Skip to content

Don’t Do This Ever: “Dear Ethics” edition

Posted in Uncategorized

Recently, Jane Litte, of the super popular book review blog Dear Author, revealed that she’s not just a blogger, but Jen Frederick, a best-selling New Adult author with eight published novels and a movie deal to her name. Litte and her site get talked about, a lot. Some people love Dear Author and the community of readers who comment there. Some people hate the site, and Litte, due to various run-ins with the site and readership over the years. And some people, like me, go to the site to find out what books are free or on sale any given day, and occasionally read blog articles and either agree or disagree, but generally without “picking sides.”

Yes, we’re about to discuss drama happening in the book world that I have not “picked a side” on. I’ll give you a moment to recover from your shock.

My personal stance on the issue is that I’m happy for Jane Litte’s success and I’m a bit gleeful that a certain website now has to accept that she’s not a jealous hater born from the frustrated ashes of a thwarted literary career. I’m also one of the people who can see why her ethics have come into question, and that it’s possible to do that questioning without it being a matter of a personal vendetta or an attempt to sabotage an author’s career.

Reviews written by authors on the Dear Author site are usually labelled with a disclaimer stating that the person writing the review is an author. Now, clearly I have no problem reviewing the works of other authors. Look around the blog you’re reading right now. I don’t believe that the moment you become an author, you lose all right to criticize and become obligated to unquestioningly support other authors. But a situation like this falls into an ethical sore spot. This wasn’t an author reviewing books, this was an author pretending to not be an author while reviewing those books. There might not seem like much of a difference, but there is, and people are right to question it, especially in the wake of allegations that Litte didn’t just keep mum about her author identity, but actively represented herself to the book blogging community as a wholly separate person.

As an author who reviews–and let’s be honest, my reviews are impossibly long, incredibly detailed, and usually blisteringly harsh–I’m aware that my blogging absolutely has an effect on my career and readership. There are consequences for everything you write as an author/blogger, and you accept those bad things with all the good things. But Litte tried to keep the views she expressed as a reader from impacting her writing career, and I feel like that’s poor form. I’m not saying that authors have to tell readers all their deepest, darkest secrets, but if there’s a conflict of interest in something they’re doing (for example, an author reviewing books in her own genre without disclosing that she is an author, or that author’s books showing up in deal and recommendation posts on her blog, as happened at Dear Author), then they should be upfront about that.

So, people have a right to be upset about this news. Yes, there are people who dislike Litte on a personal level, and their criticism of the situation is worded strongly. But that doesn’t make their criticism less valid just because it isn’t couched in careful language. There are some who now seek to defend Litte by accusing those asking questions of having a vendetta against her, creating a “Be Nice” quagmire in which anyone who isn’t thrilled about the news is a hater or a troll. As author Olivia Waite wrote, “I AM angry that I’m expected to be uncritically happy about this news, though, if I want to be seen as nice.” 

Did Jane Litte go about conducting her dual careers in an unethical way? I agree with those who are saying yes. Does that mean I hate her, have harbored a long-time grudge against her, and will stop at nothing to destroy her and everything Dear Author stands for? No, and I actually like Jane Litte based on the occasional interaction I’ve had with her, despite disagreements I’ve had with some views expressed on her site. Am I happy that Dear Author isn’t going away, and that Jen Frederick is enjoying the success of bestselling books and a movie deal? Sure, why not be happy for an author who’s succeeding? It’s entirely possible to be happy that a good thing has happened for another author without supporting every single thing they’ve said or done, and it’s also possible to be happy that Dear Author isn’t shutting down while simultaneously recognizing that the site must now implement and adhere to new policies in order to operate in good faith with its readership.

The “us vs. them” mentality that has sprung up around this incident is disheartening, because this isn’t an “us vs. them” situation. It’s a clear case of an author/blogger making unethical choices. Yes, even if she didn’t intend for it to happen this way. Yes, even if she didn’t review her book on her blog.  And no, the criticism she is receiving isn’t invalid because some of it is coming from people who don’t care for her on a personal level. These criticisms aren’t going to destroy Jen Frederick’s career, nor are they intended for that purpose.

As a post script, for those who are saying they now feel cheated for having supported the DA Legal Defense Fund: I have no patience for you. You donated money because a blogger was being slapped with a groundless libel lawsuit by a publisher who was angry that their bad business practices were brought to light. You donated money because you objected to the actions of Ellora’s Cave, not because you thought Jane Litte wasn’t an author or her bank account balance was smaller than you estimated. You donated that money to send a message to Ellora’s Cave and any other publisher in the future who thinks they can silence voices in the romance community with threats of litigation. Jane Litte being an author doesn’t change the impact of that lawsuit, so why should you now feel that you’ve been tricked? The underlying issue has not changed.

The takeaway from all of this is that readers (and fellow authors) want transparency. Authors want to know that if we submit a book for a review request, we’re going to get a fair review, and not one that’s influenced by the fact that we’re in competition with an author or their publisher. Readers want to know that the reviews they’re reading aren’t influenced by those same factors. Bloggers and readers both want to know that books they’re purchasing or accepting for review aren’t written by someone they have a negative opinion about and don’t feel comfortable promoting or financially supporting. And they certainly have a right to feel hurt or betrayed when an author whose online presence they’re following and engaging with turns out to be a different person entirely. So when it comes to secret author identities, think hard about what you should be disclosing. Seeing a conflict of interest and ignoring the implications until your success becomes too large to continue the dual life? Don’t do that, ever.

Did you enjoy this post?

Trout Nation content is always free, but you can help keep things going by making a small donation via Ko-fi!

Or, consider becoming a Patreon patron!

Here for the first time because you’re in quarantine and someone on Reddit recommended my Fifty Shades of Grey recaps? Welcome! Consider checking out my own take on the Billionaire BDSM genre, The Boss. Find it on AmazonB&NSmashwords, iBooks, and Radish!

31 Comments

  1. Well-said.

    Also: From the VERY BEGINNING, Jane made clear that donations to the DA defense fund would, if unneeded, go to the Society for Journalists’ Legal Defense Fund (http://www.spj.org/ldf.asp). This is a great cause. If it turns out Jane who is now just ROLLING IN BOOK AND FILM MONEY (which, honestly, I have no clue about — I had a non-fiction book optioned for $2500 once, split with my co-author, and….end of story. Of course $1250 wasn’t BUPKES, but when people viscerally go OMG OPTIONED FOR FILM YOU RIIIICH, uh, well, no, and hello, this has become an insane parenthetical, sorry) does not need my donation, I am very happy to give it to a group that protects the First Amendment and the writers and photographers who are wrongfully arrested/prosecuted for doing their jobs — jobs that keep America free, well-informed and democratic.

    March 27, 2015
    |Reply
    • JennyTrout
      JennyTrout

      That was my feeling too, and I wanted to support the authors that Jane was representing with that post. I haven’t always agreed with the crowd over there–it’s one of my “never read the comments” blogs–but that post did a lot of good in exposing EC.

      March 27, 2015
      |Reply
  2. Deljah
    Deljah

    “Seeing a conflict of interest and ignoring the implications until your success becomes too large to continue the dual life? Don’t do that, ever.”

    AND

    “Seeing a conflict of interest and ignoring the implications until a lawsuit forces you to disclose the dual life? Don’t do that, ever.”

    :o)

    March 27, 2015
    |Reply
  3. Pauline
    Pauline

    This has been asked by a few people to DA but never answered. If this were another author, Jane would have been all over that author, pulling up links, and it would have been a virtual blood bath, dragging that author’s name through the mud. They have continuously shamed and named authors who were caught using a sock puppet and/or catfishing. That author who catfished a blogger comes to mind. Not that I think that was right or ethical, that was wrong as well, however, Jane did the exact same thing.

    She joined author spaces with authors she has been negative to, on Twitter and in her scathing reviews. Friends them as Jen Frederick and gets assistance and help for her own publishing venture? Doesn’t anyone see how creepy and wrong this is? Do her cohorts who helped her with this ruse not see how wrong this is? All her supports things it’s okay that she pulled the wool over so many author’s eyes, authors who would never invite her to be a part of boxed set or part of their author group had they known who Jen really was.

    Not once in her posts have I seen an apology, or owning what she did. I imagine, as a lawyer she probably equates apology to guilt and doesn’t want to go down that road, as perhaps she really doesn’t see what she did as wrong or unethical.

    And that in itself is cause for concern. When a person has misrepresented themselves and then doesn’t own it, or feel she needs to make amends. No, she goes on her merry way and posts on her facebook page as Jen Frederick as if nothing happened.

    I also think she was forced to come out of the murky closet, and think that this never would have seen the light of day had her hand not been forced.

    The authors that partnered with her, and Sarah at SBTB who know about her secret identity are as unethical as Jane as they helped her keep this private.

    Yes, I do think bloggers/reviewers and authors can have a pen name and keep their private life private, however, when they do that, they can’t be hypocritical about it. Coming out as Jane the reviewer/blogger and slamming authors for bad behavior, unethical practices, when all along she was doing the exact same thing. The authors helping her out and knew, they also behaved badly.

    But of course, Dear Author and other sites like hers won’t take her or her cohorts to task on any of this.

    As for people upset over donating to the legal fund. Nobody forced them to donate, it was all voluntary, and I don’t think one has anything to do with the other. However, I do think she should have been upfront about her author career at that time, and let people decide if they still wanted to support her legal fund.

    This too shall pass, until another author screws up and does something to again tarnish the romance genre and leave readers wondering if we indeed even need reviewers/bloggers. Put the books out there, let readers talk about them, spread them by word of mouth. I personally no longer trust any blogger’s point of view when it comes to recommending books, because I have a feeling this is the tip of the unethical iceburg and there are probably a lot of these situations lurking in the background, waiting to come out. Waiting for the next Twitter-Facebook drama.

    But I still would love someone from Dear Author to answer this. How would your blog respond to another author pulling this stunt?

    March 27, 2015
    |Reply
  4. Meoskop
    Meoskop

    I didn’t donate to the fund. It was through an organization that was threatening Color of Change with the same sort of lawsuit DA is defending and I found the having it both ways nature grating. That disclosed, I think a large number of sorry-I-donated people are socks, given the obvious sock fingers all over this discussion. However, I can understand why people would sincerely feel differently about donating.

    When you feel a person is direct it’s easy to take a stand. Discovering that person has not been as open as they pretended naturally leads to questioning if the lawsuit is as you initially interpreted it. I don’t blame anyone who feels uneasy about not having all the facts up front. I still think EC is dead wrong to be suing DA but I (for one) am no longer so certain I know all the facts of the case because events have already proven I don’t. Not my circus, but had I donated I might be among those questioning if it was the right call.

    March 27, 2015
    |Reply
    • JennyTrout
      JennyTrout

      I think you’re right, there is a lot of sock activity going on, that I can definitely agree with.

      Okay, I can see that angle. If someone doesn’t trust the fund because of Jane’s actions, I can understand that, and it’s something she earned. But I also feel that a lot of those donations came from a “we’re helping save this poor blogger,” and now people are going, “but if she has a movie deal, she has TONS of money,” which is absurd.

      March 27, 2015
      |Reply
      • Meoskop
        Meoskop

        Yea, completely agree. But I’m mostly seeing the tons of money thing from socks, in the same bits as ruins authors career with one star cadre kinda stuff. I think most readers expressing conflict are aware writing isn’t a ticket to gravy town.

        March 27, 2015
        |Reply
    • Yeah, I think it’s very possible to have questions, especially if the person you gave money to is outed for deceptive practices in another area. However, I still think EC is a hot mess & that the lawsuit is meant to scare authors who just fucking want to be paid.

      March 27, 2015
      |Reply
  5. Lindsay
    Lindsay

    I dunno, it seems to me that this is kind of a complicated issue. On the one hand, I understand the desire of readers and authors submitting their books for review to have transparency, but I also understand the desire of the author/blogger to not have one career impact the other (I believe that is a big reason people use pen names in the first place). I know you publish under the same name you use for your blog, and I think that’s super cool, but I don’t think choosing to not announce your author name is automatically unethical.

    Without knowing the actual facts of what happened here save for what you explained in the post, I still feel like there should be some kind of middle ground. If the reason people are upset and the reason they feel like this was unethical was out of a concern of genre or publisher competition rendering an unfair review, then I feel like there are mitigating steps you can take. For instance, you could say, the writer of this blog has published fiction in the following genres and with the following publishers. That way someone can choose not to submit a piece to that blog if they’re worried about competition–or they can request that the review be handled by someone other than the author. As for the review of her own fiction, well I agree she probably should not have put that up on her own blog even if by another reviewer. But that’s really the only ethical problem I see.

    Please let me know if I am missing something?

    March 27, 2015
    |Reply
  6. Petra (Merlinslaugh)
    Petra (Merlinslaugh)

    I’ve thought about this long and hard before posting here; largely because I’m very new to romance, I Like a lot of the people I’ve met through Twitter and basically, well I don’t have a dog in this fight.
    What occurred to me tonight is how much I agree with Jenny’s point about transparency. I’ve been a long time lurker on Jen’s site, coming for the 50 Shades recaps and staying for her blogs. One of the things that drew me out of my lurker status was simply that over time, I trusted Jen; she was exactly what you saw on the tin. When I recently joined Twitter she was one of the first people I followed because of that trust. Over time I’ve seen that this hasn’t always been easy for her. The recent furore (which I’m loathe to bring up) was just the most recent example of Jen going to bat over something she believes in and then taking the fall out which was (I can only imagine how) awful. It takes courage to be honest and for those of us who did what little we could to support Jenny, it was that courage, and the trust that built up because of it, that sent us to Amazon to buy her short, to comment on Twitter; whatever we did it was inspired by Jen’s actions.

    I say all this because the overall point here, about transparency and how it builds trust, does seem to be getting a little bogged down in the ‘who knew what when’ and ‘does this mean that’ stuff that’s going on right now. Don’t get me wrong, those conversations are important, particularly to the people who were directly affected; those in author loops for example and to whom, I feel, apologies are due. That being said for most of us who are simply readers, who come to blogs and sites for discussion, recommendations and laughs, I really hope that the discussion on transparency and trust doesn’t get lost in the noise. As I said I don’t have any axe to grind here. My opinion for what it’s worth (and opinions as we know are like buttholes and everyone’s got one) chimes largely with the blog you posted above from bookbinge and which puts it more eloquently than I could. I also hope that this doesn’t Impact too negatively on the EC law suit which I think is a seperate issue. Again Jen addresses this in her post and I just want to add a big “I AGREE”.

    I suppose my point ultimately is transparency isn’t always easy, in fact at times, it’s downright hard but in the long run it has to be the better way to go. A person may not always be liked or lauded for their opinion, their book, whatever it is, but when they claim it as their own it begets a level of trust that means that the people/readers who stand with the person do so in the full understanding of who and what they are supporting. Both sides of the blogger/reader equation are more likely to balance out if there is basic honesty and the hurt and disappointment I’ve seen expressed, not to mention the ammunition it hands to people waiting for it, are avoided.

    March 27, 2015
    |Reply
    • Lindsay
      Lindsay

      I guess the part I am having trouble understanding–and I want to clarify that I also don’t have a dog in this fight, I am earnestly just trying to understand–is why it is unethical to not wish to be transparent.

      In other words, while I think it is a very admirable quality to come out as an author and say “hey, these things are things I believe in, and yes, this is the name I write under and if that doesn’t jive with you I accept the consequences it may have on my career,” but I don’t think it is necessarily unethical to say, “you know what, I have these opinions and I want to talk about them, but I don’t want it to be connected to my career as an author.” Again, unless I am misunderstanding the point about transparency.

      March 27, 2015
      |Reply
      • JennyTrout
        JennyTrout

        I think in this case, it’s because Dear Author has always made it point to be transparent, except for about this. Other authors have had their reviews labelled as such because it’s Dear Author’s policy, and they were proud of that policy and of being considered a reliable source for impartial reviews. Jane’s were not labelled as being author reviews, and people are finding that hypocritical.

        There are all sorts of things Jane could have done with that anonymity, like promote her book to her readership as though she were a neutral party, or promote the works of other authors at her publishing house or her co-writer, Jessica Clare/Jill Myles. She DID NOT do any of those things, but the potential was there, and that’s why people feel betrayed, and that’s why transparency is so important.

        It would have even been enough for Jane to say, “I’m an author,” without disclosing what name she was writing under, IMO.

        March 27, 2015
        |Reply
        • JennyTrout
          JennyTrout

          (I feel like I should also disclose that DA has reviewed several of my books over the years, and I don’t really care that Jane is an author. I’m just reiterating the position that some people have taken, only to be told they’re being unfair)

          March 27, 2015
          |Reply
        • “It would have even been enough for Jane to say, “I’m an author,” without disclosing what name she was writing under, IMO.”

          This! This is what squicks me out about this the most. There were two main reasons I’ve enjoyed Dear Author. One is that there are negative reviews, I might disagree with them, but they exist. And secondly, their policy of disclosure. While I think fiction, and particularly romance-land’s attempt to insist authors can’t also be reviewers is ridiculous, at least those two policies better fit my idea of how the written word should be treated, which is critically and specifically. But, at the heart of that is a reliance on disclosure. I can understand a wish to separate identities using a psuedonym, and I can even understand not wanting people to know what that pseudonym was, which is a distinct difference from academia. But a simple disclosure that she was in fact an author in the NA genre would have sufficed.

          March 27, 2015
          |Reply
      • Lindsay, I feel the same way. I don’t see anything unethical about wanting to keep different parts of your life separate from each other, as long as there’s no conflict of interest, like reviewing your own book on your blog–which Jane didn’t do.

        Most people compartmentalize their online/public lives to some extent, because who wants every aspect of their life tied together for any stranger to see? Who wants their career to be judged by every thought they’ve ever put on the internet? I mean, some people do, and that’s cool, but I don’t think it’s a reasonable standard to hold people to.

        To me, writing books under one name and blogging under another name is just another way to do that. It doesn’t seem any more unethical than, say, having one name for your Facebook account and another for your LinkedIn.

        March 27, 2015
        |Reply
        • Angela
          Angela

          You might not see it as unethical, and that’s fine (I’m being honest, not snarky). The problem is, Jane/Jen as Jane on DA did have a problem with authors doing that and called out authors who didn’t reveal that transparency. Any author who did review on her blog, she had a disclaimer at the top stating this. On Jane’s blog, they always spoke about readers needing to know potential bias (“Bias matters”–Jane Litte) and how this helps contextualize the review for the reader. She and her blog drew that ethical line, and now we’re finding out she didn’t apply it to herself <–this is what has a lot of people upset.

          March 27, 2015
          |Reply
          • That makes sense, thanks for the clarification!

            March 28, 2015
          • Laina
            Laina

            *raises hand* Currently I keep my blogging under a pseudonym because I have a SUPER unique real name, and I live in a very, very small town. It feels a whole lot safer, honestly, and it especially did when I was 16 and first started my blog.

            Maybe that’ll change with time, maybe that won’t. But like… with authors getting told they should never ever ever even think about reviewing books, and reviewing/book blogging being something I’ve done for six years? I feel very conflicted about this whole thing, myself.

            March 28, 2015
  7. Suzanne
    Suzanne

    At the time I donated to the DA vs. EC fund, I hardly had two pennies to rub together, but I believed in the *cause.* That has not changed. But I (a romance reader) now resent being called a sock, or a sock-puppet or whatever other names are being associated with those upset that Jane Litte made the conscious, and conscience, decision to keep secret the fact that she was a published author, and yes, who had a movie deal in the works at the time the DA vs. EC came to light. Not that I believe for one minute that being a published author equates to $millions. Quite the contrary. And neither do I begrudge Jane/JF success as a author. Good on her.

    But after all the DA vs. EC case did come to light, I became more interested in the *behind the scenes,*so to speak. I followed multiple social media threads, and there were some strong implications out there that while Jane does indeed have a law degree, she is not a practising lawyer. True or not, I no longer know what to believe.

    And yes, Jenny, knowing Jane Litte was JF and earning an income (regardless of level of those earnings)would have made a difference to my decision to contribute. But so what? Those are my feelings.

    But as Olivia Waite stated on her site… “I am angry that I am expected to uncritical….”

    I, too, am angry that I am expected to be uncritical, regardless that my reasons for being upset may not make sense to you or others. You may not agree with me, and that is fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

    Unlike some, however, I am not calling others names or falsely accusing them, because opinions differ from mine. (Disclaimer: I am not on GR reviewing books–never have been–and neither I have left a review on Amazon. Quite frankly, I take those reviews with a grain of salt. So I am not part of “street-teams” out there in “review-land” 1-starring or 5-starring certain books or authors.)

    I am (a reader who is) angry that I am now expected to shut-up, lest I be called names and falsely accused of nefarious deeds by you, other bloggers and authors.

    What has all this taught me…Next time, I will be more cautious on whom I spend my hard-earned money, and that from now on anything said in Romanceland, be that from a blogger, a reviewer, or an author’s page or social media site, I will be take with a less than a grain of salt. And Never again will I jump in and defend *A CAUSE,* regardless if that *cause* is justified.

    March 27, 2015
    |Reply
    • JennyTrout
      JennyTrout

      Suzanne, I’m sorry that you feel I called you a sock puppet, but there *are* sock puppet accounts and anonymous accounts coming from places like STGRB to SBTB and DA to leave comments trying to sway people against the defense fund. If you’re not one of those people, then clearly sock puppet doesn’t apply to you.

      But I resent the implication that I’ve accused anyone of nefarious deeds here. I wrote what I think is a pretty even-handed post in comparison to some of the stuff out there. I haven’t called anyone out–even Jane. I’ve commented on the response from the community, and what I agree with and disagree with. I didn’t call anyone names and I’m not out there attacking Jane’s supporters or detractors, so I’m not sure where that accusation is coming from.

      March 27, 2015
      |Reply
      • Suzanne
        Suzanne

        No, Jenny, you did not directly call anyone a *sock in your post. So my apologies for implying so in my original comment. In the land of the internet it is difficult, if not downright impossible, to know who is or isn’t sincere.

        But again, I will reiterate my frustration (as a reader) with “for those who are saying they now feel cheated for having supported the DA Legal Defense Fund: I have no patience for you” and similar rebuttals from other bloggers/authors who have a strong influence within the romance community.

        I am sorry, Jenny, that you feel that way toward those who have expressed their dismay/confused feelings over this latest development in Romanceland in the same way I have. At the time this kerfuffle broke, my honest response was: I felt cheated, manipulated. A knee-jerk repsonse? Emotional? Yeah, most certainly, and I do not deny it.

        Do I now have a ton of other feelings on the whole DA/Jane/JF, beside the $ I donated to the DA vs. EC case? You bet. But from now on I will be keeping mum on my thoughts on the moral integrity, or lack thereof, within Romanceland.

        March 27, 2015
        |Reply
        • JennyTrout
          JennyTrout

          Well, I don’t really feel either way. I see both sides of this, the people that were hurt (like you), and the people who feel like it isn’t as big a deal as everyone is making it out be (who are unfortunately trying to silence as many of the hurt parties as possible).

          And I’m sorry that my words conveyed an attack to you. It was the only part of my post that I was truly frustrated over, so I should have either worded it differently or left out. But what you do with your money or who choose to support/not support is entirely up to you. It’s possible that I’m not impartial (no, it’s absolutely possible that I’m not impartial) because I’m an EC author who has had a nasty run-in with Jaid Black, and maybe I felt like the thing about the DA defense fund was a weird peripheral attack? Either way, sorry my words had that effect on you.

          March 27, 2015
          |Reply
  8. Scath
    Scath

    As far as I’m aware, I’m the first to have said Jane probably should’ve disclosed she was an author before the GoFundme–at least on TPV.

    Why? Because I knew some would feel the way Suzanne does. It’s a given when someone asks for money, and it’s later discovered they weren’t, well, upfront about who they are.

    I understand why Jane used a pen name, but also knew the disclosure would blow up in her face.

    There are a lot of people who feel hurt over Jane’s deception, and the double standard it represents. I can’t blame them.

    March 28, 2015
    |Reply
  9. Samantha
    Samantha

    I donated to the EC vs DA fund myself. I hated what was happening to authors, editors, and cover artists. I am a reader. Without any of you I wouldn’t have books to escape to. I have a great deal of respect for what authors go through to write a book.

    When EC hit Dear Author with a lawsuit I thought to myself; screw that shit. This is a reader blog by other readers and this company who is bigger than them are trying to shut them up using scare tactics. Well, after this latest development that’s not exactly true. I have a problem with that. I still feel very strongly that EC needs to be taken to task, but the non disclosure about Janes role at Dear Author really pissed me off.

    After reading other blogs about this and seeing all the people who knew who Jen Frederick is and then going back to the blog it’s sketchy as well. Starting way back when Jane was into the New Adult thing and basically losing her shit over discussion about a book that people found issue with. I see all the subtweeting that she doesn’t have the power to kill a genre, maybe not, but she sure has the ability to push a genre.

    Dear Author has a huge readership, not everyone comments there but they are reading and hitting the buy buttons. Daily Deals, her book was on there. The author who did her covers had review after review because it was a serial and Jane telling everyone who was complaining about the money aspect of 8 parts to get over it. Other blogs knowing who she was and hawking her books at their websites. Let me say this, as a reader who spends a lot of money on books, I won’t be reading any blogs or reviews from anyone in this community. It’s tainted.

    Then to go on the podcast with Sarah with her writing partner talking about their series and highlighting it on the blog, because they highlight all the books they discuss in the podcast, is wrong. It’s true, if this was someone else in the community who did this, Dear Author would be out for blood.

    As a reader, I don’t have a blog nor am I an author I am deeply saddened that two blogs that set standards for readers by readers are a bunch of frauds. I’ll get over it and move on and buy books, maybe I won’t find as many books, but I’ll do just fine on my own without the use of blogs in this community.

    March 28, 2015
    |Reply
  10. JT
    JT

    Jenny, I apologize for this long comment.

    Lindsay said: “I guess the part I am having trouble understanding–and I want to clarify that I also don’t have a dog in this fight, I am earnestly just trying to understand–is why it is unethical to not wish to be transparent.”

    I don’t feel it’s unethical to have a lack of transparency. I believe everyone is entitled to their privacy. This includes authors having various pen names, and their right to keep them secret and separate. I am no one to judge someone else’s actions.

    To quote Smart Bitch Sarah from her post Answering Questions: Jane Litte/Jen Frederick: “It’s really easy online, I think, to reduce a person to just one thing. That person is evil. This person is mean. All of those people are horrible. But no one is just one thing. We are all complex humans who are making decisions based on what we know and think is best at the time.”

    Jane and Sarah have reduced countless others to ‘one thing’, and attacked ‘complex humans’ who might have made decisions based on what they knew or thought was best at the time. But now Sarah asks for compassion for Jane when they’ve rarely showed it to others? To me, that’s just comical.

    If Jane believed someone was being false, she confronted them. Like she had with author JS Cooper. Jane Litte set herself as an industry watchdog. She created a set of rules, demanded people uphold them and eviscerated anyone who broke them. While she ruthlessly attacked others if they committed sock puppetry or catfished, she was doing the very same thing for two years. Two. Years.

    Jane is smart and business savvy. She knew exactly what she was doing when she created Jen Frederick and made the decision to conceal her identity. She knew she was violating her own set of rules and did it anyway. She befriended authors as Jen Frederick with whom she had conflicts with as Jane Litte. She had others vouch for her as Jen Frederick to gain access to private groups where she would have never been welcomed as Jane Litte. She dismisses this by saying she’d shared her knowledge with members. No. Sorry. That doesn’t make what she did okay. She also had conflicts of interests on Dear Author. She can’t claim innocence about this. Jane is a lawyer who has shared her knowledge of the law numerous times on Dear Author. She knew she created conflicts of interest and did it anyway.

    Then there is her causal dismissal of the entire situation.

    Twitter quote from March 27th: “I don’t know of all the people that hate me or blocked/unfriended me. I’m not good of keeping track of that”. – No one asked her to keep track. But if people knew she was Jane Litte, they would have had the choice to embrace her or reject her as an author. She took that choice away by concealing her Jane Litte identity.

    Twitter quote from March 27th: “That I blogged too bothers people.” and “Hopefully this doesn’t deter other bloggers.” – She just doesn’t get it. I doubt she ever will. I’ll repeat my belief that hypocrites rarely see their own hypocrisy.

    As for the DA/EC case, Jane being Jen Frederick is a non-issue, or so I’d thought until I’d read what Courtney Milan wrote. The only thing that would trouble me if I’d contributed to GoFundMe is that Jane Litte is a liar. Once a liar always a liar. If she were to tell me the sun is yellow I’d require proof. I would call into question her claim that any unused money will be donated, and not go to her personal use. Will she donate any unused money? Probably. But how can she be trusted when she acted duplicitously for two years?

    March 28, 2015
    |Reply
  11. madmlb
    madmlb

    I can’t be bothered with a long comment.

    But- I am a long term Dear Author/Smart Bitches/podcast fan. Like since I was fifteen. I am now 23.

    I am angry at Jane. What she did was dodgy and this is JANE … I expected better of her. She has been a badly behaving author and has offered no apology and I am disappointed.

    March 28, 2015
    |Reply
  12. I think JL should have made her initial announcement in a more conciliatory tone, rather than stating “I feel I made the right decision”. I’m not saying she should start wearing the online equivalent of a hair shirt (and I realize that admitting any kind of guilt might have legal implications that I’m unaware of), but she can’t be surprised that some readers found her behavior hypocritical. Maybe saying something like “This was my decision-making process, but, looking back, there are things that I wish I’d done differently” would have cut down on the blowback?

    As it is, this whole kerfluffle reminds me of an irritation meltdown I had several years ago, when I read a NY Times editorial by a romance novelist who is also a college professor. Her essay included some inaccurate information about another writer’s book. I had a chance to ask her about the mistake, and she (very politely, it must be said) told me that she hadn’t bothered to re-read the book in question before writing about it. I have since reviewed several of this woman’s novels, and every post has been more critical than the last. I’d like to think that all of my criticisms are 100% justified (and I stand by my specific complaints), but I suspect a goodish bit of my dislike stems from the fact that this is a woman whose teaching job undoubtedly involves criticizing college kids for being lazy about their reading, but meanwhile SHE didn’t bother re-reading a book that she wrote about in one of the world’s most famous newspapers.

    Anyway, that was a long-winded way of saying that if you’ve made a career (at least partially) out of calling people out on their shit, then YOUR shit needs to be above reproach. It might be human nature to fail to meet that standard, but when you do, people are going to come down on you like a load of bricks. I honestly don’t think JL has done anything mega-terrible, but her decision to act like her difficulties were unavoidable seems both disingenuous and self-defeating.

    March 29, 2015
    |Reply
  13. Ellen
    Ellen

    I’ve never managed to get all that interested in DA. I certainly read the EC report they published and I was and am on the side of DA in the DA v. EC lawsuit.
    BUT I think that since it really appears not just Jane but also some if not all of the DA bloggers knew that she was also Jen it really muddies the ethical waters on the count of promotion.
    Her book WAS reviewed, by a Beta reader on DA, and that was disclosed but there are other moments that are suspect now we know what we know.
    The things that bugs me the most is I really like Smart Bitches and Sarah Wendell and logically she had to have known most of the time. It certainly wasn’t her, SB or anyone else’s but Jane’s responsibility to reveal this but to think that they were OK with it even a little is disappointing. I listened to the DABWAHA podcast they did and the two argue about whether NA is a separate enough genre from YA and Jane was very vehement it was. Now that seems suspect.

    TLDR; A lot of Jane’s actions have to be re-scrutinized in the light of what we now know and many of them are going to be bad. And I hate that I have to do this.

    March 29, 2015
    |Reply
  14. Ellen
    Ellen

    I actually saw that after I posted here. It did ease my mind a little but this is still a difficult issue and I try not to reduce these things, at least personally though the internet can make it hard, to good or bad when they have nuance like this.

    March 30, 2015
    |Reply

Leave a Reply to JennyTrout Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *