Should You Set Limits with Your Readers?
By Jan O'Hara | January 19, 2015 |
A few years ago, it seemed like you couldn’t swing a deceased feline without hitting an author in the grip of a meltdown. Even if the conflict was minor, once it became public, the internet’s retribution often turned malignant. Virtual mobs would descend upon the author’s blog, clotting the comment section with hostility. Their fiction was systematically targeted for one-star reviews on Goodreads and Amazon. By committing acts which alienated readers, writing colleagues or the reviewing community, authors could decimate their platform and threaten their career within a matter of hours.
Small wonder, then, that many authors staged a quiet retreat from social media.
Some writers disappeared altogether. They preferred isolation to making a catastrophic mistake. Others abandoned all attempt at two-way conversation, effectively becoming broadcasters to their readers.
Still others looked for the magic formula which would allow them to maintain two-way, author-reader interaction. As consensus grew about what constituted best practices, they adopted them with a fervor that I might go so far as to term rigid. This included rules such as:
- One should never respond out of reactivity. (Or post while drunk, high, etc.)
- Stick with politically correct material.
- Treat your reader with the model touted by commerce: the customer is always right.
- Avoid engaging reviewers. Period.
With the exception of the Avoid Reactivity/Drunk-posting rule, I’d argue that there are problems with all these approaches.
It’s one thing to thoughtfully decide that you don’t enjoy social media or that, as Seth Godin says, it’s an overrated way to get attention for your books. It’s quite another to abandon it out of fear, if only because you’ll risk taking that sense of personal smallness into your fiction.
The one-way broadcasters may think they are safe, but they risk offending readers who’ve been trained to expect a conversation, and who see anything less as a hard sell.
Those who stick with politically safe material risk building a brand known for its bland.
If the customer is always right, to whom will you grant that status? “Reader” is a self-identifying descriptor and can be claimed by anyone who chooses, from the super fan who’s signed up for your street team and devoured your fiction (hi, Mom!) to the individual who skimmed a few blog posts and proclaimed you were derivative. Will you be equally devoted to both?
As for the decision to leave reviewers to their own devices, that’s nice in theory, but what if they won’t leave you alone? What if readers show up with negative reviews and post them on your blog or Facebook page? (The precipitating case of this post because Nora Roberts recently created a policy banning this practice, prompting mixed reactions on WU’s Facebook page.* For the record, I think her decision is brilliant.)
Further, if those rules are iron-clad, what explains the outliers?
I’m not saying you should try this at home—at least not without careful consideration—but some authors are rewarded when they talk about controversial subjects, mock commenters, or ban reviewers. How exactly does that work?
Before we talk about those exceptions and how they manage to get away with the seemingly impossible, let’s look for insights in another world which has navigated a vast change between provider and consumer.
Rise of the Patient in Western Medicine
Until the recent past, the doctor-patient relationship has been asymmetrical, heavily favoring the authority and opinion of the physician. Doctors spoke in exclusionary language, referring to common conditions by their Latin names even when communicating with patients. They scrawled prescriptions in indecipherable script. They wore lab coats and clustered en mass, towering above their semi-naked clients. (This is a Jan-idiosyncracy, but I strongly dislike the words “client” and “consumer” in this context. They make the relationship sound commercial and do not communicate the sacred trust that comes with the role. I’m using it here to avoid word repetition.)
While I know it can feel like we’re still living in those ancient days, a significant shift took place in the latter part of the 20th century with the advent of the scientific method and evidence-based medicine. For the first time we could examine why some physicians—using the same tools and instruments as their peers against the same backdrop of illness—consistently achieved superior results. The differences were startling, often eclipsing the value of the supposed “treatment”.
What were those improved results?
- Improved willingness to follow the agreed-upon treatment plan.
- Improved clinical outcomes.
- Improved patient satisfaction.
- Improved physician satisfaction.
- Less chance of the physician being sued, even if the outcome wasn’t as hoped.
Their secret? The power of a strong doctor-patient relationship. Turns out that when doctors worked to elicit patient’s wishes in the clinical encounter, when they sought holistic treatment plans, and when they worked to establish rapport, everyone was happier. (Except the practice’s time-keeper, for each clinical encounter takes a few minutes longer.)
For a time, then, the Holy Grail in behavioral medicine—what we were teaching new graduates about the humanizing aspect of the clinical encounter—was a type of interaction known as patient-centered medicine.
But it didn’t take long for the limitations of this model to become known, and to understand the pendulum had perhaps swung too far from physician-dominance to patient-dominance. It was hard for doctors to understand the limits of service in this model, particularly in Canada where medicine is taxpayer-funded. (i.e. The “customer” indirectly subsidizes your training, builds the hospital where you maintain your privileges and becomes your employer.) Within the philosophy of patient-centered medicine, patients had the right to become unreasonably demanding and physicians risked burning out.
Thus, the 1990s saw the dawning of relationship-centered medicine, which kept the best of patient-centered medicine alive and which asked for a commitment from both parties. Patients have a right to respect and quality medical care, physicians have a right to establish limits of care, including the right to “fire” patients who don’t respect the rules of their practice. (For example, verbally abusing medical staff.)
Is there a parallel in writer-reader relationship? Are we ready for this level of nuance in the writer-reader relationship? I think so, and for evidence, let’s look at some authors who’ve set firm, potentially controversial limits with their audience.
1. Jenny Lawson, aka The Bloggess—a memoirist and humorist whose blog and Twitter feed is frequently NSFW. Here’s her comment policy as described by John Scalzi. “…she reserves the right to take the postings of the most obnoxious trolls in her comment threads and change the words to something else entirely, subverting the message of the troll. The troll usually returns, outraged that his golden prose has been changed; that comment gets changed too. This continues until the troll realizes that there is nothing he can say that won’t get subverted, and eventually the troll runs away.”
How have readers reacted to this public irreverence? Her memoir, Let’s Pretend This Never Happened, reached #1 on the NYT bestseller list. Her blog posts regularly receive hundreds of comments. She’s a traditional media darling. And her colleagues? Do they take offense? Well she rubs shoulders with the likes of Will Wheaton and Neil Gaiman.
2. John Scalzi—a NYT-bestselling novelist, film critic, editor, and former president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, he runs a popular blog which frequently tackles divisive issues: reproductive rights, politics, sexism within the gaming industry, etc. It’s common for his opinions to be amplified by traditional media, which means he attracts a goodly number of people who don’t know his blog’s rules. Scalzi’s response to transgressors? Vigorous moderation via the Mallet of Loving Correction. From his comment policy: “I run this site as I please. You do not get a vote. If you try to suggest that you do, I may be rude to you.”
3. Most recently, Nora Roberts—a prolific, multi-awarded and bestselling writer of romance and futuristic police procedural (as JD Robb), decided to clamp down on negativity within her blog or on her Facebook page. This meant deleting comments and banning readers who descended into personal attacks or who insisted on posting critical reviews of her fiction.
The results? No detectable loss of her nearly 600,000-person-strong Facebook readership.
Why have these authors been able to set limits with readers in a way which hasn’t made them pariahs but which might have, if anything, earned them more respect?
- They’ve picked the right venue by choosing to establish boundaries within the spaces under their control. They aren’t going to places like Goodreads, Twitter, Amazon or other blogs and demanding people change their behavior or else. They’re establishing limits for spaces which they own or in which they have moderation responsibilities.
- Their rules are consistent and well-known to regular readers, often prominently posted. If they are going to change the rules, they provide adequate warning and rational, impersonal explanations. (If you scroll down to her comment in this Passive Voice post, Roberts explains that she didn’t write her feisty-sounding Bite Me post as the first declaration of change, nor for trivial reasons. In fact, she first coped with a blog commenter who called her a Satanist on Christmas Eve, thereby rattling Roberts’ community. Then she began the conversation about reviews in this very reasonable post.)
- Notice that the solutions they’ve selected are consistent with their voice. Lawson, a humorist, turns her unreasonably critical commenters’ material into comedic fodder. Judging by his readers’ comments, Scalzi’s science fiction frequently tackles political issues and is written in a smart, satirical voice. Roberts writes about empowered, confident and passionate women who embrace high standards for themselves and others. Not a stretch to see their social media as an extension of their writing as an extension of their personalities, right?
- Their policy isn’t reactive or random but serves something greater: the larger readership, which will suffer if the community becomes divided or a magnet for drama; the well-being of employees or volunteers; the author’s own muse, which, if untended, would be the end of the community.
- The protective power of relationships: These are not the actions of reactive, isolated newbies but those of seasoned writers whose reputations precede them in a time of conflict. All three of these role models are known for their generosity, philanthropy, willingness to work for the collective good. In return, at the time of potential crisis, their community of readers act like willing ambassadors for the author’s brand.
Doubt that last statement? Look no further than Thea McGinnis’ comment in the Facebook post where we debated Ms. Roberts’ choice.*
She’s…a positive voice and advocate for a genre that takes a beating. And she provides a platform for many other romance writers. She’s created a foundation for literacy. Her work has inspired budding romance writers. Her books have found their way to heartbroken and sick people and given them respite from the real world. She’s rebuilt a town and given people jobs. All as a result of her books. I guess she didn’t appreciate waking up on a Tuesday being called Satan. I don’t think she’s protesting the critique of her book. She is defending her personhood and her work. She is not going to allow herself to be pecked to death.
In summary, Unboxeders, just as there is no one formula to achieve social media success, there is no single prescription that will keep you safe from a PR disaster. But if you will take the time—as Dan Blank relentlessly urges—to build trusting, genuine relationships with a larger community, and if you will act in service to a larger principle as you maintain the spaces under your control, odds are you will survive a social media storm. In fact, like the seeds of the coconut tree, when the pounding surf subsides, it’s possible you’ll have been washed ashore upon fresh, fertile soil.
What strategies do you have to keep yourself safe from social media snafus? Have you witnessed a rule-breaking author who manages to thrive? If so, how do they manage to be an exception? How do you handle readers who transgress your personal limits in the spaces under your care?
*Not a member of the Facebook page and wish to join? Go here to read about our policies.
A USA Today bestselling author, former family physician and academic, Jan O’Hara (she/her) left the world of medicine behind to follow her dreams of becoming a writer. She writes love stories that zoom from wackadoodle to heartfelt in six seconds flat: (Opposite of Frozen; Cold and Hottie; Desperate Times, Desperate Pleasures). Her latest Christmas novella, The Cowboy’s Comeback Christmas, is part of a 9-author-strong anthology (A Cowboy This Christmas: A Sweet Romance Anthology). She also contributed to Author in Progress, a Writer’s Digest Book edited by Therese Walsh.
Big subject for a Monday morning, Jan. Like most of the writers here, I have watched social media go from the greatest marketing tool know to authordom to a brain-flogging waste of time. This all happened in six-day period in 2009.
I exaggerate a bit, but I do think that authors, especially the brand new shiny ones, expend too much brain power and time trying to draw an audience via twitter, facebook, and that other one that was supposed to take over the world last year (sorry, plussers).
As for the negative comments, I’ll quote my father-in-law, a moderately succesful businessman who is, admitadely, borderline insane: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
I’ll have to agree with him on that point. If you write something controversial in your blog and a million people have to come read it to see just what a total jerk you are, well okay. If 10% of those people agree with you, and at leat that many will, you’ve got 100,000 new fans. Damn the bad luck.
The more popular you become, the more trolls you will draw. Fighting it is like putting up a bug zapper (loved those things). You’ll kill off a few, but for every one you zap, a hundred more are drawn in by the pretty blue light of your newfound fame (go with me here, this is a damn good analogy for a Monday morning).
Thanks again for the post. Now where is your facebook page? Bzzzzz
I apologize for the delay in response, Ron. A hectic day here dealing with identity thieves.
Fortunately for me, I agree with everything you’ve said, so that’s easy. :) I’ve been one of the shiny people who took on social media for the wrong reasons and have had to rethink how I handle it. I don’t have regrets, though, because I see it as training for all the other choices which arrive, and which would distract me from my goals.
While your father-in-law makes sense, the only corollary I’d add is that harm can be done if the publicity storm consumes excessive mental energy. Some people thrive in the tumult; others are overwhelmed.
As for the complicated subject on a Monday morning, I agree! My next posts won’t be nearly as challenging, and that’s a promise.
I have a tiny following. So far comment moderation on my blog has been enough to keep things safe – mostly Akismet removing spam, and me deciding a couple of times that the comment didn’t come from an actual human.
On other sites (I post a new scene every week), I have had to delete a couple of comments because the comment was, though friendly, moving away from a PG-13 rating. The commenter was unhappy, claiming it was ‘just a joke.’ Even doing it in the gentlest way (I didn’t report the comment or mention publicly that I was removing it, and I sent the commenter a PM about why) resulted in a broken relationship: the commenter has stopped communicating with me.
I’m getting reading for the publication of the first book of a trilogy – a mainstream story which got long in the writing – and I’m facing the possibility that some people may not like the end of Book 1.
I’m planning on a strategy of non-involvement in reader spaces, and moderation in my own. I understand that just a few negative reviews, especially early ones, can have a huge negative impact on a book’s launch – so I plan to ask readers who have been supportive to consider leaving early reviews of their own.
I’m hoping good manners and respect will be enough. I’m prepared for that not being true.
I should worry more about obscurity!
It’s a balance, isn’t it, Alicia? It’s nice to be known but not nice to be infamous.
If you don’t have a comment policy up already, that might be one solution for the future. Right now, most of your readers are likely well-known to you and have a sense of your commenting expectations. But as your fiction becomes known and you attract relative newbies, it might make sense to set them up for success.
I didn’t set up a blog until I had read widely for a year, and the commenting policy was set up from the beginning.
I agree with you: commenters should be informed of the policies. My moderating system (me) works for small readership: if you’ve passed moderation once, you’re in.
It won’t work for blogs with a lot of readers – too time intensive – unless you are willing to let the other commenters sit on the obstreperous ones.
I have little energy – I parcel it out carefully. I have a daughter still at home – she may get dragged in if I can’t cope.
However, I do not believe in being nice to people who are not nice: there are many civil ways to ask questions and disagree.
Jan–
Thanks for this matchup of best practices in medicine with the writer/reader relationship in social media.
It’s an interesting idea, and it makes sense for you as a physician who writes to draw such comparisons: the know-it-all patient meets the know-it-all reader. I would only add that the responsibility for marketing being the author’s (and not just self-published authors) is what has led to the problems you describe.
But: “why have these authors been able set limits with readers…?” Your examples of how to cope with hostility all come from highly successful writers. They have clout and authority, and consequently much more freedom to do what they like. Others don’t have this luxury, and I think the result is a kind of timidity masked as politeness.
In terms of social media, when a writer puts his or her thoughts in a blender, turning them into a smoothie that won’t offend anyone in the reader continuum from skinhead to leper-colony missionary, what you get is the loss of individuality.
I think the fear of offending is hard for little-known writers to do much about. All they can do is to stay true to themselves. My own practice in choosing what to read (and I hope this applies to those who visit my books at Amazon) is to read the “Look Inside” section before ever reading a review. A page or two will tell me whether I should bother reading what others think. After all, the writer’s prose should come first, not that of commenters or reviewers.
Barry, I like your process on selecting fiction. Would be particularly fair for writers who lack reviews, or who’s review process has been subverted by people with nefarious intentions.
With regards to the outliers, yes, they probably are given a behavioral license which wouldn’t extend to a writer like me, for instance. But I think the clue to their success lies within a statement you made: “All they can do is to stay true to themselves.” I’m speculating, but I’d be willing to bet the three authors I’ve mentioned here have always worked with personal integrity, even if the cost was alienating a reader or hundred. You don’t get that kind of fame or reputation or respect by playing it safe. Ms. Roberts has written more than 180 books. She obviously knows what her muse needs and how to protect it. (!)
I enjoyed reading your post, Jan.
Thank you, Brian! Appreciate you letting me know.
Barry — Couldn’t agree with you more about forming your own judgment before listening to what others have to say, whether it be in the choice of a new book or forming a political/social opinion.
Great advice, and also a good point about struggling authors having a more challenging time decided where to stand on the continuum of politely gathering readers and trying not to lose oneself by becoming too many things to too many people.
Christine–
Thank you for your kind words.
Long before social media made it possible (and even necessary) for every writer–and reader–to scream “Look at me! Look at me!” some very nasty characters had huge reputations as writers. People liked what they wrote. They knew nothing about these writers’ loopy politics, or how misogynistic they were in their romantic affairs or marriages.
These days, writers must manage their own marketing, and that means playing it safe. What I think is an additional negative is that so many writers now feel obliged to grind out blog posts and guest articles. Some of the latter, like almost every post at Writer Unboxed are well worth reading. But lots of sites offer up a lot of recycled and re-treaded material.
In a way, this problem mirrors the effect of anyone now being able to publish a book. A flood of genre novels is the result, and it’s become hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
So, has it really come to this? The viability of a book has become less and less about its content and more about its author. A vast part of the literary marketplace seems fast becoming some weird reality show. Andy Warhol is proving to be a major prophet.
One thing I know for sure, this is a distraction to the art of writing, heck it isn’t even really about the writing at all.
I’ve been struggling with a decision, and I’ve decided to see it through. I got rid of my Twitter account last year and this year I’m going to get rid of my Facebook account. I’ll check into a few blogs like this one, now and then, but if I really want to take no prisoners with my writing it’s time to ditch the social media distraction, find myself a quiet cave and concentrate on what really matters. My stories. Screw everything else.
Bernadette–
I like your comment, and I have a sneaking suspicion you’re in the vanguard of an important reaction, a swinging of the pendulum away from foolishness, back to common sense.
I don’t think I would allow hit and run negativity to chase me off social media. And luckily, we can and do control our pages. But writers do need to keep them as tools for communicating about their book(s) and not allow social mediums to become distractions to one’s work. You will know this is a problem when you have to work for it, rather than have it work for you.
Amen, Thea. I can’t add to that comment at all.
You’re going Minimalist with social media, B? Now that’s a commitment. At some point I hope you’ll pop your head out of your burrow and give us an idea on what you’ve discovered during your absence.
Me? I’m considering a social media Sabbath, but I’m limiting my online activity to the places I enjoy or that provide sufficient education.
“but I’m limiting my online activity to the places I enjoy or that provide sufficient education.”
Hear, hear!
Interesting and fun stuff, Boss. It’s probably important to consider these things pre-publishing, but it’s also a good idea to establish some standards and limits early on.
My wife, who has much greater faith in the breadth of appeal and potential engaging power of my work than I, has an abiding fear of future “Jeff Alberstons” (aka, The Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons) showing up in my social media or accosting us in restaurants – or, heaven-forbid, at our doorstep – to debate the political structure or religious dogma of one of my fictional social groups. Reminds me of the guy who contacted GRRM (pre-HBO Game of Thrones) to request everything he had on the High Valyrian language (root languages, etymology, etc.) for his proposed collegiate dissertation. George finally wrote him back to tell him that there was nothing to send. He said something like, “It’s just a handful of made-up words. When I get to a spot and need a new word, I consider for a moment, and make it up. If it sounds good when I reread it, I keep it.”
As you know, Boss, I’m a fan of Jacqueline Carey, and my admiration is not limited to her fiction. Her engagement with her readers seems like just the right balance to me. She seems to respond to every post on her FB wall, at least with a ‘like’ (perhaps she’s deleting some the trollish stuff, but I never see it). She’s funny and a bit edgy without being crude or offensive, and – as do her novels – her social media sometimes leans to the sexy side, but is never graphic. To your point, her tone is consistent with her work. And she shows the value of being respectful and kind. She keeps a safe distance without seeming distant, which is admirable. I think she’s found the perfect note. For me, she’s a fine role model. Huzzah, there *is* a way forward!
Not to dismiss the seriousness of the subject, or the potential downside, but here’s to the day when dealing with fans (and the requisite trolls that accompany them) is a problem.
It’s good to have a role model, Good Sir V. Thank you for mentioning Jacqueline Carey. Well-boundaried people are unfailingly kind. They can afford to be because they don’t have to retreat into defensiveness to protect what they value.
Re trolls: One day I’ll remind you of your last, wistful paragraph. In the meantime, if you’d like to rehearse, I’m available… ;)
Consistency in voice! That’s interesting. I’ve never thought about it but you have a great point. If you’re a little snarky in voice and in character as an author I guess it makes sense to have a policy that reflects you.
I do think hater’s are going to hate etc though. You can’t just silence the internet so choosing where a policy applies (or even if you have policies at all!) is super important. I think the bad stuff happens when people think that they can monitor the whole of the internet and keep it all in check. :)
<3
I’m glad the voice-comment-policy link makes sense to you, Mia. In fact, I’d go so far as to say a mismatch could prove disastrous. Imagine Roberts borrowing Lawson’s approach. Total internet meltdown.
Re control: yes, we humans drive ourselves nuts when we overestimate what’s ours to take care of, and where we have power/responsibility.
Excellent and well researched post, Jan. I must say that I have come to conclusions similar to Bernadette’s. Social media is a time suck that may have only limited results in terms of building readers. I have decided to treat my professional Facebook page as I do my personal one. I check in when convenient to see what is going on in the lives of friends or what’s been posted that is entertaining. I tweet when I see something worth tweeting as I have the link to this post. Otherwise, I don’t have the time or mental energy to focus on all social media, all the time. It makes my head ache just thinking about it!
I may be on the wrong track, but I can feel the stress melting away and see great expanses of time opening up to devote to what I really want to do, writing fiction. WHEEW! I feel better already!
LOL. I’m guessing you are an introvert, Linda. It’s nice that many marketing experts are starting to say that what you’re doing is perfectly fine. Even nicer that you know what makes you thrive!
Jan, thanks for this post. There are always going to be haters out there. I try to be polite and restrained in my response to them. In some cases it is best to simply ignore them. But your post raises a significant issue for writers. We cannot self-censure our work out of fear of offending some reader or malevolent critic out there. When we write from fear, we mute our voice and weaken out writing. We owe it to the reader to give the best that is within us, to be honest and authentic in our writing. So I will conclude with these words: Be not afraid.
“We owe it to the reader to give the best that is within us, to be honest and authentic in our writing. So I will conclude with these words: Be not afraid.”
Amen, Chris. A good mission statement for this Monday afternoon. Thanks.
Jan, I’m reading your thought provoking post and comments when, all the while, Taylor Swift is singing in the back of my head. “Shake it off, shake it off. The haters gonna hate hate hate. The takers gonna take take take. I’m just gonna shake shake shake, shake it off, shake it off.”
Shake it people! LOL
Denise (Dee) Willson
Author of A Keeper’s Truth and GOT
It’s a good motto, if one can follow it. Having spoken with you at the UnCon, I’m guessing you can, Denise. :)
Jan, great post! I remember hoping that somebody would blog about it after the Facebook thread.
I think the biggest problem that authors have is the fear of the losing readers. Sure, Nora Roberts and other bestsellers can risk offending people because they have such a huge reader base that the loss of trolls doesn’t matter.
Agents and other experts tell us to write “very” stories — very passionate, very frightening, very (whatever)– if we want to succeed. Writing a safe story isn’t going to set you apart, and it isn’t going to resonate with the reader.
Social media or any other kind of marketing isn’t different. I’m not saying to be polarizing just for the sake of it, but being timid and vanilla out of fear of losing the business of people who offend you is not smart promotion. You need to cull your readership — even if your “readership” is only 5 people. Set the tone, attract the readers who are super-fans. It’s scary, but worth it in the long run, in my opinion. To put it in marketing terms: it’s better to have a following of 100 people who actually convert (buy your books) than a following of ten thousand that doesn’t.
From my position of relative inexperience, Cathy, I agree 100%.
In my thirteen years in practice, I fired…five patients. Maybe six. But in all instances it was the right decision for both of us, and for my staff and family because of the mental energy being sunk into a clinical relationship which wasn’t working for anyone. It’s the Paredo Principle, right? 80% of your distractions will come from 20% of your readers. Well get over the fear of change or the scarcity mentality, let go the people who don’t want to be there, and make room and time for those who will be thrilled.
Jan,
I very much enjoyed this blog and the thoughtful way you handle this topic. Thank you for the information and an interesting read.
Thank you for the kind words, Gretchen, and for putting up with the endless read. ;)
I reread what I wrote. And I will fiercely protect and defend other writers who get jumped on. I detest when other writers cut down the brethren, too. I recall becoming incensed by a WU post that complained about getting buy me emails from the newly published. I just got so annoyed by the scoffing. We all know how much goes into a book whether it gets published or not. And another thing! I was reading Diana Gabaldon’s Fb page and I don’t know how she finds the patience with posters who ask ‘when when when when is your next book out because I I I can’t wait!!!!’ For goodness sake!!! Writing a book is hard, long and arduous work!!! Okay, then. Carry on.
Whomever has you for a super-fan, Thea, is supremely blessed. :) I don’t always agree with you, but I adore your passion.
Jan O’Hara, I’ve now followed you on Twitter and subscribed to your blog. First a two part question and then a comment.
Why does Vaughn Roycroft call you Boss and you call him Good Sir V?
For you to call yourself Unpublished Writer here on WU has to be a huge disconnect. No letters to the editor? No children’s magazine story when you were ten? Surely you jest. And I jest.
I predict your first book will be a blockbuster.
In your post above I like the way you compared a writer-reader relationship to a present day doctor-patient relationship.
Regarding whether to comment back or not, and other aspects of an online presence, your knowledge of writers as role models, including Jenny Lawson, John Scalzi and Nora Roberts whose readers are willing ambassadors for the author’s brand, is impressive.
You have rightly noted that solutions these authors have selected are consistent with their voice.
Finally, concluding with the importance of building trusting, genuine relationships with a larger community and acting in service to a larger principle, I cannot think of a more selfless giver, embracer and engager than Dan Blank whose link to his monthly UW articles you posted in your conclusion.
About your forthcoming blockbuster [my word choice above, but it’s coming] you should use your concluding words above to describe your blockbuster: “Like the seeds of the coconut tree, when the pounding surf subsides, Jan O’Hara shows her readers that it’s possible to have been washed ashore upon fresh, fertile soil.” [your ending words above, paraphrased by me, one of your readers].
My goodness, Barbara, what a kind and thorough reply. Thank you! (I might have to print it off for my Emergency Hope Kit.)
To answer your questions, V (that’s Vaughn’s common nickname in WU circles) calls me Boss with a heavy dose of irony. But for some time he was a regular columnist for the Writer Inboxed, Writer Unboxed’s now-defunct newsletter, and I was its editor.
I can’t recall the circumstance, but one day I decided he needed a more specific moniker and invited people to comment about his character. We agreed he’s unfailingly scrupulous, loyal, just and devoted in all endeavors, including his moderation of the WU Facebook page. Since he writes historical fantasy, I decided to knight him. :)
Hi Jan,
Drunk-posting is the best. It is almost as good as drunk-writing. (Kidding…sort of)
What a great point you illustrate with the shift from patient focus to relationship focus in healthcare. This is a good intentionality for us as we move more and more into a world of digital connection. I, for one, intend to do very little in-person promotion. I’m sorry, but being in front front of crowds stresses me out–let’s not mention that I’m a white-knuckled flyer and do not travel well in general. My focus, when the time comes, will be 99% online, and at least presently some consultation has validated that there is nothing wrong with this. When it comes time to hire a guru who can help me build a campaign, we’ll plan accordingly, so that means this issue of online community integrity is a very important one for me.
I’ve been fortunate so far to avoid any grief on my platform. That may change, of course–I’m only just starting out. If I can help it, I intend to be kind, thinking of the reader, but just because that’s my style and it’s consistent with who I am and how I like to treat people. But let’s not forget the writer–the relationship. I don’t have time to waste on disrespect and flames and any other form of multi-purpose bullshit that otherwise sucks away creative joy and energy. Commenters or stalkers who want to wreak havoc on what I consider to be a cherished author-reader relationship in which I invest time and care, in my opinion, do not even deserve a response from me. If I can, I will delete their comments or emails, unfriend them, unfollow them, report and block them, or whatever I have to do. Those are not my readers–at least, they are not the readers who I am reaching out to. My energy, instead, will be on the readers who show me as much respect as I show them.
From the little I know of you, whether written sober or not, John, your intended policies are perfectly congruent with who you are.
I’m not sure public appearances make sense in Canada, given the population density. Not unless you’re writing a guaranteed blockbuster. That said, we have to work around the airplane limitations because I still want to meet.
Not to worry, Jan, it will happen. :) Fortunately I love the drive out west. The Rockies and the Coastal Mountains are breathtaking. I love western Alberta and eastern BC’s caribou country, makes me want to take a northward turn and find a quaint, fire lit cabin. If money is kind to me this year, I’m going to try to get out to Surrey’s International Writer’s Conference in October. That would make for a wonderful drive, but if it’s too snowy I might have to embrace the way of the white-knuckled!
Love everything you said, Jan. I’m pretty good at setting boundaries in my regular life, and I look forward to being clear about them when (yes, I said *when*) I gain readers. I will treat them the way I do kids in my children’s worship groups at church: “That is not a choice here.”
Besides, like Denise Willson (with 2 els), having Taylor Swift in my head, I always remember the best example of an author inserting herself into a bad review and gaining fans and readers as a result: on Smart Bitches Trashy Books dot com, the Pregnesia review. The author, Carla Cassidy, was so good humored — it was great.
Ooh, I forgot about the Pregnesia review. That would have been an excellent example to look at together, Natalie.
It strikes me that a children’s worship group would be great training for social media. It would call for a level of calm professionalism I don’t manage with my own children. ;)
Great post Jan.
Though I am not at that point yet, but you have provided excellent advice for when I get there. Am saving the post to my favorites.
Excellent analogy between the medical field and the authorly field.
I’m starting to think our brains work the same way, Priya. Could go either very well or very poorly. ;)
Glad this made sense to you.
Loved this post, Jan. Like Cathy, I was hoping someone would write about this topic after the conversation in the WU FB group the other day. And your take on it is, as always, perceptive and intelligent.
One thing I found really interesting during the original conversation is that there were a number of people who didn’t like the idea that Roberts would be moderating and removing comments that didn’t agree with her comment policy on her own page… and that this was said on a group page that is moderated, with unwelcome comments removed, as per a strict and clear comment policy.
For the most part, I don’t think group members think about how moderated the WU group actually is — and kudos to V, Valerie, and Heather for doing such a great job that no one notices. The “no self-promotion” policy is strictly enforced by the mod squad, and the space is so much richer, friendlier, and more constructive because of it. And, really, isn’t that exactly what Roberts and her ilk are doing when they set their own limits and boundaries? Creating a safe, friendly, and harmonious space for people to hang out?
On a completely different note, the aspect of this that I struggle with (being that, like V, I’m still wistfully waiting for the day when I have hordes of fans to contend with) is where the limits of “what should be shared” and “what should be kept private” exist. I am, by nature, a sharer. An over-sharer, perhaps. If a complete stranger asks me about my life or my opinions, I’m likely to start telling them about how various traumas in my life have informed my values and my writing.
And yet, I am regularly told by friends that I should share excessively personal stories on my blog, because “it might damage your credibility with publishers if they know about x, y, z”. My initial thought is: “Well, if it does, fuck them. Like Popeye, I yam what I yam.” But…
But, what if? You know?
So I’ve blogged about Australian politics, about terror attacks, about equal rights, about gay marriage, about American politics, and about the Goodread Bullies scenario a few years ago — all in my very own irreverant, earnest, and opinionated way. But when it comes to talking about mental health, or about miscarriage, or about domestic violence, or about more personal controversial topics, I’m advised not to go there. And that disconnect between who I am and who I’m supposed to be online leaves me feeling less like Popeye and more like a shadow of myself.
Jo, I agree with you about the gentle-but-firm moderation which takes place in the WU back-end. Speaking as one who once did it, but who has no significant role in it now, I sometimes wish people knew how much effort it takes to provide that harmonious place for people to congregate, especially when we all have our opinionated opinions.
That said, to your questions, because I have a few thoughts. Please feel free to disregard them all; obviously I’m not familiar enough with your situation to offer more than general principles.
If people share intimate details around certain topics–mental health, personal tragedy, etc.–there absolutely are people who will use it as ammo. (To discriminate, gossip, discount, etc.)
As people share intimate details around certain topics–mental health, personal tragedy, etc.– if they are at the right point in their recovery, they will help break down taboos and diminish the future ability for such information to be used as ammo.
When in doubt, hold back. You can always unblock the dam later. Or you could fictionalize it. Or channel it into material which can be viewed by professional eyes first, to ensure you aren’t getting into the risks of disclosure without providing a real benefit to others. In other words, will this be a self-serving act of catharsis or an act of service? (This last is the litmus test doctors are taught to use before they disclose personal history in an effort to increase empathy with a patient. Whom will be served?)
There are people who share and don’t seem to pay a penalty, Jenny Lawson being one of them. She frequently blogs about depression and her anxiety disorder–possibly because it was impossible to conceal it during her book tour. This is one aspect of her philanthropy.
No one but you can really know the cost of holding back.
Hope there’s something in there which provided clarity, Jo!
This is such a brilliant, funny, provoking, red-headed post, dear Jan.
I have to say, in-person confrontations and allegations have caught me more off guard than blog comments.
I once wrote a blog post in which I said something about my worst enemy. Parenthetically, I clarified that I had TWO worst enemies–Darth Vader and Michelle Bachman, who, at the time was saying things (in the name of Christian Values) that I (a Christian) found embarrassing and wrong.
Well, 1.5 years later, I was accosted by a woman at my bible study, and she gave me a major public scolding for calling MB “evil.” She was so upset she was shaking. Apparently, this rage had been festering for 1.5 years! Jinkies!
Of course I burst into tears. It was actually quite scary to be reprimanded, out of the blue, for something that had been a joke: Darth Vader isn’t really my worst enemy. Because he’s not real.
Anyway, it’s hard to set those in-person limits. I might have to hire you as my body guard. That would be so fun! Think of how much fun we’d have!
Thank you for this beautiful post, you smart and funny lady.
Not sure I’d be much good as a bodyguard, dear Sarah, though I do rock a pair of sunglasses. Maybe the illusion of protection would be enough to keep you safe.
The advantage of in-person conflict, I suppose, is that it’s unlikely to lead to a mobbing. The disadvantage? The immediacy. Because that would have startled me, too, made me uneasy for a while until I’d rehearsed responses for the next similar encounter. In that way, perhaps this unpleasant episode could turn out to be a gift for you. I’m sure you’d figure out a graceful way to handle it. You don’t get to be an English teacher without having serious conflict-resolution chops.
I am so thankful for this blog post. I don’t want to reveal my pen name, I will only say that I have a successful career, and that social media (mostly Facebook) has been the bane of that career.
It’s sometimes hard for me to tell who’s a troll and who’s not. Do I take a moment to listen to this person, or not? I’m gonna spend the rest of the day angry about their defamatory comment… so yeah, I guess I’m listening to them anyway, whether I want to or not.
I’ve found that hiding comments on Facebook works better than deleting them, because the commenter doesn’t know they are the only person who can still see it.
I write polarizing stories, and as a result, people feel the need to rush right up to me online and tell me the emotional impact a story had on them. I’ve written under several pen names, and only one gets the inflammatory comments that make me want to counter with something equally — if not more — inflammatory.
What upsets me most of all is that a lot of readers consider me to be in a genre where a lot of other self-published writers have street teams, or
are very interactive with readers via social media. That makes me look like an even bigger asshole, because I don’t have the patience for all that mess and I don’t participate in it.
Anyway, I could say a lot more, but the bottom line is, thank you for this post. I tend to stay away from writers online (sorry writers, but I learned the hard way what a bunch of snakes some of you can be — no one in this comment thread, just speaking generally) so I didn’t realize what a rampant problem this was for others. Or maybe I did realize it, but I hadn’t seen anyone articulate it so clearly.
I feel so much better now. I had slowed my own publishing schedule because I hated interacting with readers so much. It’s hard to explain that no, I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just need to protect my artistic integrity, and the only way I can do that is if I don’t have a hundred virtual voices in my head, urging me to write the story a different way.
Again, thank you. Yours is one of three writing blogs I follow, and it’s always helpful, but never more than today. Thank you, thank you, thank you. There’s an incredible amount of healing that comes with knowing others are in your predicament.
You know, Anonymous, when I wrote this article, it hadn’t occurred to me that authors might be suffering through boundary-setting struggles alone. But of course that makes sense. (And thank you for pointing this out to me!)
This could be a whole ‘nother blog post in itself, but the emotion which largely permits this to happen is shame, and it speaks in voices like this: “There’s something wrong with me. I bring out the crazy in people. I should be able to handle this without feeling upset.” Etc. If you don’t know the struggle is almost universal, it’s hard to reduce it to an impersonal PR challenge. (Ask me how I know. ;) I’ve had to work through my own baggage in medicine.)
You sound like a person who values self-reliance but I’ll mention an option you might consider: hire a PR consultant to help you articulate your policies, if only for yourself. Ideally you’d look for someone who would maintain confidentiality, understand the expectations of your particular market, *and* validate your need to protect your muse. They could help you craft a way of presenting it that leaves you empowered, rather than reactive. Off the top of my head, I can think of two people who’d probably be of help: Jane Friedman and Dan Blank. Please note they write for WU so I am biased. Here’s Jane’s latest blog post; you can see why I believe she’d be sympathetic and helpful. https://janefriedman.com/2015/01/19/10-resolutions-saner-internet/
All the best with your challenges, and thank you for letting me know this article helped!
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Thank you.
I actually did have someone else managing the page(s), but that didn’t quite work either.
I don’t want to say more because I really don’t want to send anyone on a quest to learn more.
It’s because I wrote a polarizing story that elicits strong opinions. Some of the “damage” done to me, if I may call it that, was done early on when I was still managing things and wanted reader opinions because I thought they would be helpful. I was wrong.
Gotcha, Anonymous. I certainly have no desire to eradicate your privacy.
It takes a lot of guts to write a polarizing story and stand by it. Wishing you all the best as you navigate the entrenched PR issues. Hope you’ll find a way to protect your muse.
What an incredibly thoughtful post! You’ve articulated much that I’ve felt but haven’t tried to put into words, and you gave me some new points to think about, too. I don’t have any grand answers, but I really enjoyed reading this one. Wonderful food for thought.
The concepts are squishy, aren’t they, Annie? And they’re made more challenging by the inherent emotion. I’m glad if this made sense to you. May you never need it. ;)
Love the post, Jan, and as always it is a great help. Love your commenters, too.
It is a good crew, isn’t it, Kimmi? Glad if this meant anything to you. (And thank you for spreading the word on Twitter.)