I just wanted to thank you all for a great conversation. I know I’ve had a good time when I’m still thinking about the discussion days later. ReacherFan, Laura, Ann, BevBB, Catherine, Lissa and others, your final comments really gave me a lot to think about over the weekend. They (the comments) made me stop and think about my own online behavior and how that compares to the arguments I made here. A rather eye opening experience.

Dear Jessica’s ego, please thank Jessica for the post that prompted this discussion. I’ve been reading her blog for a while, even wrote up a couple of comments here or there but this was the first topic where my comment made it past the submit button.

I have noticed that authors who engage in discussions about their own books, even to correct factual errors or politely argue a point, don’t come off well. There is no nice way to tell a reader that her interpretation is wrong.

These are things I’ve learned by blogging. It’s easy to forget that we aren’t all old pros at this. When I see an author commenting in an argumentative way to a review, I think “inexperienced,” not “egomaniac.”

I didn’t think you were complaining or boasting. I agree with you that it’s just a fact that there are different types of conversations and we all have to make judgements about which ones we feel are worth the effort based on how much we’d have to put into the conversation and what we think we’ll get out of it.

My apologies. As blog-owner you have every right to direct conversation however you see fit.

Thank you for opening up the discussion. I found it very informative and it certainly got me thinking about the unintended effects of posting from a position of authority. Whether that authority is real or perceived, wanted or unwanted.

The Tymber Dalton exchange was also germane. It demonstrates how an author can interact without intimidation – though not without frustration.

To me, both examples are germane. You really can’t discuss the impact of authors on a blog or forum without addressing past examples and the uneven power base between author and reader. Attempting to sever these two elements is ingenuous. They are intimately intertwined. Examples of intimidation and worthwhile interaction serve to illustrate the two sides of a coin – nothing more.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Obviously people could be in all three groups at different times, but I think that someone approaching a group 2 discussion in a group 3 or group 1 frame of mind isn’t going to fit in, and will have a bit of a disruptive effect, and so would an author.

Yes, exactly. It’s about picking and choosing the right place of expression for the frame of mind of the moment, just like it’s about authors wearing the right hat to some extent.

A group-one fan-girl could well be accused of being a troll if she tries to prevent criticism of her favourite author and academics/other people who want to have a more academic-type discussion could also have a chilling effect if we turned up at a group 2 discussion.

And even more pertinent to this discussion, I’ve also observed that those reader groups also seem to correspond to the types of “reviews” that readers claim to gravitate towards. The heavily fan-oriented group leans more towards purely recommendations and often gets upset with anything at all negative – even mild pans at times, unless they are giving them. The genre-fan can usually handle what most consider normal fully fleshed out reviews because they truly want information about the books, first and foremost. And the ones who consider themselves academics, of course, want more meat on the bones, as it were, and are always wishing for even more critical analysis and are sometimes frustrated that they don’t find it.

But because the groups overlap and wander into each other’s territory . . . is it any wonder when things flare up? Or don’t flare up more often?

I hadn’t thought about it in those terms before, but there are plenty of places where I wouldn’t comment, because I don’t have the right kind of response to give, and an analytical answer would probably come across as inappropriate/patronising/boring.

Oh, you don’t know how many times over the years I’ve just walked away from a discussion. That is not a complaint or a boast. Never think that is what I am doing. It is simply an admission that sometimes one has to know when to speak up and when to shut up. As well as oneself.

First one has to understand the territory, though, and compounding that is that every site/blog/forum has its own unique personality within an enormously large, complex and varied genre filled with passionate devotees wearing many, many hats.

I guess we don’t agree about the relevance. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of authors behaving badly that could be dragged up here. What purpose would it serve?

I agree with Ann here. Everyone knows what an asshole looks like, and what harm she can cause. I am more interested in the case of the well meaning author who involves herself in reader discussions, like the examples in the post. How can this be done profitably? What are the pitfalls? Should it be done at all? At what cost?

I’m sorry if my humorous attempt at redirection offended you.

But I also prefer not to moderate comments, so have at it.

It’s up to readers to decide for themselves when to click away from the thread.

“If you’d prefer I bow out of this discussion, that’s not really up to you.”

At no point did I say or hint that. I only said that there is nothing stopping you having a full and frank discussion of the Laurie case over at DA, where the actual wank occurred. But you are claiming that Jessica is suppressing discussion because she doesn’t want a discussion of this unrelated matter *here*.

I guess we don’t agree about the relevance. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of authors behaving badly that could be dragged up here. What purpose would it serve?

If you’d prefer I bow out of this discussion, that’s not really up to you.