I’ve been avoiding the Romancelandia blogs in favor of writing, so I almost missed the “Avon editors diss online romance reviewers” kerfluffle. But while it doesn’t surprise me that mainstream NY print publishing isn’t 100% caught up on the marvels of the online reading/reviewing community and how it can be used to further sales and build reader enthusiasm, I have to wonder at the vitriolic tone in response to what seem to be rather innocuous and well-intended — if possibly ill-informed — comments.

Yeah, it makes sense to say, “Dude, you might be a tad behind the curve on this,” and provide data to support your point. Less with the sense-making is the whole, “OMG, you took a piss in my Wheaties ON PURPOSE and I’m TOTALLY GOING TO CUT YOU,” thing.

I thought the intent was to educate the industry on the joys of the online community, not score Imaginary Intraweb points by launching attacks and fomenting bad feelings. Doesn’t look like those Avon editors will be standing in line for any “education” anytime soon. Counter-productive, much?

But what the hell do I know? I live in jeans and dirty sneakers, and my style-quotient is WAY below the norm. Maybe sporting a massive a chip on your shoulder is the new black?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 at 10:23 am and is filed under Industry, Romancelandia, blah blah blah. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 comments so far

 1 

That one was interesting, no? The thing is, that editors don’t just edit. They normally have to go to the table gunning for a book with numbers and stats and a marketing plan so that THEIR book gets picked. So to see some commentors screech, “They’re not in marketing!” kinda is not true. And misinformed.

This shrieking indignance is … funny, frankly.

May 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Selah March
 2 

To be fair, I think NY trad pub is a little in the dark when it comes to the power of online communities, but the way to make the point is…not like that.

Five’ll getcha ten we’re not the only ones pointing and giggling. :)

May 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am
 3 

I totally agree @ an online community-look at Joanna Bourne’s The Spymaster’s Lady-I may be wrong but I think that one hit the ground running on the web.

May 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
 4 

The biggest problem for me was with who conducted the interview in the first place. I hold a lot of online review sites in high esteem– AAR is not one of them.

May 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Selah March
 5 

Agreed. I’m just amazed by how quickly the whole thing devolved into “OMG I’M SO OUTRAGED! DIE IN A FIRE, ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT RECOGNIZE MAH RELEVANCE AND AUTHORITAH!1!!

May 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
 6 

AAR has scared me since they eviscerated Lisa Valdez (before then, too, but that was a marker).

May 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
 7 

I’m amazed that you’re amazed by how quickly the whole thing devolved into “OMG I’M SO OUTRAGED! DIE IN A FIRE, ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT RECOGNIZE MAH RELEVANCE AND AUTHORITAH!1!!”

Been on the romanternet long, sugar? =p

May 26th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Selah March
 8 

What can I say? Each sunrise I awaken with fresh hope for the redemption of romancekind; each sunset sees those hopes dashed.

Hold me?

May 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
 9 

“OMG I’M SO OUTRAGED! DIE IN A FIRE, ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT RECOGNIZE MAH RELEVANCE AND AUTHORITAH!1!!”

Bwahahahahahahahaha! That’s so true. Who in the hell would risk the job she has by blogging all damned day to be famous as a – blogger. Yeesh. So pathetic.

June 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Anti-Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats