen name, then I think it's worth considering the dozens and dozens of times she put herself, her platform, her career, and her needs over the well-being of others.


This is actually what I have been talking about all the time.

If (and I believe Courtney) rules are as they are, Litte (who as a lawyer would be aware of them, doubtlessly) should very simply have folded the moment EC filed their complaint. By folded I mean: paid up, begged nicely pardon, clarified what info she has or not and be done with it, simply to guard her own privacy and that of the parties she would likely (and now has) compromise(d).

What I think of a legal system which concentrates so much power onesidedly is something else entirely. What I still don't understand (and I perused quite a few sites today) is why she could be forced, as an alleged journalist, into all this. So far I was under the apparently erroneous impression that journalists are not required to lay open their sources.


----------



## Thisiswhywecan&#039;thavenicethings (May 3, 2013)

Nic said:


> It depends on so much, starting with where these people reside, that I doubt EC could do much with such data.
> 
> I said it would have been preferable (as per what Courtney Milan explained) for Litte to simply have folded entirely and in the first place to the demands of EC if things are as she detailed. At least that would have spared outing the Jen Frederick pen name and alongside opening up all those private conversations with authors in private author groups. If she had folded there would be no deposition to be made. Instead she could have paid the fine, retracted the article and given them some blather of where she overheard some authors yak away.
> 
> What I also don't understand is why journalistic rights don't apply to her, but as I said, I'm astonished these things can go so deeply without any curbing agent anyway.


I totally agree it would have been better had she done so. And Courtney explained the point I thought you were missing, which was that the discoverability issue can and is going beyond Jane and EC to encompass people who thought they were interacting Jen.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

ReGina W said:


> I totally agree it would have been better had she done so. And Courtney explained the point I thought you were missing, which was that the discoverability issue can and is going beyond Jane and EC to encompass people who thought they were interacting Jen.


That is the reason why I stated that she should have folded. In the end it makes the lawsuit a somewhat selfish affair.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> This is actually what I have been talking about all the time.
> 
> If (and I believe Courtney) rules are as they are, Litte (who as a lawyer would be aware of them, doubtlessly) should very simply have folded the moment EC filed their complaint. By folded I mean: paid up, begged nicely pardon, clarified what info she has or not and be done with it, simply to guard her own privacy and that of the parties she would likely (and now has) compromise(d).
> 
> What I think of a legal system which concentrates so much power onesidedly is something else entirely. What I still don't understand (and I perused quite a few sites today) is why she could be forced, as an alleged journalist, into all this. So far I was under the apparently erroneous impression that journalists are not required to lay open their sources.


The exact journalistic privilege protections are a state-by-state/jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction hodge-podge at the moment. There are multiple issues here, including the question of whether Jane is a journalist. That question is potentially complicated by her revelation that she's also an author--if she got the information because she was acting as an author rather than as a journalist, this gets complicated.

This is a pretty good summary of bloggers and journalistic privilege. https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/journalists/privilege

But not being required to divulge the identity of your sources does not mean that you can keep quiet about what they said or that you don't have to say anything at all. This case is a pretty good walkthrough of how the issues can come up in litigation: https://casetext.com/case/southwell-v-southern-poverty-law-center


----------



## AshRonin (May 5, 2013)

I think someone needs to write a Law and Order SVU style self-published book on this whole mess.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

By the way, on the "Jane should have folded line"--I haven't addressed this, but there are plenty of other reasons besides selfishness why she might not have done so. She might have believed her words were true, for instance, and folding would have implied otherwise--an act that would be a slap in the face of anyone who had been harmed and who spoke up about their conduct.

I don't think you can come to any simple conclusions from any of this except that this lawsuit has had very personal consequences for Jane--and whether you like her or not, it demonstrates that defamation suits, even if successful, can cause serious harm and chill speech.

My criticisms of Jane's conduct in the matter of her pseudonym should not be taken as an indication that I think that Ellora's Cave's actions are anything other than deeply chilling or that anyone should bow to their unreasonable demands.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Nic said:


> That is the reason why I stated that she should have folded. In the end it makes the lawsuit a somewhat selfish affair.


So she should have folded -- and continued to operate secretly as Jen while acting as an industry watchdog as Jane? To protect herself and the lies she told to other authors? And therefore, by folding, state publicly that the information she posted about EC was false? Is that the answer?

I'm speaking rhetorically, of course. The sad fact is that Jane's actions to further her author career, before the lawsuit was a speck on the horizon, are deplorable, and have far-reaching consequences that no one could have foreseen. Which is why what she should have done is _disclose from the beginning_. The lawsuit just makes everything that much worse/complicated.

(edited for grammar)


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

There's precious little logic in all this, and I'm happy I'm not involved. 

How can she act "as an author" if EC never published her, and she never submitted any manuscripts to them? She also wasn't known as an author to the audience of the blog at the time. The article itself clearly is a journalistic piece of writing. But I guess, if one wants to publish such articles it might be opportune to first verify the own status, and then act accordingly.

This is a very unfortunate affair, all put together. 

Also: I agree, what EC have done there is certainly neither acceptable. However, I'd say it is a matter of demanding laws which place less power as onesidedly in the hands of one party. Or to at least curb infringement of privacy in such matters.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> How can she act "as an author" if EC never published her, and she never submitted any manuscripts to them?


This is a factual question. If she only received the information she did about Ellora's Cave because she was acting in her capacity as an author on author loops, where she had gone for the purpose of receiving information to help her career as an author, rather than to further investigate things to discuss on her blog, then she is acting with her author hat on, not her journalist hat.

If she was contacted by people who discussed the case with her for the purpose of writing a news story for dissemination, she received the information in her capacity as a journalist, and journalistic privileges apply.

It's not about whether she was an author for Ellora's Cave. It's about what hat she was wearing when she received the disclosures that should otherwise be shielded.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Dsg said:


> So she should have folded -- and continued to operate secretly as Jen while acting as an industry watchdog as Jane? To protect herself and the lies she told to other authors? And therefore, by folding, state publicly that the information she posted about EC's actions were false? Is that the answer?


I wasn't making any statements about that part of the whole affair at all. If you ask me - was the infiltration of private circles by her acceptable? No. Should she have at least protected as much privacy as possible? Yes. Should she have placed not dragging people publicly out of the pseudonymity of their pen names before herself? Most definitely yes.

The authors touched directly by EC's demise can sue EC on their own. They did not need Litte for that, nor her article. And it was their own responsibility to make a decision about whom to sign with, or not. Litte has nothing to do with that either. She just owns a blog and that blog doesn't give out official legal or state-sanctioned announcements of the culpability of some publisher. Hence it wouldn't have mattered at all if she had retracted that article.


----------



## Thisiswhywecan&#039;thavenicethings (May 3, 2013)

I'm going to amend my statement from earlier. I agree it would have been easier on anyone who has been dragged into the legal side of things had she folded. 

But, and this brings us right back to the point of this thread--had she been honest and forthright in her dealings with the author loops she joined, people would not have been left feeling betrayed nor would they have been dragged into her legal issues to begin with.


----------



## desamo (Feb 15, 2014)

Gwen Hayes said:


> Wouldn't pseudonyms be related to the case because they are claiming that Jane/DA was trying to malign their reputation for personal gain?


That was not alleged in the lawsuit or any of Plaintiff's documents. I've read all of them at least once.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11698292/ecda/index.html <-- index to my copy of the court docket, including all significant documents.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Courtney Milan said:


> This is a factual question. If she only received the information she did about Ellora's Cave because she was acting in her capacity as an author on author loops, where she had gone for the purpose of receiving information to help her career as an author, rather than to further investigate things to discuss on her blog, then she is acting with her author hat on, not her journalist hat.


Is there no such thing as undercover investigation/research in US journalism? In the end it wouldn't matter, if she had stated she is there to research as a journalist no one could have proven her differently. She could have stated that she had lied to get access (which she did anyway).


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

desamo said:


> That was not alleged in the lawsuit or any of Plaintiff's documents. I've read all of them at least once.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11698292/ecda/index.html <-- index to my copy of the court docket, including all significant documents.


It hasn't been alleged, but to the extent that they have to prove actual malice, they're going to have to prove that she knew or had substantial reason to know that what she wrote was false. Unless they get an actual statement from her to that effect (very unlikely) they're going to have to try and prove actual malice by circumstantial evidence. They need some motive for her statement. I don't know what they're going to allege but we'll find out, I suppose.


----------



## desamo (Feb 15, 2014)

Courtney Milan said:


> The exact journalistic privilege protections are a state-by-state/jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction hodge-podge at the moment. There are multiple issues here, including the question of whether Jane is a journalist. That question is potentially complicated by her revelation that she's also an author--if she got the information because she was acting as an author rather than as a journalist, this gets complicated.


Oooh, that's a nuance that hadn't hit. It just went "clunk."


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Nic said:


> Is there no such thing as undercover investigation/research in US journalism? In the end it wouldn't matter, if she had stated she is there to research as a journalist no one could have proven her differently. She could have stated that she had lied to get access (which she did anyway).


This is the second time you've suggested that this would all have been different if Jane was willing to commit the crime of perjury. At this point, I have to admit that even my near-endless legal pedantry which allows me to explain basic law to people who don't get things is beginning to run out of steam. At the point when you don't want to get things that have already been explained to you, I'm done.


----------



## Thisiswhywecan&#039;thavenicethings (May 3, 2013)

Nic said:


> Is there no such thing as undercover investigation/research in US journalism? In the end it wouldn't matter, if she had stated she is there to research as a journalist no one could have proven her differently. She could have stated that she had lied to get access (which she did anyway).


Pretty sure being a journalist does not mean lying to and befriending people who have already blocked you because of mean behavior.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

I'm simply stating that some things can't be proven or disproven. I'm also saying that it's unlikely such distinctions can be made elsewhere but in the mind of the relevant person. 

At least over here we would consider it rather funny if a journalist, who also happens to be an author, was researching for a book, and decided to abstain from writing an article if he stumbled over some interesting matter while doing that. Abstain for fear of being denuded of his rights as a journalist because he started out on the research as a book author. Nonsensical and pretty much unthinkable.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

RJ06 said:


> Anyway, that's my perspective. What really has my teeth on edge, however, are all these claims I see about Jane being a journalist and these assumptions that journalists can apparently write anything they want with no repercussions.


The question of Jane being a journalist is legally only relevant to the extent that being classified as one would allow her not to disclose her sources. That doesn't really benefit Jane, just her sources. I don't think she gets any personal gain from that.

The separate question of requiring actual malice to find her liable for defamation has nothing to do with whether she's a journalist. It hinges on whether Ellora's Cave is a limited purpose public figure.

I think that Nic may have mixed this up in here somewhere, but I don't think that Nic's views are majority. So it's not really "all these claims"--just one confused questioning non-claim.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

RJ06 said:


> Longtime kboards reader (mostly the book bazaar), and, as you can see, first time commenter. First, let me say that I'm a reader, not an author or a blogger. I read romance novels and sometimes read DA and SBTB and ....


We are not in disagreement there. It certainly stands to question whether or not Litte can be considered a journalist. I was discussing on the premise that she is.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

ReGina W said:


> Pretty sure being a journalist does not mean lying to and befriending people who have already blocked you because of mean behavior.


Again, no disagreement with that. What she did there was pretty low.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Nic said:


> How? If she doesn't tell anyone she is Jen, how could anyone discover this?


That's why it's called "discovery."

In a lawsuit, the first big phase after filing the complaints is discovery. Interrogatory questions are sent by each party to the other, which they both have to answer unless they have a legal reason for not doing so. What is your name and have you gone by any other names EVER and FOR ANY REASON are always asked.

ETA: oops. I should have known Courtney would answer this far better than I did.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Can anyone who writes a blog be considered a journalist?


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Martitalbott said:


> Can anyone who writes a blog be considered a journalist?


I don't think so. Blogger? Yea. Journalist? Er.... I'm honestly not sure what the qualification are for that, to be honest.

I also don't think it's unethical for an author to make a blog and review other people's books under a different pen name (and then keep it a secret) either.

BUT I do take issue with Jane trying to join forums while knowing full well she was not welcome in the first place.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Navigator said:


> I also don't think it's unethical for an author to make a blog and review other people's books under a different pen name (and then keep it a secret) either.


I've never been reviewed by DA (too small potatoes) so no ax here to grind, but thought I'd address this part. The thing that has struck many as ironic and upsetting about this is that Jane/Jen as Jane _did_ have an ethical stance on this on DA and required any author who reviewed on there to have a statement to that effect. As she'd said "Bias matters" and it was important for her and her readers to understand where a reviewer came from so they could properly "contextualize" their review. Turns out that whole time, she'd not had a similar statement on hers, not even when reviewing a book put out by her publisher. Jane would've gone after Jen for this.

Edited to add: I also support her law suit against EC. Her unethical behavior in this matter doesn't negate the importance, to my mind, of that case and its potential to chill speech...


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

heynonny said:


> Indeed. I mostly lurk here but I do personally know of one well-known author who was the recipient of a DA witchhunt. This author literally stopped writing for months because of it; then she withdrew from online interaction because of more retaliation. And the reason DA set the hounds loose was because this author made an innocuous one-sentence observation in a blog post. To find out that Jane Litte has been catfishing the very authors she sought to destroy to leverage her own career makes me ill.


Amen. Recently Jane wrote a long blog post against authors using Kickstarter. http://dearauthor.com/features/essays/the-downsides-of-the-high-risk-low-reward-kickstart-business-model/#comments. Quel irony!
The post was spawned by an ugly incident where readers turned against a young indie author who opened a campaign to raise 10 grand. Jane went on at length about the problem of transparency in such a campaign. The author had already been badly damaged by the reader attacks--she closed her campaign and slunk away. Jane primarily attacks authors who don't have big followings or star power. They can't fight back effectively. Same thing is true for her business partner, Sarah Wendell of SBTB. (Yes, they are incorporated in a business together) Sarah and her gang have done some incredibly mean things to authors over years; for example, posting cover art they decreed ugly and then ripping it to shreds with vicious glee--this was long before authors were self-pubbing, so the authors had no control over that art. Sarah now admits she knew about Jane's pen name and willingly helped with the deception. Both Jane and Sarah deserve no sympathy. Karma is truly a . . .


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

For the record, I stand behind Jane on the Ellora's Cave situation 100%. I'm glad she wrote the article, because that, too, was something that needed to be said and be out there in the public eye. I am glad she did not cave. To me, these two incidents affect each other, but they do not affect my opinion on each other, if that makes sense. The answer was not for Jane to have caved when EC sued. The answer was for Jane to have been more forthright in her dealings, to uphold the same standards that she claimed to hold other authors to, and act with ethics and accept the consequences of her behavior as Jane Litte (e.g. that authors might not wish to befriend her / help her/ associate with her) as opposed to doing an end run. To me, she wanted to have her cake and eat it too, hence hiding her Jane Litte identity when interacting with other authors.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

The take away for me is I will not post anything in 'private' groups that I don't want the public at large to know.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Thinking solely on the actions of Jane.
As far as her joining the author groups that didn't want her, all she did was prove one never knows who is lurking behind the screen.

Now as far as this thread goes, I went over to Amazon,  typed in Jen.  Guess who popped up.

As to the other stuff: reserving judgment.


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

Deborahsmith author said:


> Amen. Recently Jane wrote a long blog post against authors using Kickstarter. http://dearauthor.com/features/essays/the-downsides-of-the-high-risk-low-reward-kickstart-business-model/#comments. Quel irony!
> The post was spawned by an ugly incident where readers turned against a young indie author who opened a campaign to raise 10 grand. Jane went on at length about the problem of transparency in such a campaign. The author had already been badly damaged by the reader attacks--she closed her campaign and slunk away. Jane primarily attacks authors who don't have big followings or star power. They can't fight back effectively. Same thing is true for her business partner, Sarah Wendell of SBTB. (Yes, they are incorporated in a business together) Sarah and her gang have done some incredibly mean things to authors over years; for example, posting cover art they decreed ugly and then ripping it to shreds with vicious glee--this was long before authors were self-pubbing, so the authors had no control over that art. Sarah now admits she knew about Jane's pen name and willingly helped with the deception. Both Jane and Sarah deserve no sympathy. Karma is truly a . . .


Look I agree what she did was unethical. However I think we should keep the Jane and Sarah are mean girls rhetoric away from this fight. Calling them mean girls that maliciously harm careers is a bit much. Not that you said that but someone else implied it earlier in the thread.

Lets deal with the facts. She had a pen name and used it to gain access to writers loops which had previously denied her. I can actually see why she would do it. She wanted advice about how to self pub and the crappy inside of traditional publishing. IMO Jane did a service by writing that article. We'd all heard whispers but to have it layed out like that was something completely different. Why should she fold if she believed she'd done nothing wrong and rightly believed Ellora's cave sued to shut her up and get it removed. They overplayed their hand and the romance community answered back by coming to her defense. Should she have disclosed then? Absolutely. Especially If she used any private conversations with authors to write up the Ellora's cave article that's an issue but I have yet to see any involved author make that allegation.

*edited for spelling


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

After working for a registered agent, I think the only way to squash a subpoena is to settle out of court or drop the suit. Otherwise, if a court tells you to hand over your records, it is not something you can refuse to do without being in contempt.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

JessA said:


> Look I agree what she did was unethical. However I think we should keep the Jane and Sarah are mean girls rhetoric away from this fight. Calling them mean girls that maliciously harm careers is a bit much. Not hat you said that but someone else implied it earlier in the thread.
> 
> ...


Scoundrels are often quick to remind everyone that it isn't polite to call someone a scoundrel. But calling something what it is is the best first step toward dealing with it effectively.

edit: gah! not that I'm calling JessA a scoundrel. I mean that mean girls don't want to be called mean girls, even when they are. Scoundrels will hide behind other people's good manners.


----------



## tessblunt (Jan 29, 2014)

JessA said:


> Look I agree what she did was unethical. However I think we should keep the Jane and Sarah are mean girls rhetoric away from this fight. *Calling them mean girls that maliciously harm careers is a bit much.*


Nah, but it's really not. It just goes to show that you do reap what you sow (to add another delightful bible quote to the thread).

I can't lie...there's a dark, dark part of me that would love for this scandal to ruin Jane Little's career. That part of me would love nothing more than to see http://www.dearauthor.com return a 404 error.

But that will never happen, because when you're the #1 *muckraker* in the community there's no one else to rally the cyberbullies and pitchfork-wielding cat ladies against you.

And personally, that's fine with me because I have seen the pain that Jane Little has caused with her thinly-veiled cyberbullying and I wouldn't wish that same pain against even her. I hope that this whole thing is a wake-up call to her and all of her followers who think it's fun and cool and acceptable to, not only, pile on and attack other people on the internet, but also to literally ruin careers and personal reputations/dox people.


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

This thread is about her unethically joining forums that previously denied her under her writing name and and whether she should have disclosed that. Its also about the legal ramifications of her decision not to. Its not about your personal dislike of her and her website.(Btw are we all aware she's not the only reviewer on that site?) Or your glee that she getting you feel is well deserved Karma.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

tessblunt said:


> I hope that this whole thing is a wake-up call to her and all of her followers who think it's fun and cool and acceptable to, not only, pile on and attack other people on the internet, but also to literally ruin careers and personal reputations/dox people.


I should hope that we all agree that piling on and attacking people on the Internet is not appropriate. It certainly isn't appropriate here.

Folks, let's keep this discussion professional. The topic is appropriate here as a discussion of ethics and of a major news item in the writing community. For the most part, this thread has been remarkably civil. Thanks for that! Let's keep it that way.

Thanks again,

Betsy


----------



## Randall Wood (Mar 31, 2014)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Bravo to you, sir. I completely agree. It doesn't matter whether an online community is opened or closed--the person you are in the dark should be the same person you are in the light.


"Closed Internet Group"="Child-Safe Plutonium"

Never existed, never will.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

I need an aspirin after reading all of this in one take...


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

The conflict of interest problem on DA doesn't have to be limited to pushing Jen's books specifically.

Something else I've seen mentioned (but I can't remember where) was the point that Jane was one of the major forces pushing the NA sub-category of romance on the DA blog when NA books first started being published. The person who mentioned this said they were a long-time regular reader of DA and they remembered that she was constantly pushing the new NA genre. She apparently also called for the death of other romance categories, such as Regency Romances, because she called them old news.

Guess which category Jen's books are in? But Jane never mentioned "Oh, by the way, in my spare time I also write books in this new genre sub-category I'm pushing and I stand to benefit greatly if I can make it a thing..."


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

AngQ said:


> I've never been reviewed by DA (too small potatoes) so no ax here to grind, but thought I'd address this part. The thing that has struck many as ironic and upsetting about this is that Jane/Jen as Jane _did_ have an ethical stance on this on DA and required any author who reviewed on there to have a statement to that effect. As she'd said "Bias matters" and it was important for her and her readers to understand where a reviewer came from so they could properly "contextualize" their review. Turns out that whole time, she'd not had a similar statement on hers, not even when reviewing a book put out by her publisher. Jane would've gone after Jen for this.
> 
> Edited to add: I also support her law suit against EC. Her unethical behavior in this matter doesn't negate the importance, to my mind, of that case and its potential to chill speech...


Oh I agree. I support her lawsuit as well.

I just disagree with others here about reviewing other authors works under a secret pen name is unethical.

But as others have also said, don't type anything down you would not mind eventually coming to light, even under a secret pen name.


----------



## heynonny (Mar 12, 2014)

JessA said:


> This thread is about her unethically joining forums that previously denied her under her writing name and and whether she should have disclosed that. Its also about the legal ramifications of her decision not to. Its not about your personal dislike of her and her website.(Btw are we all aware she's not the only reviewer on that site?) Or your glee that she getting you feel is well deserved Karma.


Speaking only for myself after witnessing how her cyberbullying has caused anguish to authors, agents, and small publishers (not EC...they can rot) and often for the most harmless of offences, followed by endless self-righteous fingerwagging on social to rationalize her bullying, and now to find that not only is she culpable of same unethical behavior she rails against and is finally being called out for it...

...I do feel glee.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

I still think writing in a genre and reviewing books in the same genre is against Amazon's rules. Am I wrong?


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Martitalbott said:


> I still think writing in a genre and reviewing books in the same genre is against Amazon's rules. Am I wrong?


I think so, but Amazon doesn't keep track of blogs. If I wanted to review other erotica writers books on a blog, I don't think that's breaking the rules.

A loop hole, maybe.


----------



## AngelaQuarles (Jun 22, 2014)

Navigator said:


> I just disagree with others here about reviewing other authors works under a secret pen name is unethical.


It's your right to choose/decide for yourself.... I think our point is that this isn't relevant, as it was _Jane_ who found it unethical for others, and then she did it. _That_ is what has upset readers and authors.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

AngQ said:


> It's your right to choose/decide for yourself.... I think our point is that this isn't relevant, as it was _Jane_ who found it unethical for others, and then she did it. _That_ is what has upset readers and authors.


I think that is if not the whole point then at least the main point. Jane spent years slamming authors for doing much less shady things than she has been up to. And it's not even like she can say that she did the right thing and came clean in the end because if it hadn't been for the discovery phase of the trial, we might never even have known.

When she make her whole point of being (as she did on DA) to hold authors to her high standards of ethics... well it's sort of delightful when the public demands the same ethical behavior of her and howls just as loud as she is used to doing when they don't get it.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

dgaughran said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight per se. I've never been reviewed by DA, I don't write in that genre and don't plan to. I've never had any substantial interaction with DA or Jane Litte. Some of my friends have been reviewed favorably by DA, some have not. That's the extent of my personal *links* on this issue. My personal feelings on DA are another matter, and those should be clear from the rest of this post.
> 
> I also want to state that I'm certainly no supporter of Ellora's Cave, and when the (in my mind) groundless suit was launched against DA, I was happy to tweet my support and raise awareness of the issue, and share a link to the fundraising efforts.
> 
> ...


Quoting David's awesome post in case anyone missed it. This is the best, calmest, most logical explanation of what is going on I've seen.



> Or she could have received a document production request for all emails she has sent or received relating to Ellora's Cave. That request would not have been limited to her persona as Jane Litte.


EC had something a while back about getting all the emails and names of anyone involved in the particular blog post the suit is about -- looking for the sources, the authors who gave Jane/Jen the info about not getting paid. I suspect this whole thing is the fall out from that filing.

Karma is walking the halls, folks. Stay tuned.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

To throw another Biblical quote into the mix, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Jane judged others extensively and, while it may not be specifically germane to the lawsuit, it's germane to her character and to her credibility. Someone who's been, in essence, proven a hypocrite, has largely lost credibility. In other words, that person may be absolutely correct, yet her claims will be dismissed because she's been shown to have engaged in practices similarly shoddy.

That's why character and reputation matters, why it permeates everything someone does, especially those who deliberately set themselves up as public arbiters of the behaviors of others.

Nobody respects a biased judge or advocate who has been tainted. It's difficult to crusade against unrighteousness when partaking of that same scummyness. That's one reason it's so hard to separate her past and present behavior from the validity of her particular claims in this case. Both/several parties appear to have acted unethically, even immorally.

Sometimes there are no good guys, only bad guys and worse.


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

Just wanted to say that Courtney Milan is a saint, and a patient one at that, to so endlessly explain (and cite sites!) regarding the finer points of American jurisprudence in relation to this situation.  Perhaps Nic is not quite clear about it yet, but many of the rest of us on the thread have learned a lot.  

Full disclosure:  I'm an attorney.


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

PatriceFitz said:


> Just wanted to say that Courtney Milan is a saint, and a patient one at that, to so endlessly explain (and cite sites!) regarding the finer points of American jurisprudence in relation to this situation. Perhaps Nic is not quite clear about it yet, but many of the rest of us on the thread have learned a lot.
> 
> Full disclosure: I'm an attorney.


Funny I was just thinking Courtney is a saint.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

PatriceFitz said:


> Full disclosure: I'm an attorney.


See how easy it is?


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

AngQ said:


> It's your right to choose/decide for yourself.... I think our point is that this isn't relevant, as it was _Jane_ who found it unethical for others, and then she did it. _That_ is what has upset readers and authors.


Agreed. Very hypocritical and it casts her into a dark light. Those at EC can very easily use this against her.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Martitalbott said:


> Can anyone who writes a blog be considered a journalist?


There are lots of serious and respected bloggers who are considered journalists and their blogs medium of their journalism. Quite a few of them have been killed for that, many tortured, and there are a couple being whipped by executioners for what they reported of their regimes as we speak.

The majority of them are regarded journalists by their peers and various press organisations, so yes, people who write blogs can be considered journalists.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Cherise Kelley said:


> The take away for me is I will not post anything in 'private' groups that I don't want the public at large to know.


That should be a given. I'll never understand people who don't realise that the internet is a barn, and not a secured, soundproofed office in Downing Street.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

RJ06 said:


> I genuinely believe Jane's biased post about EC was an honest mistake; she likely didn't realize that, as a journalist, you're responsible for presenting all the sides in an unbiased manner.


While this may be the ideal of journalism, I personally don't know or see a lot of it. Not even in broadsheets I used to respect like The Guardian or the Independent. Certainly not, and not for ages, in newspapers like the Daily Mirror or The Sun. Let's not even begin to talk about TV or radio broadcasts, where things are even worse.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

PatriceFitz said:


> Just wanted to say that Courtney Milan is a saint, and a patient one at that, to so endlessly explain (and cite sites!) regarding the finer points of American jurisprudence in relation to this situation. Perhaps Nic is not quite clear about it yet, but many of the rest of us on the thread have learned a lot.
> 
> Full disclosure: I'm an attorney.


I grasped the legal concept right when she explained it, a concept which was quite foreign to me initially. I just am also quite a bit less idealistic than Courtney. There is a wide distance between what people should do and what they actually do, and what can be proven.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Nic said:


> That should be a given. I'll never understand people who don't realise that the internet is a barn, and not a secured, soundproofed office in Downing Street.


I take issue with this argument, which I keep seeing everywhere. If I invite a handful of authors into my living room or my office on a regular basis to discuss private business matters, with the express condition that they are to treat these meetings as private and confidential, people could still lie about their intentions or disclose our discussions elsewhere.

Whether we're on the internet or not, that doesn't make it okay. And it certainly doesn't make _me_ the foolish one. The liar is at fault, and should be treated as such. The insinuation that the authors who shared information on these author loops "should have known better" is blaming the victim, and I'm not cool with that.

Why is it that when people injure other people, onlookers are quick to say "Duh, you should have known that would happen," but not so quick to say "Hey, I'm sorry that happened to you, and that's really shitty of the person who behaved badly"? We're all going to be more cautious about what we share, sure, but the romance community is small -- and that's not the kind of atmosphere most of us are okay with fostering.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

I'm locking the thread temporarily while I review the last page or so... I know many people here have strong feelings about this topic and emotions are running a bit high right now.

Be back in a bit, thanks for understanding.

EDIT: Sorry for the delay, I dozed off. I'm going to remove the last couple posts in an effort to allow this conversation to continue. Let's not ascribe motivation to people not present. None of us are mind readers.

At the same time, I see nothing to celebrate here. Expressions of glee are unseemly. Let's discuss the facts, as far as they're known, and the ethics of the situation. Bear in mind that posts designed to inflame or provoke are against Forum Decorum and will be removed.

Let's keep this conversation open, folks, against all odds.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Dsg said:


> Whether we're on the internet or not, that doesn't make it okay. And it certainly doesn't make _me_ the foolish one. The liar is at fault, and should be treated as such. *The insinuation that the authors who shared information on these author loops "should have known better" is blaming the victim, and I'm not cool with that.
> 
> Why is it that when people injure other people, onlookers are quick to say "Duh, you should have known that would happen," but not so quick to say "Hey, I'm sorry that happened to you, and that's really [crappy] of the person who behaved badly"?* We're all going to be more cautious about what we share, sure, but the romance community is small -- * and that's not the kind of atmosphere most of us are okay with fostering. *


Hearty amen.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

RJ06 said:


> As for Jane's ability to destroy writers' careers: I've seen the "piling on," although I don't participate, and I can see where it would make a writer feel completely awful. However, after the dust settles, is there a lasting effect if the writer keeps on writing? I know a lot of women who read romance; I'm the only one who looks (well, looked) at SBTB or DA, and they didn't influence my buying decisions. Is it possible they represent a vocal minority, and you're overlooking the silent majority who don't get involved in all this stuff? I'd say writers should do exactly what Jane is doing right now when these internet "piling on" occur: keep right on going. It does blow over.


As I have only witnessed these things from an outsider's perspective, you may very well be right that in internet time it will blow over in very short order and most people won't know about it, won't remember it, or won't care.

I'd suspect that while in the middle of it, it feels quite differently. It's easy to say to just ignore it and keep going but when it's _your_ (general you here) name being dragged through the mud, it's your work that is getting held up for ridicule, it's your social media accounts that are getting carpet bombed and it's your email that is flooded with people calling you vile, nasty names and screaming for your blood, seems like it could be crippling.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

> Whether we're on the internet or not, that doesn't make it okay. And it certainly doesn't make me the foolish one. The liar is at fault, and should be treated as such. The insinuation that the authors who shared information on these author loops "should have known better" is blaming the victim, and I'm not cool with that.
> 
> Why is it that when people injure other people, onlookers are quick to say "Duh, you should have known that would happen," but not so quick to say "Hey, I'm sorry that happened to you, and that's really [crappy] of the person who behaved badly"? We're all going to be more cautious about what we share, sure, but the romance community is small -- and that's not the kind of atmosphere most of us are okay with fostering.


I agree with this in principle. The problem is that not everyone agrees with it and there are always going to be people who do not and will not respect a group's terms, despite agreeing to them. There are always going to be people who do not share your ethics. Leaks and gossip always happen. I do not condone this, but it is something I acknowledge and something I have to try my best to protect against. As a result, the wise person governs themselves accordingly. This doesn't mean that a person who violates ethics or the rules of a group shouldn't be punished, but it is upon each of us to face reality and be careful who we bring into our private circles.

The fact that breaches of ethics and rules are wrong doesn't negate the harm done.

We authors may not be comfortable fostering that environment, but we ignore it at our own peril. Over the past year, I have been shocked at the kind of behaviour exhibited by authors and bloggers and readers and publishers alike. Not everyone in this community is ethical or even nice. The best advice is to not say anything on the net you would't want splashed across the blogosphere. Sad, but reality.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Dsg said:


> I take issue with this argument, which I keep seeing everywhere. If I invite a handful of authors into my living room or my office on a regular basis to discuss private business matters, with the express condition that they are to treat these meetings as private and confidential, people could still lie about their intentions or disclose our discussions elsewhere.
> 
> Whether we're on the internet or not, that doesn't make it okay. And it certainly doesn't make _me_ the foolish one. The liar is at fault, and should be treated as such. The insinuation that the authors who shared information on these author loops "should have known better" is blaming the victim, and I'm not cool with that.
> 
> Why is it that when people injure other people, onlookers are quick to say "Duh, you should have known that would happen," but not so quick to say "Hey, I'm sorry that happened to you, and that's really [crappy] of the person who behaved badly"? We're all going to be more cautious about what we share, sure, but the romance community is small -- and that's not the kind of atmosphere most of us are okay with fostering.


They react as they do, the way I also react, because the internet is absolutely not your living room.

You have no way of knowing who you speak to in an even private and invitation-only internet forum. The IP can easily be faked or run through a VPN or anonymiser. Email addresses are a dime a dozen. If people have only a minuscule tendency to cover up, then they will simply go into an internet cafe, or log into an unguarded wifi access point somewhere, and the IP that is recorded on your website is of someone who had no idea it was used for such purposes, or belongs to a VPN service which doesn't record anything.

People can tell you whatever they want, you can't check up on them visually. Cannot check their ID cards, and can't do a face-check. Not in such rooms and forae as described. Even if you asked for a webcam conference, how do you make sure that not some PA has lined up for an account? Or that everyone has a clean computer and isn't broadcasting content elsewhere via a keylogger or some other virus?

If you want the safety of your office or your living room you invite people there. The internet is a wide open barn, and it is not readily understandable why people keep forgetting that. That's why others react as they do, when something like this happens. It's not logical to assume the internet is a private place.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

Nic, I feel like we're going in circles here. Are you intentionally trying to derail the thread?

I get it--you either have a difference of opinion or lack of knowledge. Can we move forward, please?


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

I was answering a question. Do you think it is necessary to police other people's responses?


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

Can we move forward, please?


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

Martitalbott said:


> I still think writing in a genre and reviewing books in the same genre is against Amazon's rules. Am I wrong?


I don't think so. I write in various genres and review them too, and Amazon publishes them as long as I disclose that I received a review copy either from the author, publisher or Netgalley. If I forget to mention that, the review doesn't get posted.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Brenna said:


> I completely disagree with the "Internet is a wide open barn" argument. (And please, spare us all the 'you can't check people's i.d. and the paragraphs and paragraphs of description of what you can't do. It's tediously restating the obvious).
> 
> So if there is to be no privacy whatsoever on the Internet. That must mean that:
> 
> ...


You've done what is called an appeal to the extreme, when a person takes an argument to the extreme.

If this is true, then this extreme must be true.

It is a logical fallacy.

It is possible that there are places of privacy on the net, such as banking info and email, because of measures we take to encrypt data and protect identity. It is also possible for the so-called private chat group you are in on Facebook to have a person in it who will spill everything you say.

Data protection is one thing: being in the company of liars, cheats, and sociopaths is something no data encryption program can protect against.

A person is wise to keep the distinction clear in their mind when participating in internet communities.

_Edited to remove reference to deleted content. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Martitalbott said:


> I still think writing in a genre and reviewing books in the same genre is against Amazon's rules. Am I wrong?


Any restrictions that Amazon place are about reviews on Amazon not a book blog. The restrictions are about not saying "Courtney Milan's regency stuff is rubbish read mine instead" or about saying "Courtney Milan's regency romance is the best that you can read" if you are either Courtney Milan or a friend or colleague of Courtney Milan and do not declare that status.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Brenna said:


> So if there is to be no privacy whatsoever on the Internet. That must mean that:
> 
> *You book sales numbers and all the royalties you receive are common knowledge to everyone
> *All your banking transactions are common knowledge to everyone
> ...


This is all true. It is naive to think otherwise.

No it's not open to "everyone", that part is a serious strawman. But if you think_ anything_ you do on the Internet is secure and private, you really haven't opened your eyes.

The only protection you have is that no one really wants your private data at the moment. But if you are targeted, if you become famous or notorious or wanted... all of this becomes discoverable and publishable.

"But there are laws against that...?"

True, but only for those who follow laws.


----------



## AshRonin (May 5, 2013)

RJ06 said:


> My fiance is a computer programmer. He refuses to bank online or via his smartphone. He won't hold very personal conversations via email, IM, or even text. Why? Because (he claims) a good hacker can hack into anything. I think he's a bit paranoid, but there you have it, for what it's worth.


He's probably onto something. A few years ago I logged into my Itunes from my Smartphone while at school. My password on Itunes got stolen and someone charged nearly $100 in stuff for some random game I have never played. I disputed the charges and got my money back but I've had issues with Itunes ever since making me change my PW all the time.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Regardless of whether anything is safe on the internet or not, this event has had a chilling effect on the corner of the internet where romance writers frequent.

Trust is hard to come by these days, wherever you go. This has proven out to be true with romance writers, and I think it's a little sadder for it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2015)

Why are the same arguments being repeated and repeated by different people over and over by different people (and some of the same people) over and over again and again?
Has very side of this issue been discussed?
Of so,
Ho hum


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

So much victim blaming, and it's gross.

No, no forum no matter how gated, is totally safe. People can and do misrepresent themselves all the time, so you never really know who's there or what they're capable of. That's wise to remember, and there are some people who don't. They assume a private forum really is that, and never give a thought to whom they might be revealing things.

*That doesn't describe every single person hurt in this situation.* But even if it did, so what? None of that would change the fact that someone who knows you want nothing to do with her yet uses an alternate persona to interact with you, as happened to many people in this situation, is disgustingly wrong.

What Jane/Jen/Jennifer did was underhanded (whether you believe it was intentionally so or a sort of byproduct, so what?) and people got hurt. Even if every single person had been incredibly naive in this situation (and I promise you that's not the case), so?

If someone walks through the most dangerous part of town in the middle of the night and gets beaten up and robbed, it's easy to scoff without knowing why he was there and say _well, what the heck was doing there, didn't he know better, it was like asking to be robbed._ His presence there doesn't make the mugger any less a criminal.

Also, people misrepresent themselves in face-to-face interactions all the time, too. They lie about who they are and their motivations. If someone's out to dupe you, online or otherwise, you're probably going to get duped. That doesn't mean people should stop gathering online or offline to discuss their interests with the expectation that other members of the group might not run riot over their privacy. 12-step groups are founded on that principle, so we should really stop acting as if groups of writers are stupid and naive for hoping for the same.

It's such an aggravating situation to start with, I don't understand why people feel okay with making it worse with straw men and false assumptions. It grinds me that if she'd been a military science fiction writer interacting with mostly male writers, the whole conversation would be different, with a lot of _how dare she_ and less victim blaming. But women are chiefly the wounded here, so of course they should have known better. :|


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Whether a private group communicates on the internet or not to me is not really the issue, and certainly there is nothing wrong with people meeting privately to discuss business; it happens all the time, and there are even organizations for this. The problem is when the group membership is also anonymous (and exclusive), because you have, I would think, more risk that other members could be acting fraudulently, even if your own actions are completely above-board, in a way that can be very detrimental to you.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Annette_g said:


> I don't think so. I write in various genres and review them too, and Amazon publishes them as long as I disclose that I received a review copy either from the author, publisher or Netgalley. If I forget to mention that, the review doesn't get posted.


If is it not against the rules, then is it ethical? I think it would be hard to objectively and fairly review a book in my particular genre. Everyone has their own bias. It can't be helped. In Jane's case, once she started writing in that genre, could any further reviews be credible?


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Here's the thing. Everyone knows the internet is not a totally secure private place. We KNOW this. And yet we can chose to live in isolation and be paranoid about every little thing and never form online relationships, or we can do the best we can to form a semi-safe place for those connections. Those of us who have private groups and loops have a right to expect our members to behave in an ethical way. We form relationships with these people. We trust them. Some of them become our closest friends. I've personally met my two best friends in online forums. These are real people, real lives, real feelings. 

Most of the stuff we talk about isn't going to ruin us, but it also isn't for public consumption. If someone breaks that trust, then it hurts. We have a right to be angry about that. Telling us it's our fault for being naive is counterproductive and unnecessary.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

For the record, I think people who abuse the trust of others are unethical and the people they damage are *not *the ones at fault for trusting them. The blame is still on the person who lies and cheats.

It is a warning though, to think very carefully about what you share.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

What Jane/Jen did wasn't analogous to a faceless hacker breaking in and stealing data.

She didn't try to take from strangers. She cloaked herself in a secret identity in order to glean information from members of her own community. She had to disguise herself because she knew she would not be accepted if she showed up as the woman who had bullied, intimidated, or in some cases gleefully destroyed some members of those groups.

Furthermore, she not only accepted help from people who would never have given it to her in her true form, she also put them further at risk of trouble, cost, embarrassment, or loss of career by engaging in discussions which are now discoverable under the rules of evidence.

It isn't a matter of telling a victim she shouldn't have worn that (been on the internet) if she didn't want to be assaulted (hacked). The victims were in their safe place, not strutting it on the streets, and the perp broke in through subterfuge.

Just because someone _can _be a jerk or even a criminal doesn't make everyone else a fool if a crime or jerkitude happens to them. It makes the perp a jerk or a criminal.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Anne Victory said:


> I am not okay with the fact that she basically catfished author groups, nor am I okay with an industry professional in the vein of an acquiring editor or similar joining closed groups without disclosing who they are. And, finally, Jane has in many instances set herself up as the arbiter of author behavior. She has, many times, castigated authors for "behaving badly," and not always justifiably. In some cases she has been wrong, but yet no apology nor retraction was offered.


I have two problems with this whole thread despite waiting for answers to pop up without me having to look stupid asking the questions:

1. what on earth is catfishing?
2. why is no-one talking about timelines?

Ok I'm not really that bothered to defend the integrity of the fish I can buy for a handy price down in Lewisham market, but timelines are important and my memory of Courtney's article (which I can't find at the moment) ignored them. I used to teach history so I guess timelines are just something I'm into, but they do raise a lot of issues about claims being made here and elsewhere.

Courtney claims that Jane exposed others in private author loops to the risks of discovery. Yes up to a point, that point being the launch of the legal case. There is nothing in what we know about Jen's author career to suggest that she began self-publishing after the EC suit, but some of the posts in this thread might lead you to think otherwise. Should Jen have left the loop when the legal case began? Possibly, but would you leave kboards because of something that you thought was a vexatious suit? Maybe you would to protect fellow members, maybe you would stand your ground. I was at a writers meetup recently and having a pleasant chat with an aspiring author who was interning at a publisher and reading submissions. Should I have asked her to leave the room?

There are claims that some discussion of the ECvDA case took place with Jen in the loop. That could have been avoided if Jen had left the loop when the suit transpired, but if Jen was still trying to maintain the anonymity of her pen name from DA readers then leaving might have been difficult and saying "no comment as this case may come to court" would definitely have been a tad difficult to explain.

There are claims in the OP that Jane rounded on authors over ethics, but no timelines. Did she continue to do so after NaNoWriMo 2012 or is this in the preceding 8(?) years. Timelines matter.

Courtney has answered points about discovery in a very general sense, but has left unanswered what to this non-US non-lawyer looks like a gaping hole in the article - what exactly from a non-defendant would be non-redacted in any discovery documents delivered from transcripts of a loop?

The reason that the timelines are so important is that claims that Jen endangered fellow authors is (excuse the pun) disingenuous if referring to the time before EC sued and possibly also after the time that EC sued. In terms of before the suit that is like saying that because I write non-fiction exposes that I endanger every member of kboards because at some stage in my career I may be sued. Courtney as a lawyer should have known what would be the result of dropping this catfish among the non-legally trained pigeons. Possibly she and not Jane Litte is the lawyer that should have known better.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Re: Timelines. 

Jane was in author loops acting as Jen PRIOR to her posting on DA about Ellora's Cave. 

She also self published prior to her post about Ellora's Cave, or the ensuing lawsuit. 

Given these facts, Courtney has said that conversations authors had ABOUT Ellora's Cave in private author loops, where Jane/Jen was present, are subject to discovery. She has explained why many many times, with far more patience than I have. 

Did Jane know she would be sued when she joined author loops? No, the EC stuff was far into the future. That's why the EC stuff is just ONE consequence of deception that started a long time ago. 

A simple Google search of the term "catfishing" yields this definition: "to lure (someone) into a relationship by means of a fictional online persona."

ETA: oh, and yes, Jane still went after authors after she started self publishing. Again, these are not my stories to tell but the internet is forever. 
Eta2: I will say that not only did she continue to go after other authors once she was an author herself, but she also went after authors in HER subgenre.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> ...but timelines are important and my memory of Courtney's article (which I can't find at the moment) ignored them.


Since you can't seem to find what I wrote, here it is: http://smartb*tchestrashybooks.com/2015/03/answering-questions-jane-littejen-frederick/comment-page-7/#comment-255825
(EDIT: or a bitly link which takes care of the filtered word http://bit.ly/1Ii2zVW --Betsy /edit)

Here's what I specifically said about timing:



> Jane spent six months on authors' loops not disclosing that a court could compel her to put everything said in front of her about Ellora's Cave in front of Tina Engler.





Mercia McMahon said:


> Courtney claims that Jane exposed others in private author loops to the risks of discovery. Yes up to a point, that point being the launch of the legal case.


I have never claimed that Jane imposed a burden on anyone except once she was sued. The only thing I called her out on was the six-month lag between being sued and her reveal.



Mercia McMahon said:


> There is nothing in what we know about Jen's author career to suggest that she began self-publishing after the EC suit, but some of the posts in this thread might lead you to think otherwise. Should Jen have left the loop when the legal case began?


Abso-freaking-lutely yes she should have. This is not hard. When NINC was informed that Harlequin planned to subpoena emails from their loop, they IMMEDIATELY informed members of this fact. That is what responsible people do--they inform people so that people can make wise decisions. If they don't wish to inform them, they stop putting them at risk.

Might leaving loops have resulted in some consequences for Jane? Well, yes. I'm sure it would have. People might have asked why she left the loop, and she might have had to respond, "I needed to get away and concentrate on other things for a little bit."



Mercia McMahon said:


> Courtney has answered points about discovery in a very general sense, but has left unanswered what to this non-US non-lawyer looks like a gaping hole in the article - what exactly from a non-defendant would be non-redacted in any discovery documents delivered from transcripts of a loop?


Maybe you really should have read my post again. If you'd done that, you'd have realized that it was a comment on someone's blog, and not a comprehensive article, and so obviously wasn't intended to be the be-all end-all on US discovery. You might also have realized that the only information I mentioned being at risk was information directly relevant to Ellora's Cave. Parties might end up redacting personal information shared that was not relevant to the case, but the specific situation I mentioned--that people would have their private communications about Ellora's Cave exposed--is one where the information is directly relevant, material, and probative, and wouldn't be redacted.

I did not claim that any other information would be exposed to scrutiny.



Mercia McMahon said:


> Courtney as a lawyer should have known what would be the result of dropping this catfish among the non-legally trained pigeons. Possibly she and not Jane Litte is the lawyer that should have known better.


This reminds me of something. Oh, yes:



Mercia McMahon said:


> ...timelines are important and my memory of Courtney's article (*which I can't find at the moment*) ignored them.


As a general rule, if you're going to nitpick and question someone's ethics, do look up their original post. Because slamming someone on the basis of things that you've imputed to them, but that they didn't say, makes you look sloppy at best.

_Edited to add bitly link that wouldn't work because it was filtered. This post was not subject to moderation--sorry for any confusion. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

Man! I wish KBoards had a Like button.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks, locking this while we have a chat about it in the smoke filled room in Admin.

Courtney, I and I'm sure most members appreciate the time you've taken to try to help clarify some of the legal questions that have been posed here in the thread. Thank you.

_(Edited to add: The following is NOT directed at Courtney who has been everlastingly courteous and patient in this thread--apparently at least one member misunderstood.)_

As for the thread itself; if it's devolved to attacking members here instead of discussing the issues involved in the original post, perhaps the thread has jumped the shark. This is the third time I've felt compelled to lock the thread.

If anyone has a compelling reason why this thread should stay open--if there are any questions yet unanswered--please feel free to PM me so we can include that information in our discussion.

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm going to reopen this thread as we're on holiday staffing, and rather than close off the discussion, I'm going to open it.

Because I'm the only one here and because we've had multiple issues with this thread, there's going to be zero tolerance.  No name calling, no disrespecting your fellow members, including their interest in the topic.  If I have to edit your post or delete your post, you're going to be placed on post moderation.

If you don't think this needs to be discussed, fine.  Don't discuss it.  Lots of other threads.  

I realize there is some basic disagreement on some of the issues.  That's fine.  Let me say to both sides:  people are allowed to disagree.

Civility, folks.  Let's give it a try.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Brenna said:


> *You book sales numbers and all the royalties you receive are common knowledge to everyone
> *All your banking transactions are common knowledge to everyone
> *Every email you send will become common knowledge to everyone
> *Every Facebook IM or Google chat and all the comments are eventually common knowledge to everyone


Not that long ago several certificates and router/server softwares were compromised, opening up the banking, credit card and address information of millions of people free for the having. You could look it up in your web browser and some of it was even listed on various search engines. No need for hacking, there. Yahoo, tumblr and Ebay were compromised last year as well, and huge amounts of passwords linked to email address of various origins where also outed. This made the evening news here, as well as most broadsheets I read. I doubt that was different in the USA.

If you aren't aware of the fact that your Facebook, Google and email communications are routinely (!) scanned for information particular to those services (or that of several agencies) and also are wide open to employees of these companies then you know so now. They are and you can read it up on the TOS and privacy statements of these entities, the ones you were supposed to read when you signed up.

Every forum owner who maintains their own forum, every server admin and every host can look into your private PMs with little more than a few clicks of their mouse or simply by having them printed out. That's not criminal either, because such communication rarely is privileged the way your postal mail would be.



LKRigel said:


> What Jane/Jen did wasn't analogous to a faceless hacker breaking in and stealing data.
> 
> She didn't try to take from strangers. She cloaked herself in a secret identity in order to glean information from members of her own community. She had to disguise herself because she knew she would not be accepted if she showed up as the woman who had bullied, intimidated, or in some cases gleefully destroyed some members of those groups.
> 
> ...


Comparing pointing out basic carelessness to the victim blaming of rape/abuse survivors is in my opinion rather tactless towards these survivors.

I at least never alleged that Jane was analogous to a faceless hacker. I very clearly stated that it is very easy to impersonate someone else, from another IP, another continent, another computer with minimal effort. This is available even at low or no cost to everyone who wants to do that. It's also not difficult and this is internet 101. It's not specialised knowledge.

If you know (or should by all means know) that you can be overheard by parties you do not wish to overhear certain things and you voice these things anyway, then you are careless. While it certainly isn't acceptable behaviour for someone to eavesdrop on you, or to disguise themselves as someone else, that doesn't make your own behaviour any less careless. This is not an either/or equation. Nor is pointing out carelessness minimising the wrongfulness of such behaviour as Jane's.

If you want to keep certain things private you need to take appropriate measures to do so. That is only possible when you know and actualise where you lacked prudence.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> For the record, I think people who abuse the trust of others are unethical and the people they damage are *not *the ones at fault for trusting them. The blame is still on the person who lies and cheats.
> 
> It is a warning though, to think very carefully about what you share.


In a nutshell. These are, as I pointed out, two different things.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Dsg said:


> Re: Timelines.
> 
> Jane was in author loops acting as Jen PRIOR to her posting on DA about Ellora's Cave.
> 
> ...


If you read Courtney's comment immediately after your own you will see that Courtney disagrees with you (although she is responding to me, not you) and claims that she never made any claims that pre-suit conversations would be subject to discovery. I'm inclined to agree with you rather than Courtney on that point. If there is a discovery risk at all it I would have thought that it was in terms of how information was gathered prior to the (in EC's eyes) offending article. I know that Courtney has made that point many times, but to my mind she had not explained it. She certainly did not explain it in the post that produces a broken link from kboards (thanks for the fix Betsy). Just because Courtney is legally trained does not make her comments on legal matters fact, if it did a lot of lawyers are going to be on welfare very soon as apparently its a simple matter of uncontested fact (ever read a courtroom drama?). My criticism is of this thread jumping to conclusions on the basis of a comment that Courtney made while she was still trying to untangle matters in her own mind and then others making untimelined accusations against Jane who is already vulnerable to legal action.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Anne Victory said:


> As some people know, a fairly big thing happened in Romancelandia recently. To summarize, Jane Litte of Dear Author (a major influencer in the Romance genre) is also writing Romance under a pen name, Jen Frederick. As Jen Frederick, she joined closed author groups, some of which had declined to allow her entrance as Jane Litte. Further, she is currently embroiled in a legal battle with Ellora's Cave, and so anything which she sees or hears as either Jane or Jen is open to discoverability, regardless of whether the author wished to be involved or not. Also, a sizable defense fund was raised for her (I believe over $30,000), with the contributors not knowing that she was also writing. Many have said they would have contributed regardless, some have said they would not have. Regardless, they didn't have the information with which to make that choice.
> 
> I've pasted links below to some blog posts about the situation.
> 
> ...


+1

_Edited to add bitly link for link broken by filtered word. --Betsy_


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Courtney Milan said:


> Since you can't seem to find what I wrote, here it is: http://smartb*tchestrashybooks.com/2015/03/answering-questions-jane-littejen-frederick/comment-page-7/#comment-255825
> (EDIT: or a bitly link which takes care of the filtered word http://bit.ly/1Ii2zVW --Betsy /edit)
> ...
> As a general rule, if you're going to nitpick and question someone's ethics, do look up their original post. Because slamming someone on the basis of things that you've imputed to them, but that they didn't say, makes you look sloppy at best.
> ...


As you can see from the above Courtney I could not find your article because kboards had altered the link in the OP and altered it again when you reentered it in your most recent comment. I did not question your ethics, but your wisdom. Clearly I was too subtle (the problem of being more used to the seminar room than the courtroom) so I will set out the definition of my use of catfishing.

While still untangling things in your own mind you dropped a complex legal argument that some of your legal colleagues might contest into a discussion already overheated and dominated by those without legal training. This has led to your comment being cited as knockdown proof by those who by their own admission on this thread have prior grievances against Jane.

I was not questioning your ethics, but your wisdom, however as an old hand at getting people to reveal things online to aid my research, that was rather revealing about where you are feeling the pressure. You know your law, although your legal colleagues are free to contest the interpretation, but with great power comes great responsibility. You should have seen the danger of starting an avalanche because so many in the romance community take your word on the law as law. When that is added in to the pitchforks already then being gathered against Jane/Jen (and in this thread brought to kboards) I think that your legal intervention was unwise, but not unethical.

Maybe you should consider writing an article and untangle your thoughts a little further. At least a link to your blog should not be altered by the kboards filter.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Maia said:


> ETA: Sorry - I see you covered this point in the OP. I was responding to your later comment: "I honestly don't think the situation has much to do with the lawsuit"
> 
> I was also surprised no one posted this here. I agree with most of your statement, Anne, except for your point about the fundraiser. It's my belief that the situation for the fund was misrepresented. Had it been revealed that not only does Jane Litte run a review/industry blog, she's also a USA Today bestselling author (in a writing partnership with an NYT bestselling author and tangentially a competitor to Ellora's Cave), I would not have donated. I can understand the people who say it doesn't change their decision. But it does change mine, and a number of other people have said the same thing.
> 
> I believe the fund is closer to $55k: http://www.gofundme.com/DA-DefenseFund.


+1

And that fund makes me sick to my stomach. It also goes to show the unfair leverage she has always had and used, which includes when she has wrongfully attacked authors, sometimes for very same thing she has done here.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Atunah said:


> I am just a reader and I read Dear Author on a daily basis. Along with SBTB and other romance site. I am a huge romance reader and I like to know whats going on in that genre. I also am not totally sheltered. I never thought of such huge book bloggers as purely readers. I think its very clear they have connections. I just don't see any issues with someone having those connections. I am not a blind sheep to be lead to the books. . I mean its just a part of everything I read as a reader.
> 
> I am also not a "fan" of anyone and I never seen in all my years reading the blog daily of any "fans" targeting any authors. Unless of course lower rated reviews are now somehow considered targeting. To me they are just opinions like any other review. Some are more helpful than others.
> 
> ...


It's hard to stay in the loop on all things. Sadly, this include things such as authors being attacked, and I don't mean authors getting negative reviews. That happens. I'm talking about carpet-bombing books with 1 stars while admitting they have never and will never read the book. I'm talking about shelving books as "Someone should castrate this author. I'm talking about making fun of an author's mental illness or her child's disability--which has nothing to do with the authors books. Those are some thing I wish I had been out of the loop on. Seems we can all be out of the loop on some things, and sometimes we just assume we aren't out of the loop on others. FTR, I'm not saying Jane personally said/did any of those things; I'm merely stating these are the kind of things that happen, and those are the kind of things people are referring to when they say "targeting". No one is calling a fair negative review to targeting. We are talking specifically about personal attacks an organized groups one-starring books they haven't even read for the sole purpose of "detroying the author's career" (using words that have been said by those people, not my interpretation of the invents. Actual words that have been said by THEM.)


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I'm actually more sympathetic to Jane Litte in all this than I am to the writers who were supposedly harmed. It's not unusual for people to write under a pseudonym in order to mask their identity--writers do it all the time, for all sorts of different reasons. Shouldn't Jane Litte be able to do the same? So she runs an influential review blog. So what?
> 
> In today's world of unprecedented interconnectedness, I don't believe for a second that a single person has the power to singlehandedly destroy someone's career.
> 
> _Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


I think it's worth noting, however, that very likely the reason she didn't out herself as Jen (which would have gotten her more support from the readers of her blog) is because of how awful she has treated SO many authors (which would have gotten her many scathing reviews from authors who wish to give her a taste of her own medicine--which would have been WRONG of them, just as her action were wrong, but she knew had and would continue to behave that way, and she knew plenty of people don't care if it's wrong to retaliate) So she was just protecting herself. Yes. Can't say I blame her. But she was protecting herself so she could keep hurting others on her whims. No, she cannot single-handedly destroy someone's career. Maybe with help of fans willing to give her 50,000 she could? But if an author has what it takes, they can bounce back from the damage.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

LKRigel said:


> How is the second grade teacher who loses her job when the district finds out she writes erotica for fun and profit benefited by growing a thicker skin?


I read through these threads and don't won't why comments like these are ignored. You made a point. Confronting your point would force them to admit they are wrong. Instead of being concerned about what is right, they are concerned about falsely continuing to believe they are right, and so they ignore comments like yours. So we know why it happens. But it's rather disappointing that it does. Your point was well made.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2015)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Can't say that I have. Not really sure the relevance of it though. I simply said I personally had no problem with her pen name and that most of the behavior she's called out in the past are behaviors I'm not particularly fond of either. That's pretty much the extent of my opinion on this matter.


She calls out behaviors you aren't fond of. Some of those behaviors are one she is engaging in herself. But it's okay if she does it. And it's okay if she lied about other people doing it, took things out of context on purpose to make someone look bad, but then she ACTUALLY did those same things. Your problem is only with the PERCEIVED behavior of other authors, as she points it out, not with the ACTUAL behavior of the person pointing the finger. Okay, I think I see where you're coming from....


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

TheForeverGirlSeries said:


> I read through these threads and don't won't why comments like these are ignored. You made a point. Confronting your point would force them to admit they are wrong. Instead of being concerned about what is right, they are concerned about falsely continuing to believe they are right, and so they ignore comments like yours. So we know why it happens. But it's rather disappointing that it does. Your point was well made.


Rebecca--

you are coming into a thread that has been in progress quite a while now--and has had lots of drama. There have been discussions that derailed the thread and they have been removed, for the most part. I encourage you to read through the entire thread before replying to posts from several days ago so that you can catch up with the entire thread.

EDIT: PM me if you have any questions about this so as to not derail the current conversation in the thread.

Betsy


----------



## DanaG (Feb 13, 2011)

TheForeverGirlSeries said:


> It's hard to stay in the loop on all things. Sadly, this include things such as authors being attacked, and I don't mean authors getting negative reviews. That happens. I'm talking about carpet-bombing books with 1 stars while admitting they have never and will never read the book. I'm talking about shelving books as "Someone should castrate this author. I'm talking about making fun of an author's mental illness or her child's disability--which has nothing to do with the authors books. Those are some thing I wish I had been out of the loop on. Seems we can all be out of the loop on some things, and sometimes we just assume we aren't out of the loop on others. FTR, I'm not saying Jane personally said/did any of those things; I'm merely stating these are the kind of things that happen, and those are the kind of things people are referring to when they say "targeting". No one is calling a fair negative review to targeting. We are talking specifically about personal attacks an organized groups one-starring books they haven't even read for the sole purpose of "detroying the author's career" (using words that have been said by those people, not my interpretation of the invents. Actual words that have been said by THEM.)


This is a thread discussing Jane Litte, so how is it relevant to bring up troll attacks which she's never carried out?


----------



## DanaG (Feb 13, 2011)

TheForeverGirlSeries said:


> I think it's worth noting, however, that very likely the reason she didn't out herself as Jen (which would have gotten her more support from the readers of her blog) is because of how awful she has treated SO many authors (which would have gotten her many scathing reviews from authors who wish to give her a taste of her own medicine--which would have been WRONG of them, just as her action were wrong, but she knew had and would continue to behave that way, and she knew plenty of people don't care if it's wrong to retaliate) So she was just protecting herself. Yes. Can't say I blame her. But she was protecting herself so she could keep hurting others on her whims. No, she cannot single-handedly destroy someone's career. Maybe with help of fans willing to give her 50,000 she could? But if an author has what it takes, they can bounce back from the damage.


You're continuing to post a lot of speculation rather than facts - such as your assumptions for why she didn't identify her blog name on the forums she was a member of. When I started publishing and was still working full time I NEVER posted my real name on any forum. I didn't do it for any nefarious reasons. My author life and my professional life were separate. They have nothing to do with each other. I worked at a hospital, I wrote romance novels, there was no reason to connect the two. I know many, many authors, I literally don't know any who write under their real name, nor do I know any who write under a pen name and then go around announcing and publicizing their real name - kind of defeats the point of using a pen name.

She uses her real name to practice as an attorney, she uses a pseudonym to blog, as do many bloggers, and she uses another name as a pen name.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you rather than Courtney on that point.


Lol, well, don't. Courtney's a lawyer who has followed the case closely and knows people directly involved. And she's hella smart. Clearly, a helluva lot smarter than me.

If you'd rather believe me over Courtney? Well, willful ignorance isn't a crime, but maybe it should be. Listen to Courtney on the legal stuff, people.


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

Dsg said:


> Lol, well, don't. Courtney's a lawyer who has followed the case closely and knows people directly involved. And she's hella smart. Clearly, a helluva lot smarter than me.
> 
> If you'd rather believe me over Courtney? Well, willful ignorance isn't a crime, but maybe it should be. Listen to Courtney on the legal stuff, people.


Yes, Please please listen to Courtney. She a been breaking this down for us non legal savvy people from the beginning. She absolutely knows what she is taking about.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Mercia McMahon said:


> If you read Courtney's comment immediately after your own you will see that Courtney disagrees with you (although she is responding to me, not you) and claims that she never made any claims that pre-suit conversations would be subject to discovery. I'm inclined to agree with you rather than Courtney on that point. If there is a discovery risk at all it I would have thought that it was in terms of how information was gathered prior to the (in EC's eyes) offending article.


You're conflating two things.

1. What is discoverable? Answer: Just about anything that can potentially give rise to material that has relevance on the claim, a rule that in the US is broadly construed. So both pre-suit and post-suit materials are discoverable.

Jane has already subpoenaed a third party whose only contribution was post-suit, so it's quite clear that post-suit materials can be discovered.

2. What do I think Jane is ethically responsible for? Answer: Not disclosing post-suit that her presence created a greater risk that things she saw could end up in the lawsuit.

You asked me about #2, not #1. I answered about #2. I didn't fault Jane on discovery issues before Jane had reason to know about discovery issues. It doesn't mean those discovery issues didn't exist, but that she can't be faulted for them.



Mercia McMahon said:


> While still untangling things in your own mind you dropped a complex legal argument that some of your legal colleagues might contest into a discussion already overheated and dominated by those without legal training. This has led to your comment being cited as knockdown proof by those who by their own admission on this thread have prior grievances against Jane.


The things I'm untangling are separate from this.

This is not actually a complex legal argument. The scope of American discovery is massive. I've linked to multiple sources. And I have many, many legally trained colleagues, many of whom are authors. I would love to hear one of them speak up if they disagree. I have not seen any lawyers disagree about my claims about discovery. My claim is quite simple: The things that Jane, as a party, saw, that relate to Ellora's Cave are discoverable. Period.

There are a number of reasons why people tend to respect my legal arguments online, and it's not just that I'm legally trained. One of those is that I generally look up anything before posting. The other is that I tend to qualify when I'm in an area that I haven't had to research. Yet another is that I clerked for Sandra Day O'Connor, which is a claim that very few lawyers can make, period. Yet another is that I was a law professor--although discovery is not my area.

I did not, and do not, think that my claims about the scope of US discovery are remotely controversial. They are also supported by Jane's lawyer's actual submissions in this case. You can insist that my legal colleagues might disagree with me, and that's your right. And to that I say: Great. Let them do it. I'm happy to read anyone who wants to provide evidence that I've misinterpreted the scope of discovery. If you disagree with my claims, try using google and find evidence that refutes what I've posted about FRCP 26.

The community of authors and romance readers has a lot of skill sets in it, including many lawyers. Some of you aren't legally trained, but quite a few are. It's not like authors are a mass of ignorant fools to be led by me. People have no problem disagreeing with me if they do so. Author/lawyers have no issues disagreeing with me, as they've done so in the past. I don't accept your claim that people blindly follow what I say. I mean, look at this thread. People question me all the freaking time, and in response, I provide links and sources.

If I'm wrong, I welcome someone to provide sources in response. And if I'm not, people have a right to know that their conversations are discoverable.

The things I haven't untangled yet have nothing to do with discovery, and rest upon facts that are as yet unknown to me but will come out at a later time.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

TheForeverGirlSeries said:


> It's hard to stay in the loop on all things. Sadly, this include things such as authors being attacked, and I don't mean authors getting negative reviews. That happens. I'm talking about carpet-bombing books with 1 stars while admitting they have never and will never read the book. I'm talking about shelving books as "Someone should castrate this author. I'm talking about making fun of an author's mental illness or her child's disability--which has nothing to do with the authors books. Those are some thing I wish I had been out of the loop on. Seems we can all be out of the loop on some things, and sometimes we just assume we aren't out of the loop on others. FTR, I'm not saying Jane personally said/did any of those things; I'm merely stating these are the kind of things that happen, and those are the kind of things people are referring to when they say "targeting". No one is calling a fair negative review to targeting. We are talking specifically about personal attacks an organized groups one-starring books they haven't even read for the sole purpose of "detroying the author's career" (using words that have been said by those people, not my interpretation of the invents. Actual words that have been said by THEM.)


Since you quoted my whole post with this response. This happened before in this thread where somehow I am not in the loop, or don't understand things, or etc. Just because I don't see things the same as you does not mean I am out of the loop. Sounds slightly condescending. Just a tad. It means that I have a different opinion on how things go down. 
None of these suppose things you are mentioning have anything to do with Jane. As again, Jane pointing out actions of certain authors that might be of interest to the reading community is not an attack. That again is how I see things. You can disagree, but you don't get to tell me I am out of the loop when you don't even know what loops I am in. 

As a reader I want to feel safe stating my opinions on the books I read. If I hated a book, I want to feel as safe as I can to say so. Where is all the outrage of readers being attacked. That is some of the stuff Jane has spoken out about. Do I always agree with everything she says? No. But I do have a brain and I tend to use it most of the time. . But I appreciate being made aware of certain things.

All these accusations of "destroying" an authors career. No clue what any of that has to do with this thread or a blog owner also being an author. Although I have seen quite a few authors destroying their own careers in the last couple of years by their sheer horrible actions towards readers. 
1 stars don't destroy anything, they are a fact in any product that is sold. 1 stars do not destroy any careers. Readers are smarter than that.

As to the shelving of books? Your example first of all is totally made up. We readers wanted to be able to shelve authors we do not every want to read for their actions. Goodreads kind of put a stop to that, but there are still ways. My reader friends just had to get a bit more inventive.

But yet again, none of this has anything to do with Jane or the penname or her blog. Not sure why all these old grievances are being pulled out and put on her head. That is what I mean by piling on. Its like any and all perceived slights or hurts by authors are being aimed at Jane Litte now.

But most disturbing to me is this glee I see from some in this thread. The glee and joy some feel about Jane's (Jen) situation. What exactly does that accomplish.

I for one continue to read my blogs, including DA. I continue to read books and I continue to stay informed about stuff as much as I can. So I can make informed decisions as far as what books I read. I am reading one right now that was recommended on dearauthor. Not by the blogger, but by another reader in the comments. Because that is what these sites to. Readers helping readers. I love the book by the way and would never have found it otherwise. And that is why sites like DA are important to me.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Having read Atunah's post (and her prior posts here), I don't see that she's saying authors or anyone else who reads this don't have the right to be upset by the actions discussed in the original post--the "catfishing" as it is called.

Her comments, and I agree, have to do with bringing up actions unrelated to the activities discussed in the original post and also with expressions of glee that some have expressed here. She's not the only person to have brought this up; authors, too, have also said similar things.

Let's keep the discussion to Anne's original post--Jane's actions as they relate to her using her pen name to gain access to groups closed to Jane Litte; and the possible consequences to other members of these groups because of those actions.

Please see my recent post regarding the moderation that will be occuring in this thread.

Thank you.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

When authors behave badly they should be called out.  Just because Jane/ Jen is the one being called out now doesn't negate the fact that some authors called out previously absolutely deserved it. However I think it's unfair to put on Jane's shoulders the actions of others.  Jane wrote articles and tweeted.  How others choose to react to those articles and tweets I don't feel she can be held responsible for.  None of them called for followers to take any action. 

It's understandable that some authors feel betrayed. But I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't. And I have still yet to see any allegations that she used private conversations from that forum as fodder for her blog.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Brenna said:


> As a reader and a lover of books, of course you are free and welcome to enjoy whatever blog you like. I don't think anyone here expects you to change that. Nor do they expect you to understand why many authors are very upset and affronted by Jane's actions. You have the right to your opinion and to keep on discussing books where you like when you like. However, those perceived "bad behaviors" of authors that you mention in your post? Just consider the source the next time you go to shelve a book there. Was it because the author stalked a blogger and then wrote about it in a news article? Or was it because a new author got the idea to open a kickstarter for her next book that Jane took great umbrage with and went ballistic on her all over Twitter? Are these two things equal in your mind?
> 
> Understand that authors who were victims of JaneJen's catfishing antics have a right to feel hurt, affronted and outraged by her unethical behavior. Understand, also, that there is a very good reason why Jen hid her identity as Jane and it's NOT because of a pen name. It was because she wanted help and to further her own career at the expense of people who would have nothing to do with her otherwise and deservedly so. And it has nothing to do with reviews. It's personal attacks on Twitter, Goodreads and wherever else. It's Jane's persona as the self-appointed author police who steps in whenever she feels the need to do things like (ironically) grill an author on a public forum regarding accusations of being a sock puppet and a plagiarist. Both of which were completely untrue. And yet this woman was approached by Jane with this accusation publicly where anyone can see. There should be consequences for Jane's behavior and yet she felt herself above those consequences by assuming a secret identity to catfish people into helping her. And in doing this, she has now put all of those people at legal risk and exposure and has knowingly done so for over six months without informing anyone (from the date of the lawsuit until the day she revealed herself under duress).
> 
> So yes, authors are angry. Justifiably angry. And it's unfair of anyone here to tell these authors they don't have the right to feel angry, hurt and upset.


Nobody has said that the actual affected authors have no right to be angry. I am not talking about any and all authors that ever got a not so favorable review or have some other pre conceived grief with Jane Little and just using the situation to pile on. I am talking about those that were directly affected by this situation in those super secret loops. But most people here and elsewhere piling on are not those people, many have admitted to never having even read the blog, nor writing or reading romance.

But those authors in particular in those loops, I can see the betrayal there. 
But that is between those authors and Jane. Maybe she apologized, maybe she didn't. Only the parties involved would know. As far as I know they already kicked her out of those loops.

I guess my question is how to go forward from this. I mean what exactly is it that authors want. I seen some want the blog to go away. I hope not as I like the romance blogs. Its really really difficult to sift through the gazillion books in romance right now, sorry but I need some sites to give me some options. I need the honest, if sometimes tough reviews.

I think having a discussion about how things are handled in the future is good. I don't believe for a second that there aren't other new romance writers, especially in the NA genre that are not what they seem in those loops.

I just think that its all getting drowned out by the piling on of any perceived "attack" on an author ever anywhere in the system is being put on that one bloggers head.

As to bad behavior by authors? That is up to me to make up my mind on that. As a reader that pays for her books, I have a right to decide how I pick those books. I know about the kickstarter and my opinion on that is not really relevant for this thread. I also don't agree with your choice of word "ballistic". Which is why there is no point in arguing about these things, because people can read and see the same thing, yet not "see" it the same way. 
And again, it too has really nothing to do with the actual issue here about what is going on. What opinion Jane has on some kickstarter has nothing to do with her having a pen name, getting into groups with authors that wouldn't otherwise let her in and keeping that going for some time.

Which brings me back to me still being baffled that I never heard of that author in the first place. Not by name, not anything. Not on goodreads in my feeds, no on amazon forums, I can't recall ever hearing that name. Just amazing.

eta: I wrote this and took me a while and I just saw Betsy posting 2 posts up.


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

> Which brings me back to me still being baffled that I never heard of that author in the first place. Not by name, not anything. Not on goodreads in my feeds, no on amazon forums, I can't recall ever hearing that name. Just amazing.
> 
> eta: I wrote this and took me a while and I just saw Betsy posting 2 posts up.


I don't know if I already mentioned this, but yeah I never heard of Jen either and I'm pretty deep into romance. Its weird. But then again I don't really read NA so maybe that's why.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

JessA said:


> When authors behave badly they should be called out. Just because Jane/ Jen is the one being called out now doesn't negate the fact that some authors called out previously absolutely deserved it. However I think it's unfair to put on Jane's shoulders the actions of others. Jane wrote articles and tweeted. How others choose to react to those articles and tweets I don't feel she can be held responsible for. None of them called for followers to take any action.
> 
> It's understandable that some authors feel betrayed. But I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't. And I have still yet to see any allegations that she used private conversations from that forum as fodder for her blog.


Just to clarify, what do authors do that earns them the tag of "behaving badly," and therefore deserving of public ridicule? Seriously, I don't know and would like to understand.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Martitalbott said:


> Just to clarify, what do authors do that earns them the tag of "behaving badly," and therefore deserving of public ridicule? Seriously, I don't know and would like to understand.


Well, what Jane has done would have earned them a hearty evisceration at Dear Author.


----------



## AshRonin (May 5, 2013)

JessA said:


> When authors behave badly they should be called out. Just because Jane/ Jen is the one being called out now doesn't negate the fact that some authors called out previously absolutely deserved it. However I think it's unfair to put on Jane's shoulders the actions of others. Jane wrote articles and tweeted. How others choose to react to those articles and tweets I don't feel she can be held responsible for. None of them called for followers to take any action.
> 
> It's understandable that some authors feel betrayed. But I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't. And I have still yet to see any allegations that she used private conversations from that forum as fodder for her blog.


In my opinion. It's one thing to call others out on bad behavior. It's another thing to call others out on bad behavior while simultaneously engaging in bad behavior yourself.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Martitalbott said:


> Just to clarify, what do authors do that earns them the tag of "behaving badly," and therefore deserving of public ridicule? Seriously, I don't know and would like to understand.


If I may be so bold as to humbly suggest, but this might make a good separate thread from this one. 1) It's off-topic here to the OP and 2) it would probably best be discussed in a thread where folks can separate themselves from the emotions here.


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> If I may be so bold as to humbly suggest, but this might make a good separate thread from this one. 1) It's off-topic here to the OP and 2) it would probably best be discussed in a thread where folks can separate themselves from the emotions here.


I second that.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> If I may be so bold as to humbly suggest, but this might make a good separate thread from this one. 1) It's off-topic here to the OP and 2) it would probably best be discussed in a thread where folks can separate themselves from the emotions here.


Quoting the OP: "And, finally, Jane has in many instances set herself up as the arbiter of author behavior. She has, many times, castigated authors for "behaving badly," and not always justifiably."

I think this is right on target. The people who helped her destroy authors should be, and I hope will be, accountable too through the subpoena process. If nothing else, this lawsuit should be a warning to people who think they can remain totally undiscovered, and I hope we are privy to what the subpoenas uncover. In cases such as these, someone almost always posts the contents of lawsuits online and I will be very interested.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

In my mind there are two issues. One is the friending and joining of groups as Jen after she had been declined as Jane. That's just wrong, in my opinion. The fact that that decision then dragged authors into her legal dealings is an unfortunate consequence. But speaking of consequences--it is my opinion that she should have respected the wishes of authors who wanted nothing to do with her because of her own behavior. To do otherwise is unethical.


----------



## JessA (Jul 17, 2014)

Anne Victory said:


> In my mind there are two issues. One is the friending and joining of groups as Jen after she had been declined as Jane. That's just wrong, in my opinion. The fact that that decision then dragged authors into her legal dealings is an unfortunate consequence. But speaking of consequences--it is my opinion that she should have respected the wishes of authors who wanted nothing to do with her because of her own behavior. To do otherwise is unethical.


Serious question. Is it possible that she assumed she'd been declined not because of a personal problem with her but because she applied as a blogger and not an author? But then that raises the question why didn't she inform them as to who she actually was? I need to go read her letter again and see if it's in there.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Jess, I suppose it's possible. I can't read her mind. But it's doubtful. I know of more than one author who has declined to talk to her regarding stories that I felt should have gotten some daylight (had to do with questionable ethics regarding people using Amazon's review system to strong-arm authors into giving them work as proofreaders--and what do you say about that other than "Gross"?). Reasons cited were they'd been burned by her before, didn't trust her due to her treatment of some authors, etc. and so forth. 

As for the original letter with the reveal--I didn't see it in there. It read (to me) as a very general letter that really didn't address any of the  squickier bits of her behavior and tried to whitewash the whole thing as much as possible. On its face value, it makes the whole situation seem like No Big Deal. Not that I blame her for trying to downplay it, but yeah. There's not much info to be had there.


----------



## PatriceFitz (Jan 8, 2011)

I want to raise my hand here as an author, publisher, and intellectual property attorney who is NOT an expert on discovery, but nevertheless has a good basic knowledge of the subject from law school and from practicing law with the Federal government, in several multinational corporations, and in my own private practice.  The way Courtney has described the expansiveness of U.S. discovery in civil cases is consistent with my experience.  Whether some disagree with that scope, or don't think it's quite as serious as it's been described, I can assure you that her characterization is accurate and indisputable by anyone trained in U.S. law.  

Which is not to say that we know how a particular judge will rule on the specifics, or how the parties and their attorneys will proceed.  But the fact is that all this material is "discoverable," with that word being used as a legal term of art.

Additional disclosure: I'm not a romance author (though I publish one author who writes romance).  I write sci-fi and, so far, one political thriller.  I've had no dealings with Jane/Jen, or Courtney Milan, for that matter.  No dog in this fight at all.  

What holds the most interest for me are the underlying questions stemming from the lawsuit and how this will play out over time in the ongoing rodeo that is today's publishing environment.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

DanaG said:


> This is a thread discussing Jane Litte, so how is it relevant to bring up troll attacks which she's never carried out?


To make the point that just because people don't see things happen doesn't mean they don't. And Jane has participated in things such as these. But since she's part of such a large group, it's hard to remember which exact offenses are hers and which were just people from her group. I don't want to falsely accuse her of something *specific* that might have just been something she played a smaller role in.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Atunah said:


> Since you quoted my whole post with this response. This happened before in this thread where somehow I am not in the loop, or don't understand things, or etc. Just because I don't see things the same as you does not mean I am out of the loop. Sounds slightly condescending. Just a tad. It means that I have a different opinion on how things go down.
> None of these suppose things you are mentioning have anything to do with Jane. As again, Jane pointing out actions of certain authors that might be of interest to the reading community is not an attack. That again is how I see things. You can disagree, but you don't get to tell me I am out of the loop when you don't even know what loops I am in.
> 
> As a reader I want to feel safe stating my opinions on the books I read. If I hated a book, I want to feel as safe as I can to say so. Where is all the outrage of readers being attacked. That is some of the stuff Jane has spoken out about. Do I always agree with everything she says? No. But I do have a brain and I tend to use it most of the time. . But I appreciate being made aware of certain things.
> ...


I'm not making these things up. Yes, goodreads put a stop to it. See? They had to step in and do something because these types of shelves WERE being created. All I'm saying is by YOUR own admission, you don't see everything that happens. So you are writing off things as "that didn't happen" just because you didn't see it. Many of us HAVE seen it. We are basing our opinion the same way we are--based on what we've seen. It just so happens we've seen more.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Martitalbott said:


> Just to clarify, what do authors do that earns them the tag of "behaving badly," and therefore deserving of public ridicule? Seriously, I don't know and would like to understand.


Well of course. If an author "behaves badly" according to someone's opinion, it's okay for people to make up lies about them. Wait, no, that's not right.Yet, somehow that idea is defended. What's sad is some authors were flamed for "behaving badly" for things they never even did. Is that okay? Some apparently think it is. I do not.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

TheForeverGirlSeries said:


> I'm not making these things up. Yes, goodreads put a stop to it. See? They had to step in and do something because these types of shelves WERE being created. All I'm saying is by YOUR own admission, you don't see everything that happens. So you are writing off things as "that didn't happen" just because you didn't see it. Many of us HAVE seen it. We are basing our opinion the same way we are--based on what we've seen. It just so happens we've seen more.


Last time I am going to post here. Again, I did no such thing as have any admission of not seeing everything. I never even mentioned seeing everything. Nobody can see everything, not even you. What I said was that I saw the things brought up and I look at them a different way. Its called having a different opinion. Where some see attacks, I do not. Its as simple as that. We all have opinions and neither of us gets to tell the other they are wrong in how they see things. Just not how it works.

So please respect my right to have seen the things and just "see" them as you do. Its condescending for you to keep saying that you see more just because I don't agree with your assessments. 
But keep going in circles. Just don't put words in my posts, its all I ask.

I am going back to reading my blogs.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2015)

Atunah said:


> Since you quoted my whole post with this response. This happened before in this thread where somehow I am not in the loop, or don't understand things, or etc. Just because I don't see things the same as you does not mean I am out of the loop. Sounds slightly condescending. Just a tad. It means that I have a different opinion on how things go down.
> None of these suppose things you are mentioning have anything to do with Jane. As again, Jane pointing out actions of certain authors that might be of interest to the reading community is not an attack. That again is how I see things. You can disagree, but you don't get to tell me I am out of the loop when you don't even know what loops I am in.
> 
> As a reader I want to feel safe stating my opinions on the books I read. If I hated a book, I want to feel as safe as I can to say so. Where is all the outrage of readers being attacked. That is some of the stuff Jane has spoken out about. Do I always agree with everything she says? No. But I do have a brain and I tend to use it most of the time. . But I appreciate being made aware of certain things.
> ...


Also, the whole "glee" thing. Well, Jane and her followers found a lot of "glee" in "outing" authors for behaving badly--sometimes based on FALSE claims. What was accomplished in that? It actually makes more sense to me that people who were ATTACKED would feel RELIEF that some kind of justice (even if not directly) might possibly finally be served. It's not uncommon for victims of friends/family of victims or even bystanders who know what happened to victims to feel a sense of relief that karma came around the perpetrator. It may not always be the direct justice they were after, but to me, this makes a lot more sense than the glee the attackers had while attacking. As I said before, by your own admission, you didn't see everything. Neither have I. But I've clearly seen things you have not, and I believe if you saw those things, you would feel differently. I respect that you feel as you do based on your limited scope. I feel as I do based on my own scope, which is likely also more limited than some others here, but yet, it is broader than yours, as you admit you have not seen things which I have seen. See what I mean? It's not at all intended to be condescending. It's just fact. We've all seen things, some more than others. We're all basing opinions on what we've seen. Not seeing something doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's the summation of the issue.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Let's get back to the discussion of the OP.  Agree to disagree on your issue.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I just wanted to thank Betsy for working so hard to keep this thread open. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, I felt it was important for people to know about it.


----------

