Explosive Elements

Arguments may get you headlines, but they’ll also get you a lot of heartache.

Last night, I was having trouble sleeping because of an argument. Not the shout-it-out-be-angry-and-be-done-with-it kind, either. The worst kind. The kind that simmers and festers and spreads over time and touches on other people.* And then, when I got up and came to my computer I was drawn back to an argument ten months old, one I hashed out more than enough about here, which didn’t help the sleep situation.

Recently at The Outfit Barbara D’Amato asked, “Why can’t we all get along?” Barbara was talking about hostile reviews, the kind that tear a book apart not because it’s been assessed on its own merits and found wanting, but the kind that attack a book just because it isn’t a genre the reviewer likes, the very existence of the book considered an offense. She said attacks don’t usually come from writers. Writers, “know how hard it is to write a book, and they are appreciative of others who do it, even the book isn’t what they like to read.”

I had to admit to being aware of several times writers have attacked other writers, and what they’ve done. That’s part of the reason I was so offended by the “blood-soaked corrosive rubbish” comments in the radio discussion I blogged about recently. It was a carte blanche attack not only on what I write but also on what I read. And nobody should presume to tell anyone else why they read and what’s acceptable and not acceptable. (And it isn’t even like it’s an original discussion point, which about sums up my thoughts today.)

And that wasn’t even the most recent attack I blogged about.

These are but two examples.
Today, I could dredge up a very
old argument, one that has been done to death already, but is now making headlines.

In all honesty, I don’t even like posting the links. But there are other links too, ones that will be familiar to some of you, where I have already said more than enough on the subject.


I was still upset when I saw the headlines. In fact, this whole bloody discussion deeply affected me last fall, when the issue first came up. The reason it bothered me was the number of people who just jumped on a bandwagon and went on attack over it, including many people who have candidly talked on their own blogs about being misquoted in the press. But boy oh boy, when it’s one of the top sellers in the crime fiction community there isn’t a moment’s hesitation in taking out the clubs and striking the blows. We’d all hope if it was us, with the meaning of a remark in an interview being twisted and interpreted, that people would give us the benefit of the doubt, wouldn’t we? But when it’s IR he doesn’t even get a moment’s hesitation before some sharpen the claws. Some wonderful, caring, supportive community spirit there. Let’s all gather round the fire, join hands, sing Kumbaya and pat ourselves on the back for how wonderful we are.

Right.

So, I’m left wondering why ten months later, here we are, again. Stir up an old argument. Rip open wounds, go on the attack.

It’s good for headlines but it’s also good for a lot of heartache. You know, it may even be that the authors behind some of these arguments have complete agreement about using them as a marketing strategy for all I know…

All I can say to that possibility is that if it’s true, what a shame. It would mean we now draw our audience through attacks, have to resort to scandal in order to drum up interest in what we’re doing. How very Hollywood.

And there are a lot of people out there who have nothing to do with the other side of the writing community, left feeling uncomfortable over the comments made, feeling as though there's active hostility (which may or may not be true, depending on the argument and the people) and feeling as though they don't want to be around any of those people.

A wise person once told me, in regards to this business, that if anyone says “What knocks?” they’re lying. Ironic, that as I was searching for the old links, I came across one of my favourite (word dripped in sarcasm) people attacking me. Yawn. All I can say is, I’m like a field mouse at a fox hunt – I mean, if you think it’s worth wasting your time attacking me, really how sad for you that you don’t have something better to do with your time. Bottom line is, if you have to build your career by stepping on the backs of others it’s a sad thing. We’ve gotten pretty far from writing being what wins out.

Another thing someone said to me: A person’s friends will know the truth about them, and you have to trust that your friends will stand behind you instead of assuming the worst.

Indeed. That’s why at the lowest moments in our lives we often find out who our real friends are, and are not. I have never believed the inferred meaning (and this I stress, because his words have been twisted to infer he was attacking lesbians, which has me wondering who even read the original interview, with all the narrative added in by the interviewer) from the comment Ian made, from the very beginning. It contradicts everything I’ve ever read about him and things he’s said to me himself. In the end, all this did was show who’s quick to judge and form conclusions, without even all the facts.

Chalk it up as a real stellar moment in the crime fiction world, another reason for us to be proud and look down our noses at others. Next person who says it’s the romance writers who are brutal to each other will prove one thing to me – they live with their head stuck in the sand. It might be easier to pretend nobody’s slinging mud that way, but you still get dirty.


*The argument in question has nothing to do with the writing world at all.