I’m glad the slate’s clean, though I truly mean what I said: I wasn’t offended, nor did I intend any affront. It’s okay to get mad. We all do :)

Shirley

As for thanking me, it’s my pleasure. In my experience, sharing of ideas is usually a good thing; it’s when talking stops that there’s an insurmountable problem.

Let me say, that’s not how I read your questions and remarks, or how I think they were phrased–and I really thought I had answered this.

But happily conceding that misunderstandings happen, here are the answers.

I don’t think my opinion would cause a negative reaction among writers who think the type of erotica that was under discussion is part of the genre. And even if it did, it’s still my opinion that it’s not. There were writers and readers who disagreed with my opinion–and some who did agree.

Why would the press ask me about Erotica when I don’t write it? Search me, but they do. I *have* been asked my thoughts on Erotica by the press. Repeatedly. I’ve been asked, also, about my thoughts and opinions on Erotic Romance–which I don’t write either.

My statement was I’m asked, and if and when I am, I’d say that I don’t believe Erotica is Romance. I do believe Erotic Romance is one on the spoke on the wheel of the Romance genre. There is a difference to me, this is my opinion. And if asked for it, I give it.

I wasn’t dodging the question, as I’d said the above in the thread on Karen’s blog. Others said essentially the same–before and after I did. But you didn’t single them out as you did me. And after awhile, I took offense.

I’ll accept that no offense was intended, and that should put an end to it.

Clean slate.

As for taking your words out of context, I guess I’ll just quote longer bits:

~Your comments read more to me like someone who trying to chastise without actually doing any serious PR damage. Not of course that you’d need to worry. It’s a catch 22 isn’t it – if you say you don’t possible have enough weight in the community to sway opinion, it looks a bit hypocritical after the bit about having to comment to the media.

~And if you say you can sway opinion, then you sound like an egomaniac and it sure does make me wonder why you’d be saying what you’ll have to tell the reporters, when they ask, that erotica isn’t romance, erotica is it’s own genre.~
(That bit is at the end of comment 102 over there–I don’t know how to make pretty links, sorry)

As far as I know, Ms Roberts hasn’t been asked whether erotica is or isn’t romance, but, rankly, I think that given the fact that the press just asked Ms Roberts her opinion on the CE plagiarism issue, there’s no arguing the likelihood that if the labeling of erotica vis a vis romance ever arose, the press *would* contact Ms Roberts and ask for her take. Stating a fact that’s been proven over and over by previous experience doesn’t an egomaniac make.

On a personal note: the repeated mention of your age, Shirley, makes me uncomfortable because, I can’t see what bearing it has on the conversation. Further, I found it antagonistic when you called Ms Roberts “young lady” on that same thread at Karen Scott’s (Quote: “There isn’t any reinterpreting going on from my end, young lady.” comment 109) It seemed to me a manipulative way of ‘putting her in her place” which is in itself disrespectful, IMO. Whether you are older than Ms Roberts by a day or a lifetime, it was–and still is–irrelevant to the topic at hand. Just as it is here.

You’re absolutely right, aztec lady. You can’t convey tone at all. I didn’t bother to go back and read what I wrote because I know how I felt at the time. Regardless of whether Ms. Roberts or you took the comments personally, they weren’t intended as such. We can’t convey our feelings in words alone. Even if I’d tried to clarify what, or rather, how I was saying things, by the time I was labeled a ‘troll’ no one would have honestly bothered to pay attention. And arguing in comments, while exciting to read, really takes lots of time. I’ve no doubt my words could be quoted to look ugly, but there wasn’t any ugliness in them when I typed them. And if I am speaking ‘to’ someone, I tend to use the proper pronouns. So ‘her books’ and ‘her comments’, well I was speaking ‘to’ her. For example, I think all those dots between comments and chastising might have overlooked the between part, where I think I said her comments could be ‘interpreted’ as chastising. Kind of changes the meaning a little.

Then again, when one plays devils advocate – as I was doing at the time – comments are generally misconstrued. As I said, I don’t blame NR for calling me a name, or getting crappy, or somewhat avoiding giving an answer to a question she didn’t really want to answer. It is a catch 22, and no matter how she answers there are people who will be upset by what she says.

I think the better thing to look for in that comment trail or string or whatever its called, LOL, is the vehemence and ugliness that was directed at me for even asking. Some attempted to stay calm, others didn’t even try, but because I asked something the group found ‘out of bounds’, because NR called me a troll, then I must have been a troll. Her words became a fact for those moments in the eyes of the commentors. I’ve been called much worse, as I believe I said, in my years, but look how the mass glommed onto that immediately.

That’s the real point. Whether fans or not, anyone can get attacked by a larger group on the internet in a fashion that simply would not be tolerated in the real world. The whole thing can be twisted or turned so it looks how anyone wants it to look. And that’s both to the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’. I mean, lets be honest, things get misinterpreted all the time. To make a *crazy* analogy, blog wars are sometimes like religion. The Bible, Koran, Talmud(I’m probably messing that one up) have been hijacked, misquoted, and outright misinterpreted to support all kinds of things, good and bad.

I really wasn’t trying to ‘heat’ things up over here, Ann. I don’t know if I have, but for what it’s worth, I’m actually enjoying this calm discussion where my comments weren’t immediately interpreted as ‘evil’. And look, no troll tossing, LOL! I was only talking about my personal experience and how I perceived what happened as it related to your topic.

And I don’t fault NR for her actions. I accept the apology, though I don’t really think it’s necessary. I simply don’t agree with aztec lady that NR is always a consummate professional. She’s professional, but she’s human, and she does and says things that aren’t always ‘good’. I don’t fault her for that one bit, and in this old lady’s opinion, it makes her quite likable. Who wants to talk to a mouthpiece that is constantly watching for possible negative PR? That’d be pretty boring.

I was more fascinated by the by play of the events than by our (NR and I) actual conversation. Because the mass rose up to defend NR from my perceived attack, exactly like so many of those targeted – and I only use that word because it’s what is so often used by others, not for any perceived connotation – by K’s blog, but no one seemed to notice it when *they* could have been seen as the party guilty of fangirly-ness.

I don’t act any differently on this blog than I do anywhere else in net-lic (ROFL, that what I call internet public, my grandkids think its hilarious). I’m not the argumentative kind, but I do like debate and good conversation so I usually speak up on the devil’s side, as my DH used to say, an awful lot. Hopefully, that doesn’t make me a ‘bad’ lady.

Shirley

Play on!

Shirley, perhaps we are back to the fact that text doesn’t convey all nuances of speech–or, was Candy at the SBs says, ‘text strips emotion,’ or perhaps in this case, it adds emotion.

I just re read the thread in question, to which I commented apparently only once by the way. And upon reading the entire thing in one gulp, what I get is that you directed your comments specifically to Ms Roberts in a fairly personal and aggressive manner.

“Authors like you” “It is about your books” “Your comments… trying to chastise”

Similarly, in this thread, when you quoted my comment, and then said, “And I can tell by the question you posed, instead of just saying ‘gee, when you put it that way, I guess I can see what you mean’ that you have found yourself lashing out in your real life job over a slight, large or small, that you took exceptionally personally.” That felt directed at me in a manner that, I thought, wasn’t warranted by my own comment.

Perhaps something to consider?

I’ve read over the comments; there are 120 of them! People were quite stirred up, it seems.

Quick and dirty summary: The gist of it involves where kink becomes so profound that it skews out of romance and into something other. For Nora, cutting and blood play pushes a book out of romance. Shirley maintains even though it’s edgy, it should still be seen under the umbrella of erotic romance, if there’s a complete love story with a happy ending.

I admit, my definitions here are somewhat fluid. The level of sexual kink doesn’t define the genre for me. In my opinion, it would depend on the setup. I’m not sure I could enjoy reading about a stock broker and a salesgirl who enjoy getting freaky with steak knives. But in a dark romance, where the hero and heroine are both brutal for plot-based reasons? (I reference Bettie Sharpe’s Like a Thief in the Night.) Yeah, that works for me big time.

However, I do definitely have limitations as to what I want to read — my comfort zone if you will. I’ll toss water sports and scat play out. I’m not making a judgment on people who enjoy this sort of thing, but I just have no interest in reading it. Maybe someone could write a deeply compelling love story that contained those elements: deep, passionate, lyrical … but I’m still NOT reading it.

In fact, in reading Clive Barker’s The Great and Secret Show, I was pretty much revolted to the Nth power when this dude performed what I’ll call “shit magic”, using his own fecal matter to summon up some beasties. You know that’s like ALL I can remember about the book? Seriously yuck — and I had been a big fan up until that point.

General footnote on that discussion: Shirley referenced VC Andrews as writing about a lot of taboo subjects in her books, which sold phenomenally well. She did tap the forbidden for her market, but I wouldn’t classify her books as romance. I’d lean toward Gothic / horror.

You questioned my motives about my position on this particular subject matter–incest, blood play, etc, being included as Romance, and why I would exclude it if asked–as I often am–in interview.

I responded to you a few times, and finally felt–and stated I felt–that it seemed you were reinterpreting my comments, and it was tiresome.

And you got snippy, and again personal, and continually separated me out though there were many other writers commenting in the thread along the same lines as mine.

And that’s when I called you a troll. I consider someone who seems bent on derailing a discussion into personalities trollish. But maybe I misunderstood, and I’ll apologize for that single remark.

However, I didn’t claim I was the Voice of Romance–not in that thread or at any other time. I said I was often called upon to speak of the genre, often asked to define it or comment on it by the media.

That’s just a simple fact.

I don’t consider my response to you unprofessional. I don’t believe I’m often the first to lash out–but certainly would stand up for myself if someone told me ‘to go screw myself’.

Why wouldn’t I?

I really don’t believe you phrased your questions to me in that thread as you’ve phrased them above.

To wind back around to the topic here, I think when a reader continually pokes and pokes, uses language designed to annoy or insult, the object of that focus is bound to poke back. Being professional doesn’t mean being spineless.