I’ve read the Twilight books. Well, okay, I read the first three. The second, if memory serves, was the one I liked best out of those, but I simply could not force myself to get through the last one. I was dreadfully bored, so I skimmed it, and got the gist, and that was more than enough. And again, I didn’t hate them. I didn’t love them, by any stretch. I didn’t particularly like them. But I didn’t loathe them. I even thought–and it’s not an uncommon thought, I don’t think–that there were some good ideas buried in there, some really cool shit. And I admit as well that one scene in the first book, the one at the lake when Jacob tells Bella the legend of the vampires, was pretty nifty. I dug that scene.

But yes, I also see the problems. I see the essentially abusive relationship, the completely ridiculous parents, the ha-ha-semi-rape-is-okay bits, the oh-sure-it’s-totally-cool-for-adults-to-fall-in-love-with-infants bits, the female-sexual-desire-is-gross-and-must-be-suppressed bits, the creepy-religion-y stuff…you name it. I know it’s there.

Am I happy that teenage girls all over the world wish a man would stalk them, scare them, destroy their possessions in order to get them to obey, patronize them, treat them like morons? No. Of course not.

But here’s the thing. What exactly are the other relationship alternatives we as a society are offering teenage girls?

How many stories do we see about teen pregnancy rates going up? How many of the fathers of those babies stick around? How many women and girls do you know who’ve slept with a man who said he loved them or cared about them, and then dumped them shortly after they had sex? How many times does our society tell young women that for them to expect to be loved and taken care of by a man is ridiculous, a silly fairy-tale dream, and that they better get used to relying only on themselves because men won’t stick around? How many girls out there are led to believe that their only value is as a sex object? That being a sex object is the most important thing there is? How many of these girls have fathers in their homes? How many see men as people who drift in and out of your life, treating you sort of okay sometimes?

It’s not just about sex. I don’t mean to sound like I’m on some chastity crusade. But what I do think is that girls today are being raised to believe that they shouldn’t expect respect, love, responsibility, or anything else from men. That being cheated on is just the way it goes. That the only way to get and keep a boyfriend is to not mind when he treats you badly, to give him things, to not act like you really care that much, to place no expectations on him.

I realize I’m exaggerating a bit. I realize there are still plenty of decent people out there. I realize that things can be just as tough for teenage boys.

But my point is, our society seems to be moving further and further away from the idea that love is a valuable and good thing, that people belong together, that girls have the right to expect to be treated with respect and kindness, and that boys have the right to expect the same.

And that, my friends, is one reason I believe the Twilight books are so popular. Yes, Edward is a controlling jerk. But Edward isn’t embarrassed to care (he even says the L word!), and he doesn’t leave Bella at home alone while he goes out with his friends picking up girls. He doesn’t refer to her as his “bitch.” Once he admits he cares, he is committed. Twilight offers girls a view of a relationship that, if it’s not a great alternative, at least seems more secure than a casual hook-up. It’s a world where girls don’t have to be embarrassed to want a solid relationship, with a man who will care for and about them, and wants to make a serious commitment to them. It’s a world where, for all that the sexual attitudes in the book are troublesome to say the least, Bella’s sexuality and willingness to sexually perform is the least important aspect of the relationship.

And in this world it’s okay, even right, if the desire to love and be loved is the most important thing in your life. That desire isn’t pooh-poohed or put down in those books. It’s not treated as frivolity. It’s not spoken about or represented as if it’s a shameful thing to want to be loved or to be in love, and that any girl who thinks about relationships and romance instead of college and their investment portfolios are obviously ridiculous, irresponsible creatures.

Twilight offers a skewed view of relationship, yes. Twilight does not contain what I would say is a truly healthy relationship.

But Twilight is about a relationship, and Twilight takes that relationship seriously and treats it as an important thing, a worthwhile thing, a thing of respect. Something fulfilling. Twilight doesn’t put down young girls for wanting a boyfriend, or for wanting that more than anything else. It doesn’t make them feel as if they’re not good enough if they don’t know what they want to be when they grow up, or aren’t spending their every waking minute working hard and collecting references for college applications.

I don’t think this is the only reason; it’s just the only one I can fathom, to be honest. And I’m not saying any of this is a good thing, or that I approve. And I’m not saying Twilight doesn’t deserve the criticism it’s gotten; it absolutely does.

But I also think that in relentlessly attacking Twilight, we’re once again attacking these girls, too. We’re telling them, once again, that they’re stupid and silly for believing in love and for wanting it. They’re ridiculous for wanting a man to truly love them and to see something special in them. We’re telling them that the desires of their heart and soul are unimportant, and foolish, and that if they aren’t focusing their entire selves on future earning power and getting ahead they’re wasting everyone’s time.

And to be honest, I don’t know which of those messages is worse.

“Chess is an intriguing character, a powerful Church witch with magic tattoos, but also a serious drug problem… She’s not your usual heroic protagonist, and this isn’t one of your humorous urban fantasies, but rather a lively thriller, full of action and ghostly encounters.”

Next, thanks to everyone who downloaded the 5-chapter sample of UNHOLY GHOSTS, and emailed me or contacted me on Facebook or Twitter to let me know how much you enjoyed it! For those of you who haven’t yet read it, why not? UNHOLY GHOSTS sample (The link is also permanently up on the UNHOLY GHOSTS page on the site, where the description and blurbs are.

Which brings me to today’s topic (see how neatly that was done?)

A while ago someone asked me in comments about blurbs, and last night I got an email asking about them again, which reminded me that I wanted to blog about them. Keep in mind this is my experience, and my thoughts, as always.

There’s a really cool post on the Reagan Arthur Books blog about blurbs, and the “karma” of them. And I believe there is a karma to them, yes.

I’ve seen a few times, in a few places, people expressing the idea that blurbs are given for money, or because the authors are friends, or whatever. I’ve never heard of blurbing for money, and I certainly can’t deny that friendship can lead to blurbs, but I have to be honest here; probably not as much as you think.

Take my blurb from Caitlin Kittredge for UG. Caitlin loved the book. Is Caitlin my friend? Absolutely; one of my closest friends (although we didn’t know each other very well when she first read UG). Does that mean Caitlin would have blurbed the book even if she hated it? I seriously doubt it.

The thing is, as writers we’re very aware of our “brand.” And what that means. We’re aware that if and when we recommend a book, our readers–who trust us–will see it. We don’t want to let our readers down, and we don’t want to disappoint them. We don’t want to mess with our own “brand” or our own reputations.

Are there writers out there who just blurb their friends willy-nilly? Oh, I imagine so. But to assume that’s the case with everyone strikes me as a bit unfair. To take Caitlin and myself again, we became friends because our tastes in and opinions on what constitutes good writing are so similar; we became friends because I loved her STREET MAGIC (and still do, with a passion) and she loved UNHOLY GHOSTS, both of which were in ms form at the time, pretty much. So of course she loves my work and I love hers; that’s how we got to know each other.

So I got a blurb from Caitlin by emailing her, and saying, basically, “Hey, you know my book that you told me you loved? Could you write a blurb for me to give to my editor?” And she replied with, “Yeah, of course! Here it is.”

I don’t try to hide my connection with Caitlin, or deny that she’s my friend. I guess if someone wants to believe her blurb means nothing because of that friendship, that’s their prerogative–just as it will be if you have a friend blurb your book, or blog about it, or whatever. But I don’t think that’s enough reason to keep from asking if your friends whose work you admire and feel is similar to yours will be willing to give you a blurb. Friends share interests and tastes; that’s one of the tenets of friendship, if you know what I mean. So it doesn’t bother me.

In a similar vein is my blurb from Ann Aguirre (which incidentally, is my favorite blurb ever in the world. I mean, “the ultimate bible of badassery?” Who wouldn’t love that?!) I knew Ann vaguely from around the internet, but not very well at all; we started following each other on Twitter, and exchanged a few comments here and there, but that was about it. But one night she said she was bored, and she was looking to read something with a different kind of love interest, someone who was rougher and not so handsome and dashing and all of that. I volunteered UNHOLY GHOSTS and sent it over to her, and she read it, and loved it. I told my editor she loved it, my editor told me to ask for a blurb, and I did. Ann is another one who I’ve become friends with because of writing; when you discover you enjoy someone else’s work, and that you have similar tastes, and even similar tones…friendships form, and it’s a fantastic thing. Because honestly, there’s nothing worse than reading a friend’s work and thinking it blows. It happened to me once, years ago, and it was really awful; I had no idea what to say.

I’m proud of my blurbs, and I’m proud to be friends with Caitlin and Ann. And as I say in the Acknowledgments of UNHOLY GHOSTS, the book is special to me for a lot of reasons, but especially because it was the book that brought some great people into my life.

So moving on. Those are my “friend” blurbs, although certainly in Ann’s case it was the book itself that really started our friendship. But I will say this one thing more, on the subject:

One of the most important things to me, as you guys who’ve been reading here for a while know, is politeness. Making other people feel comfortable, and welcome. I certainly don’t mean to sound like a braggarty braggart here or anything of that nature, but I will say–and this isn’t specifically about one of my blurbs, or even necessarily about blurbs in general–that it never hurts to be nice to people. There is simply no point in not being so.

And I don’t mean “nice” as in “If I’m nice to them they might do something for me.” I mean nice as in simply be a decent person. Treat other people with respect. Publishing is a small industry. We know who’s being a jerk to whom, or who stepped all over X or Y because they weren’t a big enough name. Well, guess what; if I’m friends with X or Y, and I get your ms mailed to me in hopes of a blurb, I’m going to say no. Why should I help someone who was rude to my friends? I don’t mean in a “not liking their work” way, and I don’t mean you need to be a kiss-ass; in fact, that’s just as bad.

What I mean is just that it doesn’t hurt to be friendly. Not to decide you’re better or more important than other people, or that they’re not worth your time. That doesn’t mean you have to spend all day every day helping others, but neither do you have to be rude when you decline to help. In any industry, it helps not to be a dick.

So. Let’s talk about other ways blurbs are given and received. In general, here’s what happens when the blurber in question isn’t someone whose email address you have, or someone you feel comfortable emailing and saying, “Hey, why don’t you blurb me up, yo?”

You and your editor will probably have a talk about blurbs, and who you think would be a good blurber, and who your editor things would be a good blurber. You may talk to your agent about this as well. You will probably agree on at least a few names.

Now, I’m of the school that believes blurbs are something for your editor to handle. I’m not a fan of emailing other writers for blurbs unless you know them pretty well. Because the thing is, it’s a lot harder to say no to a friend, and by emailing said writer yourself you’re kind of exploiting that. It may get you the blurb, yes, but it’s more likely to get you marked, at least in that writer’s mind, as an annoyance.

Others may disagree, and that’s certainly fine. Like I said, these are just my feelings and opinions.

If your agent is involved, s/he may contact a few people s/he knows to ask them about blurbing you. S/he will then pass the request on to your editor, who will compose an enthusiastic little letter about why s/he is certain that the potential blurber is going to just love the book more than anything in the world and thanking them for agreeing to look at it, and mail it off.

Again, unless it’s a unique situation or a personal friend, you don’t normally handle this. For one thing, those bound proofs can be heavy, and thus expensive to mail. Why pay for that yourself when your publisher can do it, and probably at a discount they’ve worked out with the shipping company? For another thing, it’s extremely difficult to compose a “You’ll love this I just know it” email about your own work. Yes, I guess it’s kind of like a query, but you know all those things you’re not supposed to put in your query, like “potential to be huge,” “amazing,” “an incredible new talent,” “something really special?” Yeah. Those all belong in the blurb letter. So it’s weird, and extremely hard to do without sounding like a hideous megalomaniac. And nobody wants to blurb hideous megalomaniacs.

And then? You wait.

Your editor might send some follow-up emails; again, it’s best for him/her to do it. If the connection came through your agent, s/he might follow up. The reason you don’t generally do this is the same: if it’s someone you know, they may be embarrassed to have forgotten or, worse, they may be embarrassed because they didn’t like your book. If it’s someone you don’t know at all…well, see that “annoying” thing again.

You’ll probably have people say no. It happens. Just like agent or editor rejections, it probably isn’t personal (although, when you know who a proof is being sent to, it’s a good idea to do a quick search on your blog or website or forums you frequent to make sure that if the writer in question does a google search, it won’t turn up you proclaiming to all and sundry that their latest book blows, or you hate their MC, or whatever. Because if that’s the case, then yeah, their “no” just might be personal). Your book simply may not be to their taste, and that’s fine. It’s nothing to get upset about.

Of course, sometimes they say yes, too. My Karen Marie Moning quote came this way; I didn’t actually even know my editor had sent her the books, but she had. All three of them. Karen’s blurb is for the entire series, and it’s lovely to see. I’d never met or spoken to Karen before, but her enthusiasm is of course wonderful, and I’m very, very grateful for it.

The thing is, blurbs are wonderful to have. They’re fun, and exciting. But I’ve heard more than once readers say they don’t pay attention to them. Part of this is, I think, because of the fallacy that blurbs are just a tit-for-tat, that the blurbers in question don’t even read the books or they get paid to say nice things about them.

That always surprises me, frankly. Do you really think the writer in question has that little integrity? In some cases they’re talking about writers they read and enjoy, even.

But blurbs are fun, and they’re good to have. Blurbs are important to bookstore buyers–a good blurb from a big name can jump the order numbers–and they’re very helpful when it comes to selling foreign rights.

Plus they just make you feel good. For me, I like the sense of community that comes from blurbs. I like the reminder that deep down we really love books and reading, and that we’re in this together. I like that it’s an industry where people help each other out.

So here’s the ultimate point. Blurbs are great. You want them. But don’t beat yourself up over them. And it never hurts to be friendly, and to be kind. And of course to write a great book.

And I keep feeling like I’ve forgotten something important about the blurbs, but I don’t remember what it was (obviously).

On Tuesday I’m going to go into more detail about the giveaway I’m doing for the UNHOLY GHOSTS release, but just in case the book starts appearing on shelves this early… If you buy UG, you get a free sample of the first three chapters of the second book, UNHOLY MAGIC. You email me with a scan of your receipt (or forwarded from an online site), or a picture of you with the book in somewhere that’s obviously not a bookstore, or a picture of the book somewhere not a bookstore if you’re shy, or a picture of your ereader with the book on it, or even just telling me your favorite parts of the book so I know you did read it.

The rules aren’t strict because this isn’t really a contest. It’s just a giveaway; a thank you to everyone who buys UG. Yes, I will be doing a few small giveaways as well, but again, not huge things, and just as a thank you.

You do not have to buy the book after or by any specific date, or in any specific place, or in any specific format, to qualify. I’ll probably end the giveaway in the third or fourth week of June, but that’s it.

Like I said I’m going to discuss it more on Tuesday but I wanted to get the info out there now, just in case it starts getting shelves REALLY early.

You may have heard of Young Adult Authors Against Bullying, a Facebook group made up of–as the name implies–YA authors who disapprove of bullying. I’m not technically a YA author but I’ve joined, as have a lot of others. And a few weeks ago many writers posted their bullying stories on their blogs. I didn’t; not because I don’t have bullying stories or wasn’t bullied as a child/preteen/teen (believe me, I was, horribly) but because I didn’t learn about it until it was already in progress and I already had this post sort of planned, as I said above.

A lot of this is in reaction to the death of Phoebe Prince, a high-school girl driven to suicide by a gang of less-than-human teenage shitweeds who decided she deserved to be mocked, bullied, teased, insulted, and otherwise abused because she *gasp* dated a guy who used to date one of the aforementioned shitweeds (and the guy later joined in, which just makes me lose hope in the future of humanity, but then, this whole story does).

It reminds me a bit of the Megan Meier case, in which a girl was cyber-bullied not just by kids her own age, but by the mother of one of her acquaintances. A grown fucking woman, who thought it was a good idea to harass and play tricks on a young girl online.

And that’s sort of what I want to discuss. Adult bullying, and the society of mean.

One of the most troubling–of many extremely troubling–aspects of the Phoebe Prince case was the fact that school administrators and teachers knew what was happening, and did nothing. They watched this girl being harassed, and did nothing. Prince’s mother spoke to the school on at least two occasions, and still…nothing.

I’d like someone to explain to me how we live in a world where school administrators seem to think it’s their job to police what sort of food and drink I give my children (even at home), send home letters telling parents their kids are obese, tell me I can’t send my daughter to school with pale pink nail polish on her nails, oversee the moral and/or religious education of my children (whether pro or con), expose my children to the internet over my objections and insist they use it to do their homework, turn my children into salespeople, or encourage my children to lecture me if I have a glass of wine with dinner or a cigarette after, and yet they do not think it’s their job to protect the children in their care and foster a safe learning environment for them.

It infuriates me, but it doesn’t surprise me. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn the teachers joined in, frankly; some of them certainly did with me, when I was in school. I lost count, for example, of the number of times my eighth-grade Social Studies teacher smirked while the other kids in my class picked on me, then gave me demerits the second I opened my mouth to defend myself. Or the drama teacher in seventh grade who decided I was whiny, and encouraged the other kids to make whining noises every time I tried to speak. Just because someone is a teacher and/or an adult doesn’t mean they’re mature and decent; I remember quite a few teachers with malicious smiles in their eyes as they watched me or someone else get picked on, teased, put down. I remember quite a few of them who tolerated or even fostered such behavior in their classes. I remember them playing favorites.

You see, they apparently still wanted to be one of the Cool Kids.

They still wanted to be popular; they still wanted to be liked by that little gang of socs (that’s what we called them) with the money and the fashionable clothes and the perfect hair. And if a few kids got left behind, got their feelings hurt, got destroyed by it? If the only reason some of us didn’t commit suicide ourselves was because we had a cat to take care of? Not their problem, man. Hey, it’s not their job to make people like each other. (NOTE: I want to make it clear that I am talking about a few teachers, the proverbial bad apples who spoil the bunch. I in no way think or intend to imply that all teachers feel or behave this way, okay?)

But it’s not just in schools, you see, that this atmosphere of bullying–this attitude which I feel is a desperate attempt to prove that you are indeed one of the Cool Kids–is present. Not just in the workplace, either, though it certainly can exist there. Hell, we’ve seen it in publishing–particularly epublishing–with authors being intimidated and abused by editors or publishers. We’ve seen it outside of epublishing–though nowhere near as often–with writers being bullied by agents or editors or publishers. In fact, I can think offhand of at least one “industry” blog which seems (to me at least) to exist solely so the owners/bloggers can feel like Cool Kids and make fun of others, using the most inflammatory language possible.

We all remember when Corey Haim died last month. It was a terrible shame, and it was awful to see a man just a few years older than me who’d had so much and lost it all. The night he died Corey Feldman went on Larry King, and the hubs and I watched it. And–it pains me to admit this–I really admired what he said, and agreed with it (yes, I know. A world where I admire and agree with Corey Feldman? Shocking).

What he said, basically, was that Haim had problems, yes. Serious problems. But those problems were exacerbated by a society which seems to think it’s okay to pick on people, to kick them when they’re down. That failure isn’t bad enough; that failure must be made into a joke, and constantly shoved into the face of the one who failed. A society, in fact, which doesn’t just think this is okay, but that’s it’s fun. It’s a good, acceptable thing to do; it shows you’re one of the Cool Kids, if you can think of the snarkiest, wittiest insult for someone who, as Feldman said, “never deliberately hurt another human being in his life.”

Haim’s crime was to grow older, and not be a cute teenager anymore. Sure, he probably became arrogant and difficult. And maybe if he was, people were justified in turning their backs and not wanting to hire him. Hell, we all know what kind of business the film industry is; if you’re not hot anymore, you’re out. And you know, that’s the way it works and that’s okay. But to turn someone into a punchline because they’re no longer hot? To spend long, happy hours making fun of them, insulting them, laughing at them, because they no longer have a career? That’s not okay. Do you call up your relative who was made redundant at his job and laugh about how he’s a failure, how he can’t support his family, how he’s never going to find another job and he should just give up? No? Why not? It was okay to call Corey Haim a loser online, where he might see it (and in fact did on at least one occasion). Why wouldn’t you call other people losers to their faces?

Corey Haim was a human being. Phoebe Prince and Megan Meier were human beings. Just as we are all human beings, even though some of us don’t act that way.

A discussion has been going on in the PublishAmerica forums at Absolute Write recently where a PA author is claiming, basically, that PA only acts the way it does because some disgruntled writers are meanies and blah blah blah. He was, essentially, accusing those who contribute to those threads of being cruel to PA. This is of course not true; PA is a vanity press with terrible customer service which misleads writers and at times outright lies to them, and that information should be spread. But it did get me thinking about what the difference is between making fun/snarking on and providing a service/warning others. The line is definitely there. I believe the PA forums at AW provide a valuable service to writers. I believe all the threads in the Bewares & Background Checks forum provide a valuable service to writers, as does Writer Beware and many of the reader blogs which will pass on information about publishers treating their authors badly or whatever. That’s not snark and it’s not making fun. It’s exposing a wrong, and it’s the right thing to do, I believe.

So I suppose there is a point where you can say, “So-and-so brought this on themselves.” Certainly when I see writers who go off on readers who left them less-than-stellar reviews, I find myself thinking said writers are kind of fair game; they started it. But even then I find there’s a point after which I think it should stop. It infuriates me when writers behave that way, yes, for a number of reasons. But does one mistake really mean someone deserves to have their career ruined? Does one mistake mean it’s okay for people to pile on in droves and start making fun? I’m not talking about condemning the behavior; I’m talking about personal comments. I’m talking about name-calling and insults. Yes, we all get carried away sometimes, myself included. I’m not perfect. But I regret having been carried away like that, and I resolve not to do it again, whereas I know there are people out there who do not feel such regret, who don’t think about what effect their cruelties and jokes may have had on another person, and just move on, often patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

Bullying is bullying, whether the victim is a celebrity or someone whose name you don’t know and never will.

I’m not the most sensitive person in the world, I’m really not (as many of you probably know). The hubs jokes that I would make a great government assassin. And I think he’s right, actually. Lots of things, feeling-and-emotion-type things seem to go right over my head. But I do know that it hurts when people make fun of you, when they have a feeding frenzy over your cheap clothes or your hairdo or height or weight or glasses or flat chest or big stomach or hobbies or that you said something dumb. I can imagine it feels the same when they’re doing it because you were once successful and aren’t anymore, or had a drug problem, or whatever.

Yes, sometimes people’s behavior should be pointed out as wrong. Yes, sometimes people who bully and intimidate others need to have their actions exposed. And sometimes those people get a taste of their own medicine when they are exposed.

But there’s a difference between pointing out that bullying or intimidation in order to help others, and making the perpetrator an object of ridicule, and encouraging others to make fun of them. The former is, even if there are unintended consequences, a positive act, an attempt to make a positive difference in the lives of others. The latter is an attempt to show everyone, once again, that you’re one of the Cool Kids. It’s a power play; it’s the equivalent of calling all your friends to jump the guy who bumped into you on the street, just because he didn’t apologize (not that it’s okay not to apologize, of course). There’s no public service being done, no aid being given to those who might have become victims. The object is to intimidate, to hurt, to show someone you’re better than they are.

I’m tired of it. I’m tired of seeing it. I’m tired of dealing with it. I’m weary of all the anger I see online these days, everyone furious about something, everyone ready to place blame and point fingers and act like everything is a personal affront. I’m tired of seeing insults and bullying and intimidation. I’m tired of people being treated like objects, tired of their feelings being treated as if they don’t matter, tired of hurting others being seen as sport.

When did we all become so fucking important, so fucking special, that we no longer need to take other peoples’ feelings into account? When did we all become so perfect that nobody else is allowed to make a mistake? When did hurting people cease being something we were ashamed of and started being simply an afternoon’s entertainment?

I’m very opinionated here, I know. And I hope I’m often funny here, and that we have fun. I know I joke about people and things. But I also know that I try not to make it personal (well, yeah, I’ve said some pretty icky things about Madonna and Princess Diana in the past, and yeah, I can think of one person who I’ve always been civil to but who makes it extremely difficult for me to be so, and I have no qualms about being mean to that person because that person is mean to everyone else and it literally makes me see red). But in general I try not to step over the line between joking and cruelty, I try not to be mean. I don’t see the fun in hurting people; I’ve been on the receiving end of those kinds of jokes my whole life, and they generally don’t make me laugh. And yes, the barrier is a little lower when it comes to people who have put themselves in the public eye. They have invited us to have an opinion on them–demanded we have an opinion on them, demanded our attention.

But the barrier still exists, I think, at least publicly. I believe it should exist for all of us. Hurting people isn’t a game. At the risk of sounding like a “One to Grow On” spot, hurting people doesn’t make you one of the Cool Kids. And quite frankly, if it does? I’m glad I’m not a Cool Kid. Because that’s not the person I want to be.

What kind of person do you want to be? Where do you draw the line? Are you seeing this “new mean” online and elsewhere as well? Please feel free to share any stories of your own in comments (anonymously if you like), too, especially if they relate to adult bullying or adults who bully, or of course the publishing world.

And…if this post made you think, please pass the link on. Please write your own post on the subject and leave the link in the comments. I know I’m coming to this late, but the YA Writers Against Bullying had the right idea, a great idea; let’s make this part of our dialogue, let’s reach out our hands and hope someone who needs it will see it, and grab on, and find a place where they’re accepted.

I’ve been friends with Jaye for a while, and she is awesome. But what’s even more awesome are her books. See, last year when we were moving and all of that stuff, I really needed something to read during the journey. I grabbed a few books to take with me–can’t remember which ones–during a last-minute trip to my local Waterstone’s.

But what did I see there but Jaye’s RED-HEADED STEPCHILD. And lucky for me I did, too. Like I said, I don’t remember the names of the other books I bought to take along, but I know that after struggling to get through the first three or four chapters of each, I finally gave up and grabbed R-HS. Aaaaaaah. It was like finally getting to take a shower after four days of heavy physical work and sweat. I felt cleansed and refreshed. Yes, it’s first person and we all know that’s not my favorite thing. But, as with all the best first-person POVs, I hardly noticed. I loved the book. Good, crisp writing, likable characters who said interesting things and thought interesting things, humor in just the right places that was not over-the-top or silly (but also not mean-spirited, contrived-sounding snark). I practically cried, I was so happy to finally be reading a well-written book again.

Aaaanyway. The sequel, THE MAGE IN BLACK, comes out tomorrow, and to celebrate, I’ve invited Jaye here to do a guest blog (Ann Aguirre will be here next week, as well, so be prepared). Let’s all be nice to her, shall we? Heh.

Hello, Stacia’s minions!

Do any of you watch RuPaul’s Drag Race? If you don’t, you should. Why? Well, in addition to being hilarious and catty, the show is chock full of awesome catch phrases. Two of my favorites are, “The time has come for you to lip synch … for your life” and “Don’t f**k it up.”

I mention this because suddenly my life has become a lot like an episode of the show. Instead of tucking and strutting on the main stage, I’m pimping a new book. Promoting a new release is a lot like lip synching for my life. Because after my performance is done (writing the book), my fate is decided by the judges. Reviewers and readers will either love it or hate it (if I’ve f**ked it up). Or worse, they’ll give my book the hand and ask me to sashay away.

But this leads us to my third favorite RuPaulism: “If you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love someone else?” To an author, this translates to:”If you don’t love your book, how can you expect anyone else too?”

So in that spirit, I’ve decided to share with you all the things I love about this book.

1. The part where Sabina gets into a kung fu style show down in the middle of a Kum-n-Go gas station.
2. The fact Sabina’s demon minion, Giguhl, gets involved in a demon fight club.
3. The vision quest scene involving psychotropic drug use and bizarre visions involving vampiric snakes and the ghosts of people she’s killed.
4. The part where Sabina gets shot by an unwilling blood donor.
5. Adam’s attempt to “distract” Sabina.
6. The line, “Lady, I piss insight.” Spoken by Giguhl, naturally.
7. Valva, the Vanity demon.
8. The scene with the nymph prostitutes and the blue satin demi-bra.
9. The kick ass fight between Sabina and the Alpha werewolf of New Your City.
10. The part where Sabina tosses her cookies on the feet of the ancient and venerable Hekate Council.

All that said, I’m a little biased. But the good news is you can go buy it for yourself and decide what you like (or not) about the book.

And you definitely SHOULD go buy it, just as fast as you can. Okay?

Jaye may pop in and out through the day, so ask her questions or leave her comment if you like. I know how shy most of you are but I promise she’s nice. Mostly.

Oh, also, I’ve been informed that I was nominated for an Author Blog Award. Of course I won’t win, but if you vote for me you can get entered to win some pretty cool prizes, so go and vote! The deadline is tomorrow–I guess I’m a pretty late nominee, huh? Of course I am–but there is still time, so go for it and hopefully win something.

And that’s pretty much it for the moment.

I’ve seen a few times online in the last month or two people–people who should fucking know better, IMO–running contests where one of the ways to enter the contest is to post about the contest on blogs or message boards. In other words, don’t just promote the contest on your own blog or Twitter feed, but post about it on various message boards or in comments on other people’s blogs.

This is spam. It is spam, spam, spam. It is tacky and it is rude, and just as a general FYI–although I know none of you would ever do such a thing–it will not be tolerated here. I can ban IPs from this site, and I will do it.

Here’s the thing. This is MY blog. It’s MY website. And while I follow certain rules–which I’ll get to in a minute–the fact remains that at its most basic level, this site and blog are here to promote me and my books. Along with, of course, the books of anyone I mention in posts or invite to come do a guest post here. To “walk” into my blog and start dropping your own promo is the height of rudeness, akin to walking into my home and starting to redecorate without being asked. I don’t care what it’s for. Don’t do it. It’s rude to me and it’s rude to you guys, the readers of this blog, who do not deserve to be treated like rubes or fish in a barrel, just waiting to be led around by the nose.

As of this writing the blog gets anywhere from 200-600 hits a day, every day. On days when I post the numbers go up; no-post days, of course, have lower numbers (and some posts got much, much higher numbers, but those are obvious anomalies). And I’m aware that’s nowhere near the kinds of hits really popular blogs, really popular names, get. But they’re still MY numbers; you’re MY readers, and I’ve worked hard over the years to attract you and entertain you and get to know you a bit, even, and let you get to know me, and you and that work mean a lot to me.

If you have something to promote–be it a book or a charity–email me about it. There’s a good chance that I’ll invite you to guest post about it, or I’ll mention it. And if I don’t, it’s probably because I don’t think my readers would be that interested in it, frankly. And you know what? That’s up to me. because, again, MY BLOG. MY READERS. I owe them–I owe you guys–the respect of not being treated like some nameless, faceless gaggle of wallets.

Which brings me to the other thing. A long time ago now I did a post about why I don’t blog about politics, and the gist of it was, because I respect you all and think you’re capable of making your own decisions without my input. This is still true. But, as I believe I said in a follow-up post at some point, which I’m too lazy to hunt around for–there’s another reason, too.

What made me think of it is, I was discussing blogging with a pal of mine a couple of days ago, and she mentioned how she keeps to certain “rules” on her blog. I replied that I do too, and that it’s because I want my blog to be a place where everyone is welcome. Where everyone feels valued and included. To use politics as an example again, I know I have a few very conservative readers. I know I have a few very liberal readers. But I don’t believe I have ever had a situation where those readers got into an argument; I wouldn’t allow it to happen, but it’s never even shown an inkling of happening. And that, I think, is largely due to you, and what great, smart people you are, but I like to take some of the credit as well, for setting a tone here and sticking to it. A tone of respect and open-mindedness and willingness to learn, and of accepting everyone and their opinions.

That’s hugely important to me. And since it’s been a while since we discussed this I thought I’d bring it up again, and lay it out for any newcomers now and in future.

We respect each other here. If we disagree we do it politely. I’ve posted some…not inflammatory posts, but I’m a very opinionated girl, especially when it comes to publishing, and I will express those opinions, at least up to a point. I’m passionate about publishing, and have strong opinions, and will voice them–again, to a point. And people have come along and disagreed with me in comments, and some interesting discussion have been had. I’d certainly like to think I was respectful in my replies, even when, as happened once, the person leaving the comment was not particularly respectful to me.

The thing is, I want people to enjoy it here. I want you guys to feel like, even if you disagree with everything I say, you’re still valued (although if you disagree with everything I say I do kind of wonder why you keep reading here, but hey, far be it from me to spoil your fun). I want this blog to be a FUN place. I want it to be a place where discussions are had, and everyone walks away from it feeling like, even if they didn’t change anyone’s mind, they still had an enjoyable discussion. I don’t ever want someone to click away from this blog regretting that they even bothered to speak up, or feeling lousy about themselves, or like all they succeeded in doing was angering themselves and other people.

Yes, as I said in the politics post, I could probably win some readers if I started being politically outspoken (I’d probably lose some, too, but who knows?) But I don’t want the reading of my blog or the buying of my books to become a political act. I want the reading of my blog or the buying of my books to be about enjoying the posts on the blog and the stories in the books.

I have some general idea who some of you are. You regular commenters, I know some of you fairly well. But there are a lot of lurkers, too. I’d like to encourage them to comment, and one of the ways I try to do that is by not insulting them. If you choose to lurk, that’s entirely your choice, and you’re welcome to do so. But I don’t ever want someone to feel like they CAN’T comment because they’ll get beaten down or belittled for it. You’re entitled to your opinion, and whether or not to share it is up to you, but you have my promise that I will never belittle you for your opinion, and neither will anyone else here. And I hope everyone who reads here knows that, and feels that.

This is a fun place, at least I hope so. I hope it’s an interesting place, too. I hope everyone reading this knows how much I appreciate their reading, and feels welcome.

So that’s it. The rules of the blog. No spam, and be respectful. Neither of these have ever been a problem here. I intend to keep it that way.

And thanks, everyone, for reading. You mean more to me than you can imagine.

Joining us were two other commercially published writers, Simon Wood and Paul Clayton, as well as the host and two other self-published writers.

I was excited to have the discussion. I enjoyed it immensely. I felt it was a lovely, civil, and fun conversation, respectful all around, and that we all managed to agree that vanity publishing along the lines of the HQHo model–whereby authors are charged exorbitant amounts of money and fed empty promises in exchange was something writers, whether they are commercially published or self-published, should not countenance or participate in.

Let me make something very clear, because I’m seeing confusion on this issue that frankly astounds me. The HQHo model is NOT a self-publishing model.

I have, as I’ve said here before and as I said on the show Friday night, absolutely nothing against self-publishing. There are some excellent self-published books out there. There are a lot of writers who feel that this is the way they want to go, and is the wave of the future. And that’s fine.

But let’s analyze the differences between what the self-published authors are doing, and what HQHo wants its customers to do. I’m going to use my Strumpet series as an example, because as I’ve said here before, I do have tentative plans to self-publish the thing one of these days.

Were I to do that, I would go to Lulu.com. I would upload the document into their system, choose a format (or more than one; ebook and paperback, for example), and set a price; probably either at cost or maybe a dollar over it. I could remove the file at any time. I would be using my rights as the copyright holder myself. I would be buying an ISBN for it (if I chose to) myself, and would own that ISBN. I would design a cover, if I wanted. I could advertise the book as much or as little as I liked; surely I’d link to it on my blog and site, and when I get emails about it (as I still do) I’d direct those readers to the Lulu page. I’d be solely responsible for the marketing and advertising. I could, for example, choose to pay Kirkus Discoveries a couple of hundred dollars to review it.

For this I would pay nothing. If and when people chose to buy the book, Lulu would earn the cost of producing that copy and I would make whatever amount was paid by the reader over that production cost.

In short: I pay nothing, I control everything, and I keep all the profits. That is self-publishing. (It’s a tad more complicated than that, yes, but I’m trying to strip it down to its essence for the sake of clarity.)

Now, what if I wanted to print the series through HQHo?

First I’d pay anywhere from $600-upwards of $2000 just to get HQHo to agree to print the book. I would sign an agreement with them whereby I agreed to give them that money and at the very least, the rights to publish it. I’d pay more for them to design a cover. More for them to assign it an ISBN, which I would not own. More for them to list the book. More for them to send it to review sites–several hundred dollars over the cost of the review itself, in fact. Heck, if I wanted to, I could pay $20,000 for them to produce a “Hollywood book trailer”–a service other companies will perform for less than 1/4 that cost, and that I could do for free.

If and when a copy of the book sells, I would get 50% of the net monies received; that is, half of the money after whatever expenses HQHo claims, which makes no sense since I have paid all those expenses up front.

Here’s what I don’t understand. All of the self-published authors I’ve ever met are passionate about self-publishing and the benefits they feel they get from it. They want to have complete control over their work. They want to make the largest amount of money they can for that work. That is absolutely their right.

So why, then, are self-published authors not condemning this vanity business model? Why are they not discussing that writers don’t need to pay thousands of dollars to a big corporation like Author Solutions in order to self-publish, that it can be done on their own, and that by doing it on their own they get to keep control and keep all the profits?

I thought, in the discussion we had Friday night, that we were all in agreement that vanity publishing in this fashion was wrong, and that it mislead authors. I thought we were all in agreement that while self-publishing can be beneficial in some circumstances, and there is nothing inherently wrong with self-publishing (save the difficulties in distribution, etc.) vanity publishing simply cost too much and provided too little benefit. I thought we’d had a friendly and respectful conversation.

Apparently I was wrong. Turns out, Jackie, Simon, Paul, and myself are simply scared that self-published books will put us out of business, in addition to being elitists.

I don’t quote or link to that post in order to pick fights. I quote and link to it to demonstrate how incredibly disappointed I am, and how I feel I was lied to and misled.

At this time, my long comment in response to Mr. Cochran’s post has still not been approved. In it I expressed my disappointment, and how had I known the purpose of the show was to debate the validity of self-publishing I would have altered my comments accordingly. I feel as though I was bait-and-switched; i.e. told I was discussing one thing, when really the discussion was about something else, and that I was deliberately misled so that certain conclusions could be drawn from my comments.

Certainly I’m hurt on a personal level that my feelings on the topic of HQHo and its vanity press model, and my sincere desire to help writers, are taken as proof that I’m selfish, greedy, and jealous, and just want to keep those more talented than myself down.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe at all that NY publishing is so out of touch with real people that they are incapable of choosing books people like to read. The mere presence of NYT bestsellers and literary phenomenons like Twilight belie that statement. Sure, Twilight may not be your cup of tea; you may think it’s a lousy book. But you cannot deny that a NY editor read it, thought, “Readers will like this,” and was correct in that assessment.

Just because YOU don’t like it, doesn’t mean other readers won’t. Publishing is a BUSINESS. That business is SELLING BOOKS TO READERS. Just because YOU do not like those readers’ tastes, doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to have them or that publishers aren’t entitled to cater to them.

Do great books get passed over every day because of the bottom line? Sure. Does that mean everything that does get published is watered-down same-same crap? No, any more than all self-published books are crap. No, I don’t believe self-publishing is best for everyone; remember, the average self-published book only sells 75 copies or so. But for some it can absolutely work, and I’ve never denied that.

And none of this changes the fact that I would expect someone who has self-published, who has learned about self-publishing and is an advocate of it, to see that HQHo is NOT self-publishing, and to be just as concerned about educating new writers about the difference and how they can truly self-publish and not pay through the nose, as those of us who are commercially published. I would have expected that self-published authors and self-publishing advocates would be just as vocal as we’ve been in trying to educate writers, and not use this as an opportunity to play “You NY writers are hacks running scared from us.”

But I guess that’s just my selfishness talking.

So here’s what happened. Wednesday, the New York Times ran an article about the Kindle and how many Kindle owners are now buying more books than they used to. The end of the article contained the following paragraphs:

Ms. Englin has linked her Kindle to the Amazon account of some nearby friends, allowing all of them to read books like “The Lost Symbol” at the same time — while paying for them only once.

“I read much more, I tend to read faster for some reason, and I read a greater variety of things,” said Ms. Englin, adding that this is nearly the same as lending a physical book to friends. “We haven’t really looked closely at Amazon’s terms of service. But I do suspect we are breaking the rules.”

Now. I read the original NYT article because it was linked to in Publisher’s marketplace, in the daily emails I get from them. I saw that last paragraph and, I admit, had a twinge. A moment of “Hey, that doesn’t seem quite right.” But then almost immediately after I thought two things:

1. That this was clearly just a couple of friends sharing books
2. That this is in essence no different from, say, a group of friends with low incomes or little disposable cash, who pool their money and buy books together to share. I did this a few times as a teen; mostly for hardcovers, but sometimes to get three books instead of one or whatever.

And that was basically it. I closed the article and went about my day.

Too bad some other authors didn’t do the same. I’m not going to name any names here. You can find them if you really want. But a few other authors also saw that article, either through PM like I did or because they get the Times or whatever. Those authors went on Twitter and began what I can only describe as a witch hunt, a name-and-shame campaign where they not only scolded Ms. Englin and called her a thief, but actually listed her Twitter identity in their tweets–her Twitter identity, which appears to be her professional identity, as her Twitter seems to be used almost exclusively for business (she’s in marketing or consulting or something like that).

No, I’m not kidding. These people actually felt perfectly justified in naming and publicly scolding this woman, and in encouraging others to retweet their rants and join in berating her as well, in public, in front of her friends, family, clients, and potential clients.

There are so many problems with this I don’t even know where to begin. The first one, but in my opinion not the biggest one, is that what Ms. Englin is doing is in fact allowed by the Kindle Terms of Service. She’s not committing piracy. To infer piracy from sharing a few books with friends is a breathtaking leap in logic.

The second one is even if she was committing piracy, even if she was committing a crime, the idea that it’s somehow okay to start calling her names in a public place, and encouraging others to do the same, is wrong. So wrong. Disgustingly wrong. I was literally made ill when I saw this. I used to follow one of the authors who participated in this lynching, and I say “used to” because, sadly, I unfollowed her due to this. I’m shocked that anyone would think this is okay. This woman wasn’t convicted of raping children or of breaking into the Louvre and destroying the Mona Lisa. She shared some books with her friends. She now reads MORE books than she used to.

Even more upsetting is that when it was pointed out to some of these Upholders Of The Law authors, they had the nerve to issue half-assed apologies. (Some are here in Ms. Englin’s blog post about the incident.) One or two of them even tried to lay the blame at the feet of the original writer of the NYT article, claiming it was his fault because the wording of the article was misleading or because he included the quote about how Ms. Englin had a sneaking suspicion they were bending the rules. Excuse me? NO. Your hideous behavior is your fault. I don’t give a fuck what the NYT writer made it sound like. YOU chose to go on Twitter and start shouting this woman’s name, branding her a thief. YOU chose to encourage other people to do the same. The NYT writer didn’t do that and he’s not to blame. YOU ARE.

Let me ask you a question. If your child was beaten up, and the child who did the beating tried to claim it was little Joe’s fault, because little Joe said your kid said something mean about the kid who did the beating, would you then say, “Oh, of course,” and go after little Joe? Or would you rightly call bullshit, because it doesn’t fucking matter what little Joe said, that shithead who beat up your kid was the one who made the decision to beat up your kid and followed through on it? Exactly. All of your “the article was misleading and so we’re victims too” crap is exactly that–crap. You’re not a victim here, you’re a bully, and you’ve behaved abominably, and I am horrified by it.

But even worse is how this incident has called to light something that’s been bothering me for some time, and that is what seems to be some sort of war between writers and readers.

I don’t understand how it happened, or why. But it seems like I see this sort of thing more and more lately; readers demanding things, and authors responding as though readers are supposed to care about the minutiae of their day and never, ever buy used books or check out books from the library or whatever because they’re supposed to keep first and foremost in their minds the Writer’s Need To Make A Living. Yes, we want to make money from this; I certainly do. But vilifying readers who share books or buy used isn’t the way to go about it. It’s not really their problem, and I’m tired of hearing about it.

I personally have shared ebooks. I’ve bought ebooks for people. I give away my ebooks fairly regularly, for any number of reasons but often just because it’s fun. I’m totally excited about Barnes & Noble’s upcoming Nook, which will allow ebook sharing; finally!! It’s about time! I can’t wait to see what changes this will bring and think it’s awful that we haven’t found a way to do this before. I can’t wait for it to come out and for readers who prefer ebooks to have that function available, and as I said above, I was pretty pleased to see that there is a way for readers to share books on Kindle. I think lending or sharing books is a good thing for all of us, and I think most writers agree, and most readers do too.

But why is it that it seems everywhere I look these days there are writers and readers arguing? Why does it seem that although in theory we both want the same things, it also seems that neither of us can speak without the other getting angry? Why are there writers out there who feel justified in yelling at reviewers or readers for bad reviews, or publicly berating readers, or screaming about how when you buy books used they don’t make any money, or whatever? Some of the bad behavior by authors, directed at readers, that I’ve seen over the last few years has been enough to almost make me cry. But on the same token, why are there readers out there getting angry with authors for things about which we have absolutely no control, or accusing us of hating them or looking down on them or thinking they’re evil thieves?

Granted, that latter accusation is certainly more understandable, when we have incidents like what happened Wednesday. But it seems to go so much further than that, and I don’t understand why. Only a few authors participated in the public lynching, nowhere near all of us. But it feels–it can feel–as though we’re all being tarred with the same brush, much as I guess many readers feel tarred with the same brush simply for expressing an opinion or sharing a book or whatever.

Yes, I think the vast majority of authors should shut the fuck up about how they earn their money. Explaining exactly how piracy effects us is one thing, because I do believe there are people out there who genuinely don’t know. And because piracy effects our ability to deliver books to readers, I would hope it’s an issue readers would be concerned with. And you know what? They are! I have never seen a genuine. publicly enthusiastic reader actually defend piracy. What I have seen are readers condemning it, over and over again. And it upsets me when I see those same readers being accused or yelled at or whatever. It upsets me to hear that those same readers feel they are being looked at askance because they buy ebooks.

But at the same time, it upsets me when authors are looked at as greedy or bad because, for example, we only sell North American rights to our books rather than World. Here’s the thing; my publishers didn’t offer for world rights. And even if they had, and even if I’d agreed to it, that is absolutely no guarantee that they would have used those rights. As things stand now, UK and Australian readers will be getting the Downside books two days after they release here, because Harper UK wants to get those books out so UK/Aus readers don’t buy the US editions from Amazon or whatever. Had I sold world rights to Del Rey? I absolutely love Del Rey but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they’d decided to hold on to those rights until they see how the book performs here. Why not? If UK or Aussie readers bought it from Amazon, the US company would be making the money. (Let’s not even get into the fact that Random House UK and Random House US are not the same company with the same catalogues and release calenders [they're simply two separate houses under one umbrella], and do not answer to each other in terms of production schedules, and how the foreign branches of all the big houses are not the same, so how that would even work.) The fact is, UK/Aus readers are getting the Downside books precisely because Harper Voyager bought those rights separately, and having bought them now have incentive to use them.

Now, I totally understand the frustrations of readers in other countries who want books but can’t get them (I lived in England for three and a half years, remember?) I totally understand the frustrations of readers who want ebooks to release the same day as print. I don’t understand why that doesn’t happen. It frustrates me too. So why can’t we work together on it? Why are writers the enemy, or readers the enemy, when we all want the same thing–good books, released in a timely fashion, in a convenient format?

For the record, here is a list of things authors have NO control over. Absolutely none. There is no point getting angry or upset with us over these issues, or telling us we should be doing something about them, because we have zero say in them:

Release dates
Formats (i.e. Kindle, paperback, etc. This may change when it comes to hardcover but I don’t know; what I do know is nobody has ever consulted me about format and had I offered an opinion they wouldn’t have cared)
What countries our books are released in
Pricing of either print or ebook editions
where our books are sold
DRM

I understand that some of these are hot button issues for readers. You know what? It bugs me too. I hate that ebooks cost more and don’t understand why at all. I hate that ebook readers have to wait and think it’s silly. I hate that DRM means you can’t use your book on more than one device you own. I hate that I have to wait for someone to buy or choose to exploit foreign rights before I can see editions of my book in French or German or whatever.

But again, I can’t do anything about it. To be perfectly honest, in those situations I have less power than readers do. They can write letters to publishing companies in their countries asking for those publishers to acquire certain books. They can write letter to publishers complaining about delayed releases or ebook prices or formats not available or just about anything else. I can’t.

At the same time, I understand that being made to feel like thieves, or being deprived, is a big deal for readers. I understand that when you feel like you’re being kicked around the last thing you need is some author whining about not getting paid for used books. Quite frankly, it’s not your problem, and you shouldn’t be expected to give a shit about it. Why the hell should you? It’s the height of arrogance to expect you to somehow put your financial worries above mine. I too get tired of seeing writers bitch about this, especially when–sorry, the gorge just rose in my throat–they use it as fucking justification for their own decision to terrorize a reader online (and I assure you, “terrorized” is probably a mild word for what Ms. Englin must have been feeling at one point). When your apology for your hideous behavior includes anything like, “But you have to understand, people steal from us and so that’s why we jumped to conclusions,” you need a class in how to properly apologize and probably some therapy too.

I just find it upsetting, all of it. When I see discussions like this one at Dear Author, where it seems everyone is speaking at cross-purposes, it upsets me. It seems to me we had a perfect opportunity, in the Case of the Harassment of An Innocent Reader, to come together as one, readers and writers, and maybe find some new common ground. To reach a place where we could all agree; to act as one. We have power together, writers and readers. We can perhaps accomplish some things together we couldn’t as lone entities. We can be a community. But the comments seemed to quickly degenerate into an Us vs. Them, and it’s heartbreaking, and I find myself wondering what if anything can be done about it. I don’t want to be afraid of readers, or of expressing an opinion. Especially not when I am always, always, a reader first and on the side of readers first. Not when I go out of my way to make my blog, especially, a place where anyone and everyone can feel welcome and wanted, regardless of their politics or religion or color or anything else. But neither do I want to be vilified simply for trying to entertain people or having my own concerns.

When did we all start to feel so entitled? When did we start to feel that instead of being people who loved books and reading that we were separate entities, and that it was our right to condemn the other and order them around?

We need to work together. Yes, without readers I–and other writers like me–would be out of a job. But without writers I–and other readers like me–wouldn’t have anything to read.

And that would be the saddest thing of all.