You may have seen Karen Scott’s recent blog post about the Chancery Stone ad which is currently running at the Smart Bitches blog. Katiebabs also blogged about this in Advertising Taboo Books and the Authors Who Write Them.
Basically, Chancery Stone writes stories about incestuous couples which she classifies as romance. I’m a pretty tolerant person and I’m generally of the opinion that consenting adults should do whatever they want and shouldn’t be discriminated against because of it. However, it seems my tolerance has its limits and incest is definitely one. There is absolutely nothing romantic in the idea of incest. Yes, I read (and enjoyed) Virginia Andrews’s Flowers in the Attic when I was a kid. But I would classify this as horror, not romance.
At the time of writing, the Smart Bitches have yet to respond to either Karen or Katie’s posts. I have no idea what their thinking was when they chose to run that ad. At the end of the day, it is their site and they can choose to advertise whatever they want on it. I am simply surprised because they are usually vociferous in speaking out against authors behaving badly (if you check the links on Karen’s blog, you’ll see that Chancery Stone is one of them). I hope that they do make some sort of a statement on this, even if it is merely to say that they can’t comment for legal reasons, or they will host whatever damn ad they choose.
Another thing which bothered me was the fact that Karen posted her piece last Wednesday and apart from a few comments, there was no response from the Blogoshpere . As Super Wendy quite rightly pointed out in the comment thread on Karen’s blog:
I’m wondering what the reaction of Romance Bloglandia would be if this ad wasn’t at the Smart Bitches – but say on an author’s web site or in Romantic Times? Food for thought.
My answer? People would have gone crazy.
I’m going to go one step further and say that bloggers would have jumped on this had that ad appeared on almost any other blog apart from the Smart Bitches. Why are people so reticent to comment on this? Is it because they’re afraid of criticizing the SBs because they have a successful site? If so, that’s bullshit. Look, I love their blog. I visit at least once a day. They’ve done a fantastic job and deserve their success. But just because I like their blog doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they do or say. If I don’t agree with something, I’m going to speak out, and it makes no difference to me if the bloggers I’m criticizing get 3 hits per day or 3 million.
My question to you is this: does running an ad equate endorsement, or tolerance, of the product advertised? We’ve all seen disclaimers along the lines of “The site owners do not necessarily share the opinions expressed, etc.”, but my personal opinion is that advertising a product indicates tacit approval at the very least.
{ 81 comments }
Next Comments →
I thought I commented at Karen’s. I agree with wendy’s comment people would have gone apeshit.
On the same note I don’t go to the site much my computer is older than dirt and reading through google reader is easier for me. And when I do go there I pay no attention to the ads cuz they are too much and too busy.
But I think they can take whatev ads they want, tis their blog.
It all comes down to the person running the blog. Unless there is an extreme outpouring of disgust and the SB’s are getting tons of hate mail, I don’t see them taking it down.
I think it also comes down to money. If someone has a site that relies on ad revenue, they will take whatever ads comes their way. If they make money off the amount of traffic and the traffic has gone down because of the ads, then the blog may take down the ads.
@sybil I need to figure out how to use Google Reader. It would make it a lot easier to keep up with all the blogs I follow.
The Smartbitches can most certainly advertise whatever they want on their blog. I simply question their decision to run that particular ad. From my understanding, their ad space gets booked out fairly quickly, so it can’t be a matter of them needing that ad to make ends meet.
@katiebabs I am among the disgusted but I’m not about to write the SBs hate mail! Neither has it stopped me from visiting their blog. I like the SBs. I just don’t like that ad.
I am of the opinion that an ad is not simply an ad but reflects the viewpoints of the site hosting it. If the SBs think incest is romantic, I’ll definitely be grossed out, but…I’ll still visit their blog. I don’t have to agree with everything someone does, nor do they have to agree with everything I do or say.
First of all incest and romance, those two theme’s really don’t mix IMO, it gives me the creepers! Second, I feel that one is responsible for the content of your blog, including the ads placed on your blog. I do not frequent their site often but I do know they have strong opinions and not afraid to say it. I feel now with this ad that they say: Incest in a romance setting is okay. I know sites can have, and I quote you Sarah:
We’ve all seen disclaimers along the lines of “The site owners do not necessarily share the opinions expressed, etc.”,
This may be legal talk but it is not what this ad makes me feel. And that is my initial response when I see such an ad on a blog like SB’s. I have yet to read the blogpost of Karen Scott or KB and I will not be afraid to say my piece. Sometimes a story needs various voices for it to be heard over a wider spectrum.
SB seem like ladies who do their thing in their own way and time but incest, jeez, we’re talking incest here. Even among adults it leaves such a faul taste with me, and to link this feeling with SB is troubling to say the least.
Those two sentences pretty much sum up my sentiments on the subject.
I am amused at myself, actually, as I am usually the one defending people’s right to choose. LOL! As I said in my post, my tolerance goes out the window when it comes to incest.
VC Andrews anyone?
Concerning the lack of comments- I wouldn’t comment because I’ve seen their ilk tear people to shreds over something like this. Who needs the drama?
I think the difference in response from that ad being placed on Smart Bitches versus something like Romantic Times is that RT is very main-stream and represents an official organization. I don’t think an ad for incest “romance” would be appropriate at RT’s site–that would be a definite wtf. But Smart Bitches is a personal blog (not that they don’t treat it professionally or as a business, but it’s basically two people blogging), and it’s pretty clear their site isn’t for the prudish or squeamish. Remember LOLporn?
Sb have their right to place this ad, the right to express their opinion, the right to choose the content of their blog. But incest, really SB, I still can’t get over it and definitely hits a nerve. It speaks of trauma, damaged view on sexuality, pain, fear, years of therapy. It just doesn’t convey romance. No, No, No and yes tolerance most definitely goes out the window for me!
@zeek I think of ‘Flowers in the Attic’ as more horror than romance. It’s certainly a very bitter and twisted version of a love story.
As for being torn to shreds: this has happened to me a time or two before in Blogland when I’ve expressed an opinion which went against the tide. I try to avoid getting involved in online bust ups because the dissenting minority tend to get eviscerated and it’s not worth the hassle. When I do feel strongly about something, though, I will speak up.
@heidenkind LOLporn??? No, I must have missed that one! Please enlighten me!
@Leontine I have a really hard time separating incest from sexual abuse. Sorry if this offends people but there it is.
No it’s def. more on the horror side- which is where it’s shelved, but people read it for the “romance” too, oddly enough. Or perhaps for the sex bits? ::shudder:: Either way it just came to mind as wildly popular incest themed series.
I’m not saying I disagree with you btw, just stating why people probably aren’t commenting!
I almost didn’t comment on Karen’s post because as a rule I tend to stay out of all Internet kerfuffles. I just do. But ultimately it was the potential hypocrisy of the situation that compelled me. Yeah, if it had been anyone other than the SBs I really do think people would have lost their shit. Honestly. I’ve been around the Internet community too damn long to think otherwise.
That said? It’s their blog, they can do what they want and take advertising dollars from whomever they want. If people don’t like it? They can stop visiting the site. Simple as that.
Oh and yeah. I feel like I’ve already said this but VC Andrews = horror (and not very good horror at that) while Stone is marketing her books specifically as romance. Which is just….ewwwwww.
“Which is just….ewwwwww.”
ditto
@zeek To paraphrase what Heidenkind wrote at Katiebabs’s blog, some people seem to find the idea of incest titillating. As for enjoying ‘Flowers In the Attic’: I was 12 when I read it!
Well said, Wendy!
I wonder why no one has lost it because it is the SB site? Why do they get a pass?
I didn’t take the time to read the other bloggers stuff so I missed previous VC Andrews references- sorry about that everyone.
oh no- I read it at 12 or 13 too-because of the titillation, but certainly not for the romance! I was shuddering thinking about ADULTS reading it NOW for the same reason!
katiebabs- huh boy, I’m a glutton for punishment on this one but my thinking is because they- or their followers- can be down right mean if you don’t agree with them. It’s why I don’t visit that sight anymore- and haven’t for along time.
Like I said at Karen’s, C. Stone is a non-entity in romance-she doesn’t write it, she doesn’t understand it, no matter what she might have claimed.
So it’s entirely possible the SBs didn’t know who she was, wrote she wrote when she requested the ad. And while I shudder from the images inflicted on my eyes at her site, the author gets very ‘strangely’ artistic in describing her work, however, she doesn’t outright say, “This is an incestuous romance”.
So unless she told them up front, or unless they remembered her from her oh, so obnoxious behavior on Karen’s, why would any site know what she wrote?
I’m not particularly thrilled to see her advertising her ‘wares’ on one of my fave sites, but I also know quite a few of the bitchery readers are fairly savvy. If they are anything like me, they’ll read one line on her website and then be running the bleach. We know romance-C Stone is NOT it. So basically, she’s wasting her money.
An idiot wasting her money is no skin off my nose.
Zeek: Oh yes, I see that. Many like to, how shall I say it, “kiss ass” there? I refuse to. I wonder if the SB gals will discuss this or let it die out. Again, if they were losing money over it, I bet the ad would be gone. Money says alot.
@katiebabs
That’s exactly what I’m wondering.
@zeek There have been posts/comment threads at the Smart Bitches site (and elsewhere) which I stopped following because it was all getting too much. It didn’t stop me returning, though, as I generally like their blog and wouldn’t let the odd incident like that put me off.
@Shiloh Walker I am laughing my ass off at the thought of running the bleach! I did click on that ad, so I’ll be in need of some.
I was also surprised there weren’t a huge reaction to Karen’s post because like what Wendy said, blogland is practically an oil field.
One half of me believes people aren’t kicking up the usual fuss because of who owns the blog and yet, the other half of me is not so sure because there is quite a few erotic romance novels that feature incest. Lora Leigh, anyone? Chancery Stone seems to have a bad reputation, but it still doesn’t change the fact she/he isn’t the only one who features incest in stories. Perhaps that’s why there weren’t many responses?
About the SBs’ lack of response: from what I remember, the SBs rarely responded to criticisms about their blog. They were severely criticised on various message boards about their use of bad language (including their blog name) and the mockery of – what they termed – “old skool” historical romances, and the SBs didn’t respond. It’s not surprising they didn’t respond to Karen’s post this time. Unless invited or it was getting out of control, I think.
IMO, it’s the most sensible approach to use because being involved with a debate on how one should run their blog – a debate that can develop as a flame war – can be bloody time-consuming and sometimes irritating. It’s the approach Mrs Giggles uses as well. (And DA, I think?)
If you truly want to know, contact the SBs to make an official stand and why not?
@Maili I had no intention of writing a blog post on this topic but the deafening silence after Karen posted her piece annoyed me no end.
If it truly is the case that the SBs have a policy of not responding to criticism, I would see that as hypocritical and against everything else I perceived them to stand for. I really hope that’s not it.
They can put whatever they want on their site but people have a right to disagree with it. I’m not expecting them to remove the ad. If CS bought and paid for it, it’s a done deal. I’m just surprised that they chose to put it up in the first place.
bah I am not sure if this will go through or if it will go through tons (if it does please, please delete dupes and sorry
)
Was trying to reply to maili, I agree with her. You would need to go to them with the question and flat out ask for an answer. They don’t, nor should anyone, defend how they run their blog on other blogs.
Why isn’t it more of a thing? One of two things 1) For it to blow up DA and SB would be leading the charge and then it would be ok for others to go after with sticks. In this case that isn’t going to happen.
And good lord I am NOT saying DA and SB are mean or of that ‘ilk tear people to shreds over something like this’. I am saying it is possible bloggers, maybe the newer ones (LOL not you sarah) are more likely to follow the leader than beat their own drum, which makes me sad but that is a post blog of its own.
Maybe they are afraid the kewl grrls won’t like them, which is beyond stupid since both blogs are very much about honesty and forming your own opinion – and SHARING IT. That is what reader blogs are about yes?
Or it could be that people just don’t care and view money, as money, as money…
Of and I forgot, technically Lora Leigh hasn’t had incest in the books… the guys didn’t do each other *g*
@Sarah
I don’t know what their policy is. It’s what I saw so far, so what I said earlier was my personal observation, not a recollection of their policy.
Of course, people have a right to disagree, which is what you and Karen exactly have done. That’s the beauty of blogland. There’s no gag order, either. Everyone has a choice to respond or not. If they choose to go silent for whatever reasons, it’s their choice. If they speak up, it’s their choice as well.
As for SBs putting it up in the first place (and so far, not taking it down), it’s their choice as well. Of course, it doesn’t mean they would be – or should be – immune to criticisms, or being forced to face the consequences of their action.
Look, there are some issues that the online romance community – and bloggers – tend to ignore, such as reverse sexism, racism, hypocrisy, double standards, snobbery, misogyny among women toward other women, favouritism, and many more. So this latest wall of silence is nothing new. The question is, why?
I think there is a slim chance that some prefer not to speak out against the SBs’ decision because the SBs blog has had a lot of mainstream attention. After decades of negative publicity about the rom genre, some may think that letting them off the hook to prevent the media from targeting at the SBs – and undoing the recent positive attention – would be worth biting own tongue. Might not be, but it’s a possibility. It’s a guess, though. I don’t know. It’s honestly better to question the SBs about their decision.
@sybil
“Maybe they are afraid the kewl grrls won’t like them, which is beyond stupid since both blogs are very much about honesty and forming your own opinion – and SHARING IT. That is what reader blogs are about yes?”
Agreed. When we think of almost all influential rom book blogs, those bloggers tend to have one thing in common: they are capable of forming – and standing by – their opinions, whether in synch with the popular viewpoint or not. That’s the main reason why I like them.
“Of and I forgot, technically Lora Leigh hasn’t had incest in the books… the guys didn’t do each other *g*”
Oh so, what you’re saying is they cover themselves in giant condoms to prevent them having any skinship with each other? Get real, Sybil.
@Sybil @Maili I’ve taken your advice and sent an e-mail to SB Sarah, complete with links to Karen and Katiebabs’s posts as well as my own.
there you go
@maili
hey there was no kissy kissy going on or buttbutt lurve (IIRC). They were straight, wanting to give the woman they lurve the ultimate pleasure. ::innocent blink::
I think Lora Leigh is a great comparison here, because even if she does feature more the incest sandwich (brother/woman/brother) or, in the case of a series, an incest picnic, if we’re really splitting those kinds of hairs here, then doesn’t that speak to the difficulty of drawing bright line rules of what is and isn’t acceptable?
Because that’s my real issue here. I already debated this within myself when the SBs carried the Ravenous Romance ad. And I had to get over the fact that my distaste wasn’t necessarily a good rule for anyone else. Now, if there was a conflict of interest (like the Light Sword Publishing ads and reviews in whatever that magazine is where one of the LSB people also worked), that’s one thing. But it seems to me that we’re mostly talking about where to draw a very difficult line here re. what’s “offensive.” And wow does that vary from one Romance reader to the next.
I mean, what if a blogger who accepted ads refused to run any ads for books that contained rape or for authors who used rape in their books? The blogger insists that as a feminist reader, she’s not supporting violence against women on her blog by accepting such ads. I think *that* would create far more of an outcry than Chancery Stone advertising on RT (if only RT were progressive enough to create some scandal!!). I think you’d see lots and lots of defenses along the lines of ‘it’s just a fantasy’ and ‘it’s not really rape,’ etc. etc. But I gotta say that as someone who started reading Romance within this decade, it took me a LONG time before I adjusted to the incredibly ubiquitous violence directed at women in the genre. There’s A LOT of it in Romance, even if much of it is not perpetrated by the hero. So I don’t see how, ideologically speaking, a blogger who refused to advertise for any book containing a rape fantasy would be different than not running the Stone ad.
Personally, I do not find the incest fantasy romantic and it’s not compelling for me as a reader, but it’s hardly new to the genre and it joins a long list of greater or lesser taboo sexual fantasies in the genre. So really, how are we to have a consensus about what is and isn’t too offensive to advertise on a blog? What about hardcore BDSM? What about those old Laura London books where the heroine was like 17? What about books featuring at least one character under 18 who has sex w/ someone older than 18 (or what about a book in which both are under 18)?
Further, what if someone accepts an ad (which is often done way ahead of time), and in the time between its acceptance and its appearance the author writes a book that the blogger finds offensive to her sensibilities — should the blogger then breach the contract? How is one to vet the vast number of possibilities for any given ad’s larger context? Should the blogger parse through all the works of the author? Are there hard and fast rules? Like should Dara Joy’s books be advertised after readers complained that their book orders were not fulfilled a while ago? How about, say, Elizabeth Amber’s books (author of Nicholas, which Jane liveblogged a while ago)? How about Shayla Black, whose book Decadent has what is apparently the most viewed review on the SB website? If advertisements are not acceptable from some authors, how about reviews of their books? Should bloggers avoid giving any press to books that are potentially offensive to readers, especially knowing that those reviews might actually sell books and will garner many views?
There are ads I’d find problematic on a site like SBTB, but they’re more in the category of conflict of interest, blogger/reading stalking/harassment, plagiarism, etc. Like I think it would be hypocritical for them to advertise a Cassie Edwards novel. But I wonder how many readers would be offended if, say, they ran an ad for a Janet Dailey novel?
(I am reposting here my comment to katiebabs thread–I think I should have posted it here to begin with instead.)
The issue for me is not whether anyone has the right to put up adverts for anything they want, as long as it’s not illegal.
The SBs and everyone else have that right.
What puzzles me is that from what I’ve seen, the SBs are all about taking certain firm ethical stances and that putting up this particular ad seems to me to run counter to some of them.
One of them would be truth in advertising (pun not intended). To whit:
a) CStone writes pathological characters in dysfunctional relationships–sex between brothers who maintain they are NOT gay, they just like having sex with each other (note: this is hearsay, going from her own description of her work–I’m not going to read it to corroborate that, sorry).
b) CStone is peddling her writing as genre romance.
I don’t expect the SBs to take down an ad after they’ve been paid–there’s a contract, after all–but their silence on the topic bothers me some.
Which is, obviously, my problem, not theirs.
==========
Robin, I know I would be offended by an ad for a Janet Dailey novel.
@azteclady
I’ll admit to not understanding how this particular ad is an issue of ethics. I mean, where was everyone when that ran that Ravenous Romance ad? Because talk about selling not-Romance as Romance. . .
I am commenting without having read the books in question. My feeling on this is that there are enough people out there who don’t find these books objectionable. Somebody published them, and I can only assume that somebody is buying them. While I am not saying I condone incest, it is important to recognize that it is a social taboo, because we realized early on that this could cause horrible genetic abnormalities. Effective use of birth control would eliminate this risk, and thus make the reason behind the taboo moot. I’m not saying it’s right, but we need to look at the reasons we are so opposed to incest, and it is because we have been conditioned to object to it for biological reasons that are no longer entirely valid. There are a lot of things that people find objectionable, that I have no problem with whatsoever. At the same time, there are things that horrify me but don’t seem worthy of notice by others. My feeling about this whole debate is the same way I feel about people who want to see certain books banned from the library. If you object to a book don’t read it.
I confess that I didn’t see the Ravenous Romance one, Robin–for all I know I did visit the SBs while it was running, but I didn’t *see* it.
I don’t know by what stroke of weirdness I happened to see the CStone’s one *shudder*
And I freely admit that my whole issue with this ad is my problem–it doesn’t click for me, and I didn’t expect the SBs not to draw the line somewhere.
Perhaps if I had seen the Ravenous Romance add when it ran, this one wouldn’t have sucker punched me this way. I don’t know.
@azteclady
Not that long ago an author admitted (okay, she bragged) about re-shelving books so that hers and those of her friends are more prominently placed, which obviously means that other books are being shifted behind, out of sight. Oy, did that little admission piss me off, and I don’t consider it the most ethical behavior in an author-to-author, author-to-reader, author-to-bookstore way.
But I don’t think I’d expect any blog not to advertise her books. Because at some level I think to do so is a form of the kind of over-identification I already don’t love (i.e. overpersonalizing the fan relationship between reader and author), even if it’s negative rather than positive.
Also, even though bloggers aren’t state actors and therefore susceptible to charges of 1st amendment violation, I do have concerns about where bloggers draw the “offensive” line without becoming outright censors. I tend to want that line more loose than taught, I guess.
I wouldn’t mention CS on my blog because the woman is utterly notorious for hounding anyone remotely critical. She would need to be on Thorazine before she could be classified as batshit. There is some crazy you just don’t poke.
Or promote, IMO. But money is money.
I do not see advertisements on blogs as personal promotions, I see them there for revenue to keep the site going. (And must admit rarely click on them unless it is an author I know)
I didn’t comment on this issue on Karen’s blog, cos I honestly couldn’t give a rats what anybody has as an advertisement.. they are easy to ignore online. (don’t get me started on TV ads though!)
Yeah incest not a subject I would care to read about, being traumatised with Virginia Andrews FITA as a pre-teen was enough to scar me for life, but should SBs censor their ads? Don’t really think there is a need for it.
Okay after a distraction, managed to come back and read the comments.
Can I just say I now have a crush on Robin! Doing the nodding dog thing while reading her posts.
Esp this one:
“I do have concerns about where bloggers draw the “offensive” line without becoming outright censors. I tend to want that line more loose than taught, I guess.”
And on many different notes this one:
“But I gotta say that as someone who started reading Romance within this decade, it took me a LONG time before I adjusted to the incredibly ubiquitous violence directed at women in the genre. There’s A LOT of it in Romance, even if much of it is not perpetrated by the hero.”
@Robin I missed the Ravenous Romance ad. I wouldn’t have seen this one, either, had Karen and Azteclady not noticed it.
I do think my problem with the ad is the idea of anyone endorsing incest as romantic. So for me it is an issue of ethics. As the Smartbitches have been vociferous about certain ethical issues in the past, I was surprised to see an ad like this on their site. At the end of the day, the SBs can do whatever they like with their site but I do not understand their decision to run this particular ad.
BTW, I’d run screaming from a Janet Dailey ad! Also Dara Joy or any other author who has ripped off her readers or fellow authors in any way.
That’s exactly why it bothers me. Obviously not everyone sees this as an ethical issue but I certainly do.
@Alissa Grosso No way, I will not be reading that book! *Shudder* Not even to report back on it.
@Ann Somerville Your comment made me laugh out loud! I’m hoping she doesn’t stop by. At least not until I’ve had plenty of caffeine.
@Edie I realize not everyone agrees with my opinion that ads are at the very least tacitly endorsed by the site which hosts them. The SBs are pretty tolerant when it comes to sexuality. What if an author were to ask them to host an ad for her arguably homophobic/racist/pro-terrorist/pro-life romance? If they refused to do so, would this not also be censorship? You can’t have it both ways. If you advocate zero censorship than you have to be prepared to promote/tolerate stuff to which you are vehemently opposed. But if you do that, how can you be taken seriously when you speak out against something which you find unethical?
Imagine if there was an ad for Cassie Edwards or Janet Daily on the site? I wouldn’t know what to think.
I guess I just do not see it that way, I do not see the million and one magazines and channels which run Nike ads as personally endorsing sweatshops.
I guess to a certain extent I have gotten blase on media and advertising, so it is not a major source of ethics for me these days.
While I find incest distasteful, I would actually not put it in the same category as homophobic/racist romance. (I could argue that 98% of romances on the shelves are pro-life already and could make a really controversial/snarky comment about pro-terroism and CIA romances.. but I am not in that big of a stirring mood today.)
Just curious about how much research of revenue raisers is expected of any blogger and while not advocating a zero censorship model, where do you draw the line? Do you ban advertising for the m/f/m with brothers (which I personally find squicky as?) What about some of the category books and ebooks which IMO opinion have downright emotional-psychological abuse of the heroine? Or general M/M which to me is exploitation pandering to straight women similar to the males objectifying lesbians for the last hundred years.
Good thing I am not in charge of vetoing any poor bloggers advertising, I don’t think many books would get through.
Whoa apologies for the random and kinda ranty post.
You know I only wanted to respond in regards to the “nobody posting cause it is SmartBitches comment” and say that regardless of what site the ad is on, it is not really an issue for me, so glazed over the previous blogs on the issue.. and then I posted and got ranty and sidetracked.
Sowwy!
And I promise this is my last post!
I think the Cassie Edwards and Janet Dailey Q is a different kettle of fish, as plaguerism is something they have taken a big stance against, so it would probably cause me a WTF moment if I saw them in the advertising bar.. though I think that I would then find it amusing that the authors wanted to waste money preaching to that audience.
Yes I am perverse.
@katiebabs If I saw a Cassie Edwards ad at the SB’s blog, I’d think it was an April Fool’s joke. Ditto Janet Dailey.
@Edie You can post as often as you like!
Yeah, I see what you’re saying re: magazines and ads for Nike, etc. On the other hand, the SBs have often spoken out against Authors Behaving Badly and CS most certainly qualifies as one (and I’m not referring to the content of her books here). So for me at least this whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
The points you and Maili make about reverse sexism in romance, emotional-psychological abuse of heroines, and so on, are worthy of a blog post all of their own.
And what if this was a deliberate move by the Smart Bitches? I’m guessing they don’t really *need* to increase traffic, but even if you have much, more rarely hurts. Even if there are apparently not too many blog comment discussions going on about it, the ones which are will certainly get one or the other reader to check out the site.
My take on the original question (Does running an ad equal product endorsement?) would be a clear “yes”. They chose to have the ad for that particular book placed on their site. That is a deliberate act, and all choices come with their consequences. Some people obviously object to the author, or the books, or the content, or the fact that the SB have the ad on their site and might stop reading. My guess is that those people will be an insignificant minority.
My opinion on the questions of ethics and morale and the rights and wrongs of things on a particular blog is fairly simple: the internet is not a democracy and as long as things remain legal, each and every blogger is entitled to their own rules and regulations. I might not always, or always not, agree, but that hardly matters. I can freely chose to stop reading a blog at any given moment. If I wish, I can make my (dis)agreement known. But that doesn’t entitle me to having my opinion acknowledged.
@Christian I don’t think the SBs put up the ad to court controversy. Firstly, they don’t need any help from CS to get people to visit their blog. Secondly, they could have hosted all sorts of dodgy ads in the past which I never noticed. Finally, the ad itself is pretty subtle. Had it not been for Karen’s past posts on CS, I wouldn’t have known the sort of books she writes.
You’re right when you say the internet is not a democracy and people aren’t automatically entitled to an acknowledgement of their opinion. However, I would have liked a public response from the SBs on this matter, even if I respect their right to remain silent.
They are self published IIRC
I was all set to comment when I first read Karen’s post, but for the life of me I can’t—even now—figure out which ad it is.
As for the more general question of whether or not some blogs/bloggers receive more or less scrutiny than others, my personal observation has been: yes.
If you ever do a blog on any of those issues Sarah block my ISP, as I can rant for days, I really have a love/hate relationship with romance novels.
On the authors behaving badly note, then that is a slightly different one again, (though I am still in the paid advertising frame of mind, where not overly fussed – maybe would be more in arms, if they had had a run in with that author) Probably they should have taken it down once alerted, but I also look at it from the business end of things, where you have taken their money for the ad, I would have a debate going with myself over whether it warranted the headache of removing it and refunding.
I know this is going to be super-long, so I’m going to endeavor to number my main points, simply so I don’t get too lost trying to articulate myself here.
1. re. Sarah and/or Candy making a public statement about this. I don’t ever remember them doing such a thing, although perhaps there is an exception here or there. But Sarah doesn’t even comment on her own posts, remember. So I wouldn’t hold my breath for a public comment about this situation.
2. re. SBTB being a venue that takes authors to task, again, I don’t think this is really the case. I mean, there was the Cassie Edwards situation, but beyond that, how many posts do you see on SBTB that are clear ABB commentaries? In fact, I’ve disagreed enough times with Sarah’s take on an author-related situation that I tend to take note of how authors are and are not dealt with on SBTB. IMO that is not their thing; you are much more likely to find DA calling out bad author behavior than SBTB IMO. And while it seems like the two blogs have been somewhat conflated, they really are quite different venues. To me, SBTB is not a venue where you’re likely to see author behavior or author ethics critiqued by either Sarah or Candy. So I wouldn’t expect them to take an author to task for acting like an a-hole or rejecting an ad on that basis.
3. re. the SBs not getting criticized. Besides the presence of no less than three critical blogger posts on this advertising issue, does anyone remember the unleashed hellstorm of hatred the SB’s did and still endure over the Cassie Edwards outing? Over that issue alone I think they’ve probably taken more crap and criticism than most of the rest of the Romance blogging community x 1000. IIRC, Sarah’s STILL getting hate mail about it, and maybe people remember that before RT and RWA there were some threats made that some of the SB-haters were going to disrupt Sarah’s panel presentation? While it may very well be true that some bloggers can get away with more than others, I also wonder how many of us would have been willing to stand up in that Edwards situation if we knew how ugly the backlash was going to be. And you hardly see Sarah and Candy whining about it, either.
4. As for the ethics issue, if the ethical lapse has to do with incest, then I guess I’m back to a more extended version of the questions I asked in an earlier comment.
For example, what about Lora Leigh’s incest sandwiches? She’s been on the NYT Bestseller list, after all, and has a mainstream publishing contract. Okay or not? And why?
And rape, which I think is really the perfect analogy here. Why is the rape fantasy okay but not an incest fantasy? At least in the incest fantasy case, if you have two consenting adults, that’s one more than in the rape fantasy. But in any case, they’re both sexual fantasies and they both are taboo. But the rape fantasy is all over the genre and many readers adore it. Why is that okay but the incest sexual fantasy is so immoral that it must be rejected to the point where an ad for a book containing it must be shunned? Given azteclady’s description above (and I realize it’s second hand, but it comports with what I remember of Stone’s description from quite a while ago), it doesn’t sound like her book is stamped with a label saying, “Incest: try it, you’ll like it.” I mean, when you have damaged characters who connect with each other in that way, it doesn’t sound like it’s being sold as a healthy behavior. Unlike many rape scenarios in the genre.
And I just gotta say that if Stone’s ad should be rejected, can we have a widespread ban on Catherine Coulter’s books, too? In Rosehaven, for example, not only did the hero rape the heroine, but the women in the household then told her she deserved it. What the hell is more yucky than that? Maili commented on Twitter the other day about a book from the 90s(?), a mainstream Romance in which the heroine’s step father (father?) punished her by making her have sex with a horse. HELLO. And let’s think about much of the Bertrice Small oeuvre. I read Skye O’Malley once and some parts of that book are still traumatizing me!
5. And how about bestiality in so many paranormals? How about Lora Leigh’s barbed cat men, and what about the stories where the characters are mating in half-turned form. And aren’t vampire stories basically symbolic necrophilia? To me, there’s nothing more taboo than both of those things, and yet Romance readers have embraced a lot in these realms.
6. If the ethical issue is related to the author’s behavior, then I guess I’m wondering what the scale is. Because how many of us are boycotting books edited by Kate Duffy or published by Kensington and Dorchester? Duffy acquired Janet Dailey for seven figures and seemed quite excited about it (http://www.janetdailey.com/, scroll to the bottom of the page). And both Kensington and Dorchester continue to publish Cassie Edwards books, including reprints of older books.
Author behavior is a really tough one, IMO. I had one author treat me in a way that was to me so disrespectful that I wouldn’t be sorry if I never saw another ad for her books. But others adore her.
re. Stone, is she plagiarizing? Is she stalking readers or bloggers? Is she using her book money to finance child porn?
Remember the brouhaha over Suzanne Brockmann declaring that she was donating the profits from one of her books to a gay-related organization? Does a blogger who doesn’t agree with her politics have a legitimate right not to support her book or run an ad for her?
7. Ah, lucky seven: reviews. To me, if we’re going to entertain the idea that an advertisement is an endorsement, then I don’t know how reviews fit into that, because IMO reviews are much more likely to sell a book. We’ve seen it over and over again, from Carol Lynne to Shayla Black and beyond. Should reviewers be thinking about that when we appraise a book? Should we sacrifice our intellectual freedom for fear of appearing to endorse a certain publisher or author or book? Should we feel compelled to fail a book that has an element that we do not find personally romantic in it?
I’m still struggling to see how this is a clear issue of ethics or morality, even though I understand why some people don’t like the ad on SBTB. I’ve winced at many an ad on many a blog, so I really do get that. But how many ads would stand up to strict scrutiny on a potential to offend basis?
@Kat It’s the sixth one down. The ad itself it pretty subtle.
@Edie To the best of my knowledge, the SBs have never had a run in with CS. That happened on Karen’s blog and elsewhere. Check out the links at Karen’s if you want a laugh, particularly the one to the CS Wiki Wankdom. Just don’t try drinking coffee at the same time!
@Robin Thanks for your thoughts, Robin. I’ll try to respond point by point.
1. I’ve seen Sarah comment on some of her posts but not all, usually when someone says something that really gets her goat.
2. About SBTB being a venue that takes authors to task: they don’t do it often but they did post about Dara Joy ripping off her readers, as well as the Cassie Edwards plagiarism incident.
3. I admire DA and the SBs for the stance they took on Cassie Edwards. I’m sure that wasn’t easy for them. I have no doubt that they have legions of detractors because of that one incident alone. There’s also no great love for them over at All About Romance.
I was referring more to people like myself who are regular visitors to SBTB but disagree with them on this one point. Sad to say, I’ve had a few e-mails from people saying they agree with me re: the Chancery Stone ad but are afraid of speaking out in case they are attacked by SBTB fangirls and/or are no longer welcome at SBTB. All I can say to that is: WTF? Seriously, I have never gotten a vibe from Sarah and Candy that they’re going to be mean to visitors simply because they disagree with them on an issue – provided it doesn’t descend into a personal attack.
4. Defining ethical issues is a slippery slope, for sure, and opinions will differ. I won’t knowingly read a romance featuring “forced seduction” as I equate it with rape and see nothing romantic in it. My first exposure to this in a romance was ‘Whitefire’ by Fern Michaels in which the hero rapes the heroine. I’ve never read anything else by her. I don’t think I’ve read anything by Kathleen Woodiwiss, although I’ve heard the name. The first American romance author I read was Julie Garwood (I think) and that would have been in the mid to late Nineties, so probably past the heyday of “forced seduction” in romance.
5. Bestiality is one of the reasons I avoid paranormal romance. I’m surprised I like Patricia Briggs, although she’s more Urban Fantasy and her books are less overtly sexual than many.
6. There are only a couple of authors whose books I refuse to purchase on the basis of their bad behaviour, Janet Dailey being one.
7. As I have no intention of subjecting myself to CS’s book, I definitely won’t be reviewing it!
Just to clarify: I’m not pro-censorship, not even of a book with CS’s content. I was simply surprised that the SB’s chose to promote that particular author’s book when they apparently have a backlog of authors interested in advertising on their site. There’s a huge difference between banning a book and not wishing to see it actively promoted.
http://www.chancery-is-god.com/?p=258
Missed this controversy completely. I could care less what they put on their blogs as I don’t read ads. To answer your question, does running an ad equal endorsement? No. I don’t think so. Ad revenue is a big part of paying some of these people’s bills. I don’t think they vet a lot of these ads like what the ad is about, etc, before putting them on their site. They probably should. And like someone else mentioned, incest may not be objectionable to some people. I’d like to think that people have a mind of their own and are not sheep who follow the herd or find themselves too scared to speak out against popular flow. I say screw that shit, if any blogger does something against their code of ethics, hey, they should be held accountable for it.
@Keishon I find ads annoying, on blogs and elsewhere. I try to block them if I can. Yeah, I think people should vet the ads they host. Maybe the SBs do but don’t see an incestuous couple as an issue. I’m still of the opinion that they would not see refusing a racist or homophobic ad as censorship and yet it amounts to the same thing.
Sarah, thanks for responding to my long-ass post. Since it seems that now I’ve dug myself in here, I am not ready to give it up quite yet (dog meet bone).
1. [note: these numbers don't refer to previous posts-they're just easier for me to organize my thoughts] Where did the SB’s take on Dara Joy? I know DA did, and all I could find when I Googled “Smart Bitches Dara Joy” was two posts, one by Candy referencing the DA post, another on an upcoming book that I would not describe as taking Joy to task on anything.
2. The way the Cassie Edwards situation came into being was that Candy gave a friend a list of CE books to read — and the *friend* found the inconsistencies and started to research them. Plagiarism has been a consistent hot topic for the SBs, as they had done previous posts on Viswanathan and McEwan. This is exactly the kind of post I would expect from them, especially now they they are both authors themselves.
3. To those afraid to speak up on the SB or DA sites: are you *reading* the comment threads there? Except for those who show up with a hatful of rude to tip, I have yet to see anyone with a half-way reasonable point and tone get beat up on either site. Do some commenters get testy and are there sometimes misunderstandings around tone? Of Course! But seriously, show me the massive pile-ons visited on innocent lurkers. And do I need to mention that some of those who have articulated such a position on AAR, for example, have been some of the most aggressively argumentative and not-exactly-nice posters there?
4. I feel myself gearing up for a tangent, so before that happens, I simply want to re-issue my general challenge for someone to explain to me why the rape fantasy is okay but the incest fantasy isn’t. Or bestiality and necrophilia. If the distinction is as clear as people are insisting, then please help me understand it.
Why, exactly, is running an ad “promotion”?
Okay, here comes the tangent. . .
What if I suggested that those who suddenly came to awareness of this ad when Karen Scott — who has no love for Chancery Stone — posted about it, and who are against the SB’s running it, are simply letting Karen Scott set your own agenda?
Everyone’s gonna argue that they can think for themselves, that KS merely got their attention fixed on it, that they never noticed before, etc., right? So why isn’t it the same for the SBTB ads — that readers are capable of thinking for themselves, that they are capable of distinguishing between presenting someone else’s views or someone else’s ad without being implicated in those other voices? Does that mean the SB’s are promoting commenter views, guest poster views, author views of those books they review? Because wouldn’t that rule apply to every blogger then, too?
All I can say here is that I think it’s very, very difficult to draw such a clear line in the sand here, because
a) if you vet every single ad on the SBTB site, will you find more than a scant handful that don’t lead to SOMEWHERE offensive to SOMEONE, whether it’s another book by the author or an editor or publisher who has some connection with something deemed unsavory, etc.? I don’t think so.
b) the narrower you draw your boundaries the more difficult they are to maintain consistently. For example, Karen Scott hosted a very divisive discussion about Barbara Sheridan’s “Beautiful Cocksucker,” a book that generated a very ugly argument about whether it was innately offensive to gay men. IIRC, KS did not find it to be so. There was much ridicule of those who did (and let me say, as an aside, that this discussion permanently changed my view of some people, and not for the better). I simply found the title tacky, but I so clearly understood the objections and could accept their logic. And yet “Beautiful Cocksucker 2″ is on its way to a bookstore near you. Will readers object to that book’s advertisement on SBTB, knowing that it’s a term that some gay men associate with being beat up to the rhythm of its verbal repetition?
As I said earlier, how is it that the incest fantasy is so beyond the pale while all of this other stuff isn’t?
Look, I have no problem with people saying, “I find this subject matter totally offensive and it squicks me out that the ad is running on SBTB.” I had that response to the RR ad. But to take a leap to “SBTB is endorsing this stuff,” or “SBTB shouldn’t be running this ad” moves it, IMO, into a more general ethical/moral terrain, one that IMO is MUCH rockier than it first might appear to people who are disgusted by the purported subject matter (I say purported because who among us has actually *read the book*?).
One more thing before I forget: I do not think that anyone’s objection to an ad like the CS one needs to be grounded in a general ethical or moral objection to be valid. That is, we all have our own lines of offensiveness and we all have our reasons for maintaining those lines as they are. I still remember being likened to a KKK member for defending Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold, so I know the feelings are strong regarding Romance rape, too. However, if this is to be defensible as a general ethical stance, then I think it has to be analyzed within a larger context — and that’s where I can’t find the convincing logic here.
Moreover, one of the reasons this is becoming a real issue for me is that IMO it impinges on the way genre Romance is and isn’t being influenced by calls of “unromantic” to certain issues some readers find offensive. That is, there are readers who believe that m/m or f/f Romance isn’t really Romance (remember the RWA definition frenzy of a few years ago?). There are those who believe that any book with rape in it can’t be a Romance, etc. Now I realize that the CS book isn’t technically Romance, so I’m not talking about her book; I’m simply saying that it concerns me a bit when what we deem romantic is conflated with what is technically allowable within the generic boundaries of Romance. And I see this discussion overlapping with that one in somewhat discomfiting ways.
Why don’t we cut the chase and get to this question:
Are we expecting bloggers to be the moral guardians of romance blogland to protect readers’ sensibilities from the dodgy stuff? I imagine, hope and expect the answer would be “no”.
There is so much stuff in popular romance novels I personally and deeply object, but it doesn’t mean I would herd readers away from “those” novels – or assume reviewers/readers are sickos for loving those books. They aren’t. What icks me out doesn’t necessarily mean it’d ick them out, too, or that I expect them to.
I apply that to adverts on blogs. There’s a blog hosting an advert by an author whom I hold an extremely low regard for, because of her track record (her appalling behaviour towards readers and reviewers). Does this mean I expect that blogger to take the advert down because of my issue with that author, or assume that because the blogger hosts the advert, the blogger must be endorsing the author’s behaviour? No.
Disagreeing with a person’s decision, review or opinion is part of the blogging life and it’s perfectly fine, but *expecting* that person to change their decision, review or opinion *because* we disagreed with it? I don’t and won’t support that.
@Robin
It might be splitting hairs but Candy did comment on the Dara Joy case – briefly – in the post in which she links to DA.
I’m not suggesting everyone feels reticent to comment at DA and SBTB. Due to their enormous popularity, both sites have a number of regular posters. Wading into a discussion with 60 plus comments, 58 of which are in support of the blogger, can be intimidating. The last major dust up I can recall was over Sarah Frantz’s review of ‘Dark of Night’ by Suzanne Brockmann. I stopped following that thread when things got too ugly. (Not trying to rehash that once again – simply providing an example.)
Rape, bestiality and necrophilia are not subjects I would like to see featured in a romance. As far as I’m concerned, “forced seduction” is a contradiction in terms and I don’t make an exception for those romances which are now considered the“classics” of the genre. Bestiality is one reason why paranormal romance doesn’t generally work for me. When you mention necrophilia, I’m assuming you’re referring to books which feature vampires. I’m not a huge fan of vampire romance but when I do read one, I try to focus on their humanity and away from the undead element. The description of Edward Cullen as cold turned me off the idea of him being a hero. There’s nothing sexy in the notion of cuddling up to a slab of marble. So to answer your initial question: I don’t see the rape fantasy as being ethically superior to incest.
Concerning the SBs and the ad:
1. An ad is a tacit endorsement of the product: although many commenters disagree with this assertion, I stick by what I said. Would the SBs host an ad for a racist romance? If they refused to do so, would that not also be censorship? Where does one draw the line?
2. Incest as an ethical issue: Everyone has different levels of tolerance and the idea of an incestuous couple being romantic is where mine ends. The sticky point here is that I see the potential glorification of incest as an ethical wrong and others see it as tolerable fantasy.
I missed the ‘Beautiful Cocksucker’ discussion! On the basis of the title alone, I’ll have to look it up.
@Maili Just to clarify: I never once demanded that the Smart Bitches remove the ad from their site. Their site, their choice, and the ad has been bought and paid for.
What surprised me was their decision to host that particular ad in the first place when they apparently have a number of people interested in advertising on their site. I was also amazed that Karen’s blog post went ignored.
This post was originally intended to explore the idea that hosting an ad means you condone the contents of the product. The “incest fantasy vs incest as an ethical wrong” argument has pretty much dominated the comment thread.
@Robin Oh, I almost missed your tangent! I don’t see Karen as having set the agenda. This is also a point implied by Chancery Stone in her post.
I frequently disagree with Karen’s stance on issues. If it’s something I feel strongly about, I’ll put that in the relevant comment thread. If I’m not pushed, I often won’t bother commenting, which is the same attitude I have regarding all blogs. I visit DA, SBTB, KKB and a slew of other blogs on a daily basis. Sometimes I agree with their opinions, sometimes not. I definitely did not write this post with a pro-KKB/anti-SBTB agenda.
As I mentioned above, Karen and Katiebabs’s posts inspired me to think about the idea that hosting an ad equates product endorsement, despite the widespread use of disclaimers. I used the ad at SBTB as an example. Also, I wondered if people were silent on the issue because they didn’t want to speak out against SBTB, or because they were indifferent to the matter. From this comment thread and from e-mails I’ve received, I’d say it’s a 50:50 split.
@Sarah
I know you didn’t demand because you never did. Your previous comments gave me an impression you had an expectation for the SBs to do something about it. If that wasn’t your intention, I stand corrected with a bowl of apologies.
“This post was originally intended to explore the idea that hosting an ad means you condone the contents of the product.”
This is how I see it: if there were reviewers who reviewed ethically-dodgy books, should we assume they, regardless of their grades and comments, were endorsing those books by reviewing them at all?
Reviews are a form of advertising/promotion after all, surely?
Excuse me for responding to your post for Robin: “I definitely did not write this post with a pro-KKB/anti-SBTB agenda.” I think everyone can see that, so don’t worry.
This is a truly interesting and thought-provoking discussion. Thank you for that.
I understand saying that you don’t like incest and that it bothers you to see an ad on the SB site for a book containing incest. But you are also making the accusation that SBs are being unethical and hypocritical.
1) Hypocritical. This claim is premised on the idea that the SBs commonly take to task authors who behave badly and thus to have an ad of such an author is contrary to the actions that they take on the blog. In their four years of blogging, they have only chided authors on plagiarism (clearly their thing) and made one passing reference to Dara Joy. Does the hypocritical claim still pass muster in the face of these facts?
2) Unethical. This claim is premised on the idea that books containing incest fantasies are unethical and to post ads containing those fantasies is an unethical act. I’m unclear what the basis of the argument is that incest is unethical. I know you’ve stated that it is but why?
The reason that Robin has brought up the issue of other objectionable topics in romance genre is because, I believe, she is trying to understand the basis of your incest argument as unethical. If we are talking about incest between consenting adults such as brothers (which I believe is the issue in CS’s books) then it appears that consent is not an issue. It might be morally offensive, but morality and ethics are two entirely different concepts. Morality is often bound up in ones religious beliefs while ethics is, at least to me, far more secular. RRR Jessica might have a different description of those two words.
I think its very meaningful to accuse someone of being unethical and I always take these claims seriously. But in this case, I don’t see the SBs as being unethical or hypocritical.
It’s all a matter of personal boundries/conscious really- and who in a free speech society can police that?
But I will say, the world holds big media responsible all the time for using ads they find repulsive because ads get pulled if there’s enough of an outcry.
I personally wouldn’t put up an ad by someone who’s practices I don’t agree with, but that’s just me- no skin off my back what other bloggers do in this matter.
I don’t equate reviews with advertising unless you get paid for the reviews and demand a good review.
@Maili I had no expectations of the SBs to do anything. I assumed the ad had been bought and paid for and was a done deal. I was surprised that they didn’t respond to Karen’s post, even if it was just to say FU, we’ll do whatever we like. What bothered me more than the SBs lack of response was the impression I had that people didn’t want to criticize their site in particular and I didn’t understand that attitude.
@Jane
To clarify: I have no problem with the Smart Bitches. I’m not calling them out for hypocrisy, unethical behaviour, or telling them how to run their blog. I dislike this particular ad on their site and what it stands for. That is all. Beyond the ad being on the SBTB blog, I was interested in exploring the idea that running an ad implies the host has no objection to the product being advertised. This, in turn, led to the question of whether the host endorses the product, however tacitly.
Your (and Robin’s) point about the Smart Bitches not taking many authors to task is correct. I was obviously confusing them with Dear Author and other sites.
I don’t want to get into the specifics without her permission but I did e-mail SB Sarah and received a very thoughtful response. Both the tone and the content of her e-mail cleared up a lot of things for me although she and I will have to agree to disagree on certain issues. If Sarah wanted to make a public statement, I think she would have done so by now. So I’ll have to leave it at that.
Whether incest is to be defined as ethically or morally objectionable, I think the incest fantasy vs. the ethics/morality of incest is straying from my original point. While I might find the subject matter distasteful, I don’t have a problem with incest in general fiction, mystery, etc. It is the idea of a story featuring an incestuous couple being defined as a romance which bothered me. Ms Stone herself defines her work as ‘alternate romance’ which makes me wonder if this classification isn’t at the root of people’s objections to her work.
And now I am definitely feeling the heat from engaging in a debate with seasoned lawyers. You two are good! Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Ditto. You can certainly use the argument that a positive review encourages people to buy a book, but surely the reverse can be said for a negative one.
All this talk about incest being unethical and immoral and the promotion thereof is wrong is a smokescreen, IMO. Karen Scott doesn’t like CS. She’s not alone in that (trust me, I can’t stand the woman at all). But that’s the real reason she’s on a tear about this. I think we really do have to wonder if one blogger’s bug up their bottom is reason to censor another blog – or an author’s ads.
Because if we’re talking about ethics, as Robin says, rape is routinely excused in Romance. The SBs can take ads for any genre they please – why should they refuse CS’s ad on that basis? If we’re talking about offense, should the SBs refuse ads from every other author who reviews herself, acts like a complete dick on forums, chastises readers for not getting her genius, and has an ego bigger than Poland?
CS is a dickhead. No question. Plenty of people say the same about me. would my ads be refused because I get up people’s noses? I write stories which don’t fall into conventional romance lines at times, and I also cover subjects which are pretty difficult. Okay, I don’t put dogs with human penises on my covers, but so what? The most unethical thing I can accuse CS of is nominating herself for awards in categories she creates, and boasting about being nominated. I won’t review her books because of the incest content, but incest is an explicit line I’ve drawn for my review site. I won’t take underage protags either, even when the content is otherwise completely pure and consensual. I don’t condemn CS for writing incest – I just won’t read the books, so won’t review them.
The SBs aren’t reviewing the books. They’re advertising them, without a single comment on content. The idea they should be taken to task for that, is risible – and offensive.
Romancelandia sometimes shows its moral compass is a little screwy, and this is one of the occasions. I wish it could work itself up about real moral problems in its ranks like racism and homophobia, instead of fictional incest and authors making fools of themselves to the harm of no one else but them.
Robin, once again, I would marry you and have your clever, clever babies.
“The idea they should be taken to task for that, is risible – and offensive.”
ok Sarah has said MORE than once that she is not taking them to task- she just wanted to discuss. Just wanted to point that out.
okee doke- we’ve exhausted this one. Talk to you soon Sarah!
One other thing: asking questions is not the same as demanding censorship.
Having reactions of surprise, shock, curiosity or even outrage does not a call for censorship make, either.
“Having reactions of surprise, shock, curiosity or even outrage does not a call for censorship make, either.”
Then why all the discussion about the lack of reaction by the SBs? If the ultimate aim of publicly blogging about this issue is *not* to pressure them into taking the ad down, what’s the point? Karen Scott is most certainly taking them to task. She’s not just musing aloud – she wants action, and a reaction.
Let’s be clear – if you don’t want ads to be run because of what they advertise, then you are advocating censorship of those ads. Expressing disapproval or whatever you want to call it, and saying the SBs are violating their own ethics, is calling for those ads to be removed or not placed. Once you cross the line from saying *you* would not do something, to *they* should not do something, then you are calling for action. Censorship, in this case. Please don’t be mealymouthed – if you feel strongly about something, it’s okay to stand by those feelings. Just don’t expect them not to be seen as strong feelings demanding a response.
“if you feel strongly about something, it’s okay to stand by those feelings.”
Why, thank you, Ms Somerville, I needed to be told that.
I do not pretend to know what Karen’s intentions or desires are in any matter, but I beg the privilege of knowing my own.
Okay, so your answer to the question you asked is yes. But what I still am not clear on is the why. And also on whether you see a difference between “advertising a product” and having an ad on your blog. But back to the first issue, why do you think that a blog is tacitly endorsing (at least) ads it runs on its blog?
What do you mean by “racist romance”? Do you mean a book titled “Secrets of the Klan: How to live life in the hood” or do you mean a book that some people think is racist. Because IMO there are LOTS of those in Romance, and many of them, if not most, are well-loved mainstream novels. Then I’d add a bunch of not Romances, too, like Last of the Mohicans (both the Daniel Day Lewis film and the Cooper novel), the film version of Gone With the Wind, and a boatload of Westerns. Hell, there are some people who insist that Huck Finn is a racist novel.
Also, is the comparison of racism to a sexual fantasy that isn’t child pornography equal?
I don’t, and here’s why: your stated position is that a blog carrying an ad is promoting the content of that ad, in this case, a book that features an incestuous relationship. Which is why the ad got negative attention from a number of bloggers, including yourself. In fact, you say this:
Now, the first question I’d ask is whether it’s fair for any of us who haven’t read the book to suggest that it glorifies incest (not that I’m saying you’re doing that – just that we don’t know). But then I’d suggest that this would not even *be an issue* if the subject matter of the book was not a problem for some people, including yourself. So for me, you cannot separate the two issues – the ad and the incest fantasy – because the issue of the SB’s running the ad arose over a book containing that fantasy, to which readers and bloggers questioning the SBs decisions have objected. In that way, IMO the issues are completely enmeshed. Would we be arguing about this if the ad in question was for Botox, for example?
What I see in your comments is a personal dislike for the incest fantasy combined with a belief that the SB’s running that ad are endorsing the book’s contents, resulting in a sense of disappointment and frustration. And I think that’s a completely valid *personal* response. What I don’t think is that it automatically becomes an Ethical Issue in a general way. That is, I don’t think it brings the SBs ethics into general question, and until I understand why you believe that a blog having an ad is an endorsement of the book, I won’t be able to agree with you on that at all.
Yes, I understand that completely. The point I was trying to make is that if you and Katiebabs and everyone else who shares her opinion on this is doing so independently and autonomously, why can’t we extend the same respect to those who read the SBTB blog — why do we have to assume a) that the SBTB agree with everything they advertise, and b) why do we have to assume that readers can’t make up their own minds regarding the ads on the site? Just as we expect them to do with the comments, for example, many of which don’t reflect what either Candy or Sarah think on any given topic (half the time, they don’t even agree with each other).
Absolutely. I lurked on both DA and SBTB for quite a while before I posted, and then I was very cautious when I first started posting. I totally understand the insider/outsider dynamic on blogs.
BUT, I also understand the issue from the other side, that is, as a blogger who believes that there’s only so much you can do to draw people out to speak, and that if we’re talking about adults here, at some point people have to take responsibility for their comments or their silence and realize that their perceptions of their status are driving their feelings of intimidation.
Whenever I run into this talk of the “popular” bloggers or whatever I shake my head, because those bloggers I know from DA and SBTB, for example, are not hierarchical in the least. There is no insider or outsider perception, no idea that anyone is more or less valuable in their ability to speak. It is not in any blogger’s power to deem someone worthy of speaking, just as it’s not in any blogger’s power to make people like them or their blog. And since so many readers are also bloggers or Twitterers or whatever, it strikes me as even stranger that we are still constructing these ideas of more “popular” or “powerful” people who blog. Not that my words will change anything, but as someone who was never a member of the popular clique in high school (I was a floater, actually), I’ve always been grateful that such status is not required online to have a public voice.
Anyway, that’s slightly off topic, but the perceived power of SBTB seems to feed into this whole situation, as well, especially in the perception that no one is taking on SBTB because they’re so popular, etc.
At this point, I feel I’m repeating myself ad nauseam, so this will be my final comment on the matter.
1. I am not Karen Scott. I have not been manipulated by her. I can think for myself.
2. I am not accusing the Smart Bitches of being unethical. I said I find incest unethical (or immoral,if you prefer).
3. At no point did I demand the Smart Bitches remove an ad from their site.
4. I’m not being ‘mealymouthed’. I can’t (and won’t)feign an outrage I don’t feel. I’ve written rants in the past. This is not one of them.
5. Karen and Katiebabs’s posts made me think of advertising in general and how – for me – an ad is not just an ad. You don’t have to agree with me on that point but that is my belief.
There’s a significant difference between attacking someone and expressing surprise and disappointment over something they have said or done. While I have no right to dictate how the Smart Bitches choose to conduct themselves or run their blog, I am free to state my opinion. Equally, they are free to ignore it.
If I’ve learned anything from this it’s that the post author should bow out once there are more than ten comments or so.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to a very interesting discussion! Unless things get outrageous, I’m leaving the comment thread open for those of you who wish to continue the debate.
@Sarah
I apologize for anything I’ve said that has made you throw up your hands in frustration. Like Jane, whenever the word “ethical” enters a conversation, I become very engaged, because I think ethics are incredibly serious things (although my debate “seasoning,” as you put it, has been gained mostly from my years in academia).
As for the question of whether hosting ads signals endorsement, I’m briefly going to outline why I don’t think one implies the other, just in case someone else wants to engage the debate:
1. I think it is incredibly impractical and impracticable for a blog owner to extensively vet ads. I can’t see a scenario where a blog owner has to do research to make sure that the book in question is not offensive (whatever that means to the blogger) or that any other book the author wrote, her editor edited, or her publisher published, is offensive.
2. I’d hate to get to a point where a blogger cannot have voices on their blog that are in direct and even aggressive opposition to the position of the blog owners without them being accused of promoting those opposing viewpoints. This doesn’t only extend to comments, but also to interviewees and guest bloggers/reviewers. When the SBs, for example, talked about the controversy over The Jewel of Medina, many people took great offense to that book and believed it downright blasphemous. Should, then, the SBs not have tolerated its author’s comments on the blog, let alone an excerpt she provided for readers to peruse? I’d hope that’s not the case.
3. If blog owners are seen as promoting the products of ads they host, or the viewpoints of book authors in those ads, does that mean that shopkeepers are implicated in objectionable people who shop at their stores? Should they be required to vet consumers to make sure that their business is not patronized by certain types of people? Or should they be required to vet every product they sell? Should they make sure none of their products are produced by child labor or in sweatshops or by people who support certain political causes, or by pornographers, or whatever? If the answer is no, then why should blog owners be held complicit in advertisements on their sites that aren’t advocacy documents for genocide or child pornography or the like?
4. If we’re going to hold blog owners responsible for the content in ads, that is, if we’re going to label them complicit in book contents, is there a particular standard? Like, if a book contains an element, is it considered to be advocating that element? For those who live in countries that air political advertisements, would you want any particular channel owners or show producers to have only one party’s ads airing on their channel/during their show? And if they air ads of both parties, do we assign whatever is in those ads to the station/channel/show execs?
5. For those of you who participate in group blogs like Romancing the Blog, do you pay attention to the ads? I will admit that I don’t, because it never occurred to me that I would be seen as complicit in whatever ad was running next to my column, or that any of the Kates would be similarly complicit. I can say that there is a randomly generated author list on that site that contained at least one name I strongly and passionately objected to, and I entertained seriously the idea of quitting the blog because of that person’s inclusion. But the more I thought about it, the more I felt that I would simply be censoring myself on that forum while that other person’s name would remain. That didn’t seem like a very effective solution at all.
But as for the ads, I don’t think that blog owners should have the responsibility to make sure that everyone reading their blog finds the ad contents acceptable, short of what would be considered actionable as obscenity or as outrageous in the way of exceeding all reasonable societal values. While I think blog owners should have the right to not host any particular ads, I don’t necessarily see them as more ethical or more virtuous for those choices. Nor do I think it’s particularly easy to be seen as ethically or morally consistent the more narrow those parameters become.
@Robin: “Should they make sure none of their products are produced by child labor or in sweatshops or by people who support certain political causes, or by pornographers, or whatever? ”
I’ve always felt they should. Within reason. If you own a corner shop, I wouldn’t expect you to know the full history of every Twix you sell, but if a supermarket knowingly stocks items made by child labour, I think that’s wrong.
Then there’s the difference between thinking and doing – I don’t think I should buy meat that’s been raised in cruel ways, but if there’s a deal at the supermarket, I don’t ask any questions.
And, while I’m in no position to throw stones, I think I’m wrong. I think if you buy that cheap chicken, you are culpable. I think if you suggest to someone else they buy the cheap chicken, you’re culpable. And while 90% of the mothers in the land might buy the chicken, and 99% of the newspapers might carry the supermarket’s advert – it’s still, at heart, a wrong thing to do.
Though it is a wrong thing I do all the time.
So, to get back to the argument, I don’t think a newspaper, or blog, has any duty to have their ads acceptable – though it would seem commercially prudent to avoid offending their readership.
But, as an ethical issue, I think if a TV station runs a ‘consolidate all your debts into one etc. etc’ ad – it’s done something wrong. It’s just something that is so completely normal and universal that we almost forget to notice how wrong it is.
Sarah, I thought it was obvious my previous comment was in direct response to comments and to Karen’s post more generally, not to your original post. I apologise for giving the impression of criticising you.
@Marianne McA
For me the issues you’re touching on highlight the distinction between what I see as personal ethics and community ethics. That is, I hold myself to certain ethical standards (whether I meet them or not all the time), but I tend to see community ethics as more of a balance of priorities and possibilities – of ideals and limitations.
In the US, for example, free-range chickens, organic eggs (you have to buy organic to ensure that they’re truly free-range), grass-fed, humanely raise and slaughtered cows, etc. are super expensive. And the majority of Americans, I’d venture to say, just cannot afford it, even if — and it’s a HUGE if — they have access. So I just cannot see their choice to buy eggs that are factory produced (as horrible as it is, IMO) as an ethical wrong. Now, it may be that our society is ethically lapsed because we do not ensure humane treatment for all our food animals and because we do not ensure reasonable prices and wide access to these foods. I can absolutely agree with that argument. But I’m not sure if that’s how you’re drawing the distinction.
These dilemmas always emerge, too, when you talk boycott. For example, I had this debate with someone around boycotting The Gap for sweatshop practices a while back. We were arguing about whether it’s a greater virtue to boycott local stores or not, because if enough people boycott a store, the first and sometimes only people who suffer are those whose livelihoods depend on the jobs they have in those stores. And the neighborhoods that depend on that commercial influx, etc. One of the stores we were talking about was in a very economically challenged area, and the store was one of the main economic feeders for the surrounding area.
So I believe that there are certain social ideals and ideally ethical practices that as a society we should be aspiring to, but how that makes the community members ethical or unethical based on the choices they make is much less absolutist for me.
@Robin – Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Wasn’t a good example to use. I was trying to avoid talking specifically about the original kerfuffle. FWIW, what I was trying to tease out was to what an extent I, as a consumer, have a responsibilty to make sure than the products I buy – have what? – some sort of ethical provenance. And then sort of read that back to advertising products which are produced in some way immorally.
And I think I have that responsibility, though as I said, I don’t follow through. (My brother and his wife, for instance, became vegans for several years, because veal is a by-product of the dairy industry – that’s not just taking an interest in the product itself, it’s refusing to buy a product where the production method has an indirect consequence you think is wrong.)
I’m not sure how absolutist I feel about it – have to think about that.
http://www.chancery-is-god.com/?p=268
I’m going to use this to make a general response that does focus on the specific situation in question here, because I think there several issues raised here that are critical to the inquiry that has been made of whether the SBs have an ethical duty to refuse certain ads and whether their actions in the Stone ad are unethical.
I just want to point out again that it seems the vast majority of us commenting on this *have not read the book* in question. And during the Amazon de-ranking scandal, one of the main points people kept making was that you couldn’t take all books and throw them into the same category based on a tag — that Hustler retrospectives were not the same as James Baldwin’s memoir, for example. But here there seems to be a lot of comfort with assuming that Stone’s novel is advocating/glorifying/idealizing, etc. something immoral and illegal. Without going back into the “what about all the other stuff that passes muster” analysis, can I just offer the possibility that there are some wrong assumptions being made about this book — or that at least the assumptions are, at this point, mere projections?
If I as a consumer have an ethical obligation, then the question arises as to what that is — what is the ethical principle to which I should aspire? In part that depends on the community values, of course, but in a community focused on reading and books, aren’t the values of unfettered creative expression and untrammeled rights to read superlative? Isn’t that what we all want, what we all assert as our basic rights, regardless of our individual tastes in books? (this, btw, is why it surprises me that bloggers and authors have taken up this issue — because IMO it contradicts directly the basic freedoms we all profess to be protecting in exercising our rights to speak publicly about books and book-related stuff)
Of course, I have been born, bred, and educated in a country whose constitutional integrity is based on an elevation of individual liberty, Which means that in the US, our general values — liberty, equality, etc. — are primary, and they supercede individual likes and dislikes. And a critical element of the principle of free speech is that we tolerate speech we can’t stand in order to protect our own right to speak freely. Because what one person finds offensive another will find essential.
As the Supreme Court has held: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).
Consequently, an attorney will defend the rights of the KKK to march in a town square, NOT because the attorney thinks that the KKK’s platform is morally right, but because the general value of free speech requires that we give it to EVERYONE, within certain prescribed limits. And that we do so on the basis of *content neutrality* — that is, without regard to the content of the message, as long as it falls within the parameters of non-obscene, non-violence-inducing, non-harassing speech (and the test for obscenity sets the bar high, so that not everything sexual gets swept in — to be obscene, something must as a whole be without literary, artistic, political, or scientific value). Think about it: do you want the person who finds what you’re saying repulsive to be the one deciding whether you have the right to say it?
In this case, the objection seems to run like this: the SB’s are running the Stone ad, therefore they must be condoning incest and are therefore acting unethically.
However, I would argue that this is an incorrect formulation of the issue – or rather that it is a formulation that confuses personal morality and community ethics.
To wit: Let’s say we accept the premise that by running an ad for a book that contains incest that the SB’s have acted unethically, because, after all, incest is wrong, and no one should do anything to appear as if they are condoning it. If that premise is true, then don’t we then have to accept the premise that anyone running an ad for anything that is deemed morally wrong is also acting unethically? That is, anyone running ads for books with bestiality, necrophilia, rape, kidnapping, domestic violence, abortion, etc. are acting unethically? And think of the people who believe that homosexuality, premarital sex, and birth control are morally wrong, as well.
Ethics vary from community to community and are based on what the highest good in that community is and on how other members are deemed trustworthy. I argue that we need to be setting the ethical standard somewhere that generally reflects and represents the community good. And in a community focused on books, where is that good? Is it really in our different and varied ideas of what is and isn’t morally acceptable as reading material? Or is it in what we all rely on – as bloggers, as authors, as readers – namely, the right to read, write, and speak freely? And for bloggers with a diverse audience, why should those bloggers not be able to accept advertising that reflects the diversity of the readership without being seen as morally complicit in the content of those books? It’s not like the blog is *publishing* those books? And again, how many of us are boycotting publishers that put out books we find morally objectionable?
As to the question of *what we read*, are we defined by every book we read and everything it says? If I read Mein Kampf does that mean I ascribe to the values of German Nationalism and anti-Semitism? If I read Catherine Coulter’s Rosehaven does that mean I endorse a man’s right to rape his sassy wife? And when it comes to advertising, why does it make a blogger more ethical to run only those ads that comport with the blogger’s personal morals? Why is that more ethical than the ideal of free expression and protection of morally diverse reading tastes? Which protects the integrity of the reading, authoring, blogging community more?
Personal tastes and morals are important and valid. All of us have them, and we will compare ourselves to others based on them. Any one of us may object to someone else’s values and actions because of the strength of our own tastes and morals. However, IMO there is a substantial and substantive difference between personal morals and community ethics. Can any of you seriously imagine a community holding together that is based entirely on the personal tastes and morals of its members? None of us is consistent within ourselves on that basis, let alone with each other. Religious communities that purport to be premised on common morals from a foundational text like the Bible do not have internal consistency when it comes to what those morals are and how they should be exercised. Religious scholars cannot even agree on what the same things within the same religion mean.
Add to that the perception that anything on a particular blogger’s site – guest bloggers, reviewers, commenters, advertisements – must reflect the blogger’s own values. What blog could *ever* stand up to such scrutiny?
I forgot to mention in my last comment that for a while (I haven’t visited lately, so no idea if it’s still there), the Website for Ellora’s Cave featured a banner for Playgirl Magazine at the bottom. Since Playgirl falls into the category “pornography” for many people, does that make the EC site off-limits for people?
Also, I remember authors objecting left and right to the idea of boycotting Penguin, Dorchester, and Kensington after the Cassie Edwards outing, and yet all of those pubs were (two still are) putting out (two still are) her books. So why shouldn’t we associate every author with their publisher, if we are supposed to associate a blog owner with an ad on their site?
Next Comments →