Just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water...
A quote from a famously long-winded commenter on a busy-as-a-bee romance review blog (to which I will not link because that might besmirch its pristine rep, and we can't have that, can we?) :
"So now I start wondering things like: where does Caridad Ferrer stand in all of this? Her blog is linked on Ferfe's page and she's March's friend. I have several question marks like that, around authors and bloggers who haven't ever publicly indicated that they're not on board with the mudfest. Not that any of those authors or bloggers may care one whit, but I can't imagine I'm the only one asking those questions."
I'll answer that question with a question: So now busy authors juggling multiple professional commitments are required to keep abreast of blog-wars in which they have no interest AND make sure all bloggers linking to them are on the politically correct side of any controversy?
SERIOUSLY?? Dude.
Get. A. Life.
Buy one if you have to. Put it on freakin' lay-a-way for the holidays. Anyone with that many "question marks" around the idea that an award-winning author doesn't have better things to do with her time is in serious need of a hobby.
A note to all authors in my sidebar: that target on your back just got bigger. Want me to de-link? Drop me a note, no hard feelings. It's Amnesty Day here at Dubious Virtue, in honor of folks with too much time on their hands and not near enough common sense.
SelahMarch.com - Romance of Dubious Virtue
33Comments:
OoOoOoOo! Can I get a rep by hanging on your blogroll?
Coolness. :)
Alessia, you minx. Where were you when I was seventeen? ;)
This is the blog police. I'm afraid I'm going to have to take you in for disorderly blogging and linking to a notorious blog criminal. Ordinarily I would let you off with a warning but I can see you are a serial blogger and danger to the good people of the blog-o-sphere. Delink quietly and no one will get hurt.
I repeat: You can have my link to Ferfe when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.
Come and get me, copper.
Top o' the world, ma!
*laughs as the flames dance higher*
Buh?
Mudfest?
*is stoopit*
You can't fool us, Caridad. We know you spend your days trolling Romancelandia for ugly brawls and your nights checking the credentials of every blogger who's ever mentioned your name.
You know? If you'd cut that shit out and actually applied yourself? You might win a RITA. :p
Whoops...there I go with the "mere sarcasm" again.
*blinks innocently*
You can't fool us, Caridad. We know you spend your days trolling Romancelandia for ugly brawls and your nights checking the credentials of every blogger who's ever mentioned your name.
Buh?!?
*is really stoopit*
Whoops...there I go with the "mere sarcasm" again.
Ah, well, okay. Then whatever it's about, at least now I know what to get you for Christmas.
Selah's Christmas Present
Seriously though, whatever it has to do with, I can honestly say I have no clue-- unless it's some unsubstantiated rumor that Alejandro Fernández and I were spotted in a dark corner of the pool at Setai in SoBe. I'm good with that.
I MUST HAVE THAT SHIRT.
Of course, there's this one, too:
http://www.myteespot.com/product.php?productid=5688&cat=1&page=1
I want that one in seven different colors for every day of the week. It's my new mantra.
I believe that Robin's comment has been taken both out of context and out of proportion here and elsewhere. Reading the whole exchange at Karen's may change how it's perceived.
Or not.
It would seem that agreeing with someone--or disagreeing/criticizing someone else--means that my common sense is in question in some circles.
Pot, kettle?
Then again, perhaps I'm misreading all of this myself.
Ah, but I never claimed to have any common sense, aztec. If I did, I'd be using my excellent typing skills to be making fifty bucks an hour as a medical transcriptionist. In that way, I'm the blackest kettle in the kitchen.
Sadly, I did force myself to read the entire exchange. I still think the commenter's dragging an innocent bystander into the fray was over the line. Not that Caridad finds it anything but mildly amusing. She's a peach that way.
But our lines -- yours and mine -- are clearly drawn in different places. And that's okay with me. I'm back to "live and let live" as of twenty minutes ago. :)
Well, mine is not so much a line--I don't think--as much as my concept of friendship differing from yours.
I believe that being loyal to a friend does not equate being blind to his/her missteps, nor holding the same opinions on every topic under the sun.
I don't have the same investment in these blowups that others do. All I am is a reader--no writerly ambitions here, thanks goodness--albeit an opinionated one. I like some online personae and dislike others; I agree/disagree with them on different subjects, and feel perfectly fine in both instances.
/pointless ramble
I believe that being loyal to a friend does not equate being blind to his/her missteps, nor holding the same opinions on every topic under the sun.
Oh, goodness.
I'll use Ferfe as an example here, because I know she can take it.
Ferfe: right-wing Republican
Me: left-wing loony-tune
Ferfe: believer in the RULES OF ROMANCE
Me: genre iconclast, ready and willing to smash every Romance rule (up to but NOT including the HEA) in order to tell a different/better story
Ferfe: lover of dry white wine
Me: big into Riesling
Ferfe: cat person
Me: dog person
Ferfe: blonde bombshell and proud of it
Me: brunette with a chip on my shoulder about it
Need I go on?
Where we agree: Readers/reviewers/bloggers do not get a free pass to be asswipes just because they're readers/reviewers/bloggers.
We also agree that Eva Gale is too adorable to be real and may, in fact, be a figment of our combined imaginations, but that's another story altogether. ;)
I'm going to leave well enough alone soon. Really, I am!
*ahem*
Still... how about being blind to a friend's misstep?
'Cause frankly, using Karen Scott's pain the way CC did seems to me to cross the line between "righteous defender of poor, innocent, helpless writers from the mean, ugly, asshatish bloogers" and "gotta win this argument no matter what the means."
See, I don't believe that the end justifies the means, ever. And I don't believe that retaliating to perceived "meanness" with (what I perceive as) viciousness does anything for either the issue [right or lack thereof of bloggers to be asswipes, lets say], nor the people espousing it.
Does this make any sense?
Okay, okay, I'm leaving ('cause it's lunch time) but I gotta ask this:
When choosing to become the morally righteous defender of the helpless/innocent, is it possible to say, "s/he was mean/bullish/asswipish first, so now I can do it back, neener!!!" without being perceived as... well, profoundly lacking in self-awareness at best?
lol. It was the Perception Messin wasn't it?
Hmm-where we differ: Libertarian, Lover of cabernet and chianti, Rule Breaker, Ferret Person, brunette who shoulda been a redhead.
The part I love about our friendships is that we disagree all the time, but adore eachother anyway. And BECAUSE I'm a friend, I would NEVER EVER disagree with a friend online about serious matters such as morality. Same as I would never argue with my husband in public or chastise my children in front of their friends. Nor would I divulge it all in public to make myself seem more righteous.
And I will buy you a few of those shirts for Christmas, pet.
I'm gonna answer this straight up, and while I'm aware that it may come off as a cop-out, it's the truth, on the eyes of my children and my hand to God.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't want to know.
I've been making myself scarce lately. I wander into the blogs and boards on my sidebar a couple times a week, and that's about it. I quit looking at the "mean girl" bloggers back in August. I can't say I miss them, and I know they don't miss me.
I'll admit to a few private conversations and a few comments on Ferfe's blog about the general topic of online bullies, but I've been trying SO hard to stay out of the wars and here's why: I can't write when my head is full of that shit. And that's why I'm here in the first place -- to write.
So while I can't disagree with you on the topic of ends not always justifying means (liberal pacifist lunatic that I am), I'll have to take a pass on discussing the particulars of whatever incident you're referencing, but I really don't know, and I can't let myself find out or I'll be fucked. Again. Just like last time.
So. Peace?
And Alessia already has a rep. She's been hanging with Feisty. *g*
That last was meant for aztec, btw.
Eva, I try not to argue with my husband or chastise my children in public, too. After 18 years, I've almost got that bad habit licked. :p
No disrespect intended, and I value and understand your views, but I thought what Karen did to Jaid Black and Jaynie R (not friends of mine, just women I find interesting and engaging) was worse and completely unprovoked. I take no stance on the topic itself one way or another. I simply feel that not everything someone reveals that is personal on line should be fair game for blogger abuse.
I think it is the same in personal conversations as well. People say things. They reveal things about themselves that perhaps they should keep private. There is a trust between civilized human beings that we are compasionate enough and astute enough to recognize what is appropriate to pick up and talk about and what should be left alone. No one, not even me, should get a pass on that.
I have been watching people who I know are decent human beings, act like Romans at the collosseum on these blogs. I should be slam danced for the Show And Tell post, absolutely. And Karen should have been handed her ass for each and every one of the people she trashed who she believe she "caught with their pants down".
But that never happens.
The world isn't fair. I know that. But I have an opinion on the things that go on online and I make my opinion known in whatever creative way I'm in the mood for. This time, I held up a small mirror and said, "Look."
People didn't like it. It's ugly. That's what I see when Karen Scott goes after someone. It's ugly. And. I don't like it.
Selah, that was SO not meant for you. Sorry if I inferred that. I should have said so.
Excellent post, Ferfe.
No sweat, Eva, I got it.
Thanks for addressing this, Ferfe. I appreciate it.
Is disagreeing in public the same as chastising? I'm going to say, "no, it ain't" and continue disagreeing, if I may?
You said that you have no idea, nor want to know, what I'm talking about... but I fear that cat left the bag ages ago. The entire exchange at Karen's blog (from which you quote Robin's comment), is about the excerpt at CC's blog that I am talking about.
I certainly hope that saying, "I don't like what your friend is doing, and, because of her public online behaviour, I don't believe neither her stated motivations nor her intentions to be pure nor morally superior to others," doesn't necessarily equate with chastising you for being loyal to her.
As far as I can tell, what it does mean is that you and I see the same person in entirely different lights, and thus hold different opinions of her.
Not surprising, is it, since I see other bloggers and their actions in a far different light than the one you see them (again, going by public exchanges with them online only).
Would I react the same as you, were it my friend doing what your friend is doing? I hope I would be able to see what she's doing with the same clarity that I saw what the meanpeople were doing, and so to be able tell her, privately, that I disagreed with her. In public, I would stay out of it.
Because for me, loyalty to a friend doesn't extend to going against my principles--and in this case? Agreeing with your friend's actions would compromise my principles.
Is that enough common ground for peace between you and I?
Allow me to clarify? When I said I "read the entire exchange," I meant I read the relevant exchange between Robin and the next few commenters discussing whether Caridad Ferrer should be held responsible for the miscreants she calls friends and acquaintances, of which I am the first.
I purposely avoided the original post itself and scrolled down to where I was told I could find Robin's comment. I did this for the very reason I give above -- this stuff eats at my brain in a way that is totally unhealthy. I've made myself sick over it a couple times before, and I won't do it again, even if it means I miss the point of some conversations. In this case, I was concerned with Caridad and only Caridad. I'm still not entirely clear on the details of the latest siege, and I plan to keep it that way.
Yes, I'm aware that this makes me the biggest, most pathetic wuss on the block. I'm okay with that.
I do not feel chastised by you, aztec. You've expressed your opinions here very respectfully, and I can tell you intend no harm. I hope you don't feel chastised by me.
As to what my friends and I discuss privately...if I were to divulge it, then it wouldn't be private anymore, would it? Ferfe defends her actions very eloquently. I have nothing to add on that score.
We've always been able to find common ground, you and I. I hope we can continue to do so. I value you as a friend and a reader. In that order. :)
Selah, I don't believe it's a wuss s/he who acknowledges his/her triggers.
Given you are not aware of what I'm talking about, I'll stop harping about it here.
[A point of agreement: private communication which is intended to remain private should, by all means, remain so.]
Be well!
Ms. Aztec,
"Because for me, loyalty to a friend doesn't extend to going against my principles--and in this case? Agreeing with your friend's actions would compromise my principles."
This is the hard part for those looking in. They'll never know. Because private communication remains private. Totally agreed.
"Thanks for addressing this, Ferfe. I appreciate it."
I never wanted to put you or anyone else in the position of defending the indefensible. Every now and then I just have to don the gadfly costume. It's my way. I try to keep it to a minimum. ;-)
Well, aren't we four just the most reasonable, well-adjusted chickies in the henhouse? ;)
That's right, move along, show's over, nothing to see here...
Late to the party again . . .
So now busy authors juggling multiple professional commitments are required to keep abreast of blog-wars in which they have no interest AND make sure all bloggers linking to them are on the politically correct side of any controversy?
Yeah, we're going to do that. Right after we finish kissing the ass of -- how did you put it? -- every chick with a credit card and a web site. Please.
A note to all authors in my sidebar: that target on your back just got bigger.
Pity their aim sucks so much.
Want me to de-link?
Your blog is already contaminated with nanites that, if sensing an intention to delete the link to PBW, will seize control of it and transform your content into an inspirational chick-lit review site with a hot pink background, totally cool scripture that justifies Osteenism, and is titled "Bless Me, Father, Because I'm Like a Virgin and I Really Want Those Seven Hundred Dollar Snakeskin Shoes."
Your choice.
Allow me to clarify? When I said I "read the entire exchange," I meant I read the relevant exchange between Robin and the next few commenters discussing whether Caridad Ferrer should be held responsible for the miscreants she calls friends and acquaintances, of which I am the first.
Damn skippy you are, and staying that way, you cranky bitca. As far as whether I should be held responsible? Please. I don't even hold myself responsible for the majority of what my own spawn do, given that they're sentient and of an age where they're perfectly capable of making their own decisions and offering reasonable explanation as to why they made their choices.
*snip*
I'm still not entirely clear on the details of the latest siege, and I plan to keep it that way.
Yeah, um, this. I still have no clue and frankly, can't be arsed to find out. On a good day I don't have the patience to go blog trolling-- if it doesn't come in the form of a Google/Yahoo alert, then I don't tend to know about it. Now, of course, if it's that unsubstatiated Alejandro Fernández rumor and if there is any photographic evidence of that, you can betcha I'll be wanting to know about it! Yeah, yeah, I'm shallow that way. :-P
Your blog is already contaminated with nanites that, if sensing an intention to delete the link to PBW, will seize control of it and transform your content into an inspirational chick-lit review site with a hot pink background, totally cool scripture that justifies Osteenism, and is titled "Bless Me, Father, Because I'm Like a Virgin and I Really Want Those Seven Hundred Dollar Snakeskin Shoes."
Your choice.
*frantically double-checks PBW link, considers adding two more as back-up*
You play rough. Which is why I love you. Well...one of the reasons.
Yeah, yeah, I'm shallow that way. :-P
Like the Grand Canyon, you NYT quoted-bitca, you.
Damn skippy you are, and staying that way, you cranky bitca. As far as whether I should be held responsible?
I really need to not post before coffee-- incomplete thoughts happen. I meant "as far as whether I should be held responsible for what you say or do on you own time?" Well, one would think "on your own time" would be implied, but then again, who knows. Provided you haven't become a serial killer or severely right-wing (because that would make that sharing a brain thing difficult). Then I'd have to smack you around-- a lot.
Otherwise, as far as I can recall, you wear big girl panties (when you wear 'em), so unless it does involve me directly, vaya con Dios baby.
Like the Grand Canyon, you NYT quoted-bitca, you.
You're not letting that go any time soon, are you?
Post a Comment
<< Home