On Chelsea Cain, and Occasionally Losing One's Temper
The Story so Far:
Chelsea Cain wrote a couple of FaceBook posts at one in the morning, telling her fans not to send her stupid questions, and she used the eff word.
As for me, my readers can send me any questions they want. I am happy to be your personal client service representative. Get in touch any time. Her posts were rude, and she got a lot of blowback.
So today, she deletes her prior, extremely mildly testy posts because her publisher asked her to and because they do not have time to deal with all the hysteria she "apparently whipped up," but then she repeats everything all again in attempting to justify her prior extremely mildly testy post and clarifies that she doesn't "apologize for a single word of my earlier posts," which she had to delete so that her publisher would not have to deal with all the hysteria. New hysteria predictably ensues! The poor woman has a gun aimed at her own foot - someone stop her before she shoots again! (Once again, as someone who from time to time may have sent an email I later regretted, I have a great deal of sympathy for her, but a time comes when you just have to get off the computer, drink some warm milk, maybe go on a long hike and calm down.) As someone who in the past every once in a while lost his temper, I have a lot of sympathy (empathy?) for people who occasionally act like assholes. (And by "the past," I include yesterday and the day before.) I'm going to buy her most recent book (the one that didn't make the Times best-seller list in spite of great reviews and lots of early enthusiasm, which is what set off all these tantrums) just because I feel sorry for her. So maybe this whole "being a jerk" thing is working for her.
But more broadly, it's a disturbing development when we want our novelists to be "nice." If Frederick Exley, William Styron, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway and John Cheever were alive today, I would expect their FaceBook pages to be filled with lots of 1 in the morning drunken rants and profanity much worse than the very mild umbridge expressed by the likes of Chelsea Cain at 1 in the morning (possibly drunk, because she has admitted in earlier posts that she drinks). Why? Because they were a pretty rotten bunch who wrote great books when they weren't passed out in their own vomit. Frederick Exley, for example, wrote A Fan's Notes, a great book about what a jerk he was, when drunk AND sober. I love the book but would not want to be his FaceBook friend. There are plenty of people who communicate badly with other people and have this or that psychological issue, whether inborn or acquired, who just simply cannot help it and don't understand what they are doing wrong and who therefore shouldn't get jobs as receptionists or restaurant greeters (or generally work with other people at all), and if they are lucky enough to become novelists, we should let them spend all day in their pajamas wrestling with their demons, and we should still enjoy their books, if their books are good, and, unless they are friends or family or loved ones, we shouldn't bother them while they are wrestling with their demons, or we should expect a rude response from time to time if we choose to try to befriend them over the internet. The idea of boycotting an author's books because she's not very nice all the time, or because she lost her temper once at 1 in the morning, is a pretty remarkable idea. To be clear, I am in favor of people being nice to everyone else all the time, but the fact is that a lot of novelists aren't nice to everyone else all the time, and not reading their books if their books are good hurts no one but the person not reading their books.
That said, I AM nice to my readers all the time. And I love to hear from you. And I will never curse you out.
Chelsea Cain wrote a couple of FaceBook posts at one in the morning, telling her fans not to send her stupid questions, and she used the eff word.
As for me, my readers can send me any questions they want. I am happy to be your personal client service representative. Get in touch any time. Her posts were rude, and she got a lot of blowback.
So today, she deletes her prior, extremely mildly testy posts because her publisher asked her to and because they do not have time to deal with all the hysteria she "apparently whipped up," but then she repeats everything all again in attempting to justify her prior extremely mildly testy post and clarifies that she doesn't "apologize for a single word of my earlier posts," which she had to delete so that her publisher would not have to deal with all the hysteria. New hysteria predictably ensues! The poor woman has a gun aimed at her own foot - someone stop her before she shoots again! (Once again, as someone who from time to time may have sent an email I later regretted, I have a great deal of sympathy for her, but a time comes when you just have to get off the computer, drink some warm milk, maybe go on a long hike and calm down.) As someone who in the past every once in a while lost his temper, I have a lot of sympathy (empathy?) for people who occasionally act like assholes. (And by "the past," I include yesterday and the day before.) I'm going to buy her most recent book (the one that didn't make the Times best-seller list in spite of great reviews and lots of early enthusiasm, which is what set off all these tantrums) just because I feel sorry for her. So maybe this whole "being a jerk" thing is working for her.
But more broadly, it's a disturbing development when we want our novelists to be "nice." If Frederick Exley, William Styron, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway and John Cheever were alive today, I would expect their FaceBook pages to be filled with lots of 1 in the morning drunken rants and profanity much worse than the very mild umbridge expressed by the likes of Chelsea Cain at 1 in the morning (possibly drunk, because she has admitted in earlier posts that she drinks). Why? Because they were a pretty rotten bunch who wrote great books when they weren't passed out in their own vomit. Frederick Exley, for example, wrote A Fan's Notes, a great book about what a jerk he was, when drunk AND sober. I love the book but would not want to be his FaceBook friend. There are plenty of people who communicate badly with other people and have this or that psychological issue, whether inborn or acquired, who just simply cannot help it and don't understand what they are doing wrong and who therefore shouldn't get jobs as receptionists or restaurant greeters (or generally work with other people at all), and if they are lucky enough to become novelists, we should let them spend all day in their pajamas wrestling with their demons, and we should still enjoy their books, if their books are good, and, unless they are friends or family or loved ones, we shouldn't bother them while they are wrestling with their demons, or we should expect a rude response from time to time if we choose to try to befriend them over the internet. The idea of boycotting an author's books because she's not very nice all the time, or because she lost her temper once at 1 in the morning, is a pretty remarkable idea. To be clear, I am in favor of people being nice to everyone else all the time, but the fact is that a lot of novelists aren't nice to everyone else all the time, and not reading their books if their books are good hurts no one but the person not reading their books.
That said, I AM nice to my readers all the time. And I love to hear from you. And I will never curse you out.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Danni
(new)
Sep 05, 2014 04:47PM
How about she just ignore the 'boneheaded' questions and spare us all the obnoxious posts about how put upon she is by the people buying her books?
reply
|
flag
No one asked her to be 'nice', just professional, respectful and not call (potential) readers stupid. Almost like there's something in the water at all these Book Conventions.
I don't know why she didn't just put the order of her books on her website. Other authors do that all the time (for which I am extremely grateful).And the idea that any person is going to be hurt by not reading a particular author's books is kind of silly. Unless the author has written the most unqualifiedly brilliant book of all eternity past, present and future, no one is going to sustain any damage from not reading certain books.
I don't really sympathize with Ms. Cain. Seems like she's not apologetic about what she said, so she shouldn't be upset in any way by what other people say about her. After all, they're just expressing their honest opinions in the same way she did. If she sees nothing wrong with doing that herself, surely she can't see anything wrong with others doing that.
If she doesn't mind losing readers, why should anyone else?
Wouldn't an author want their customers to be able to find their book and read them in the proper order? It just makes good marketing sense. Post a list of your books on your web page. How hard is that?
Am trying to find the original posts. Does anyone know where they can be located?
She deleted them all, but there are screenshots linked here: https://www.goodreads.com/comment/sho...
Danni wrote: "How about she just ignore the 'boneheaded' questions and spare us all the obnoxious posts about how put upon she is by the people buying her books?"Danni (and I guess really everybody else who responded): I agree 100% with everything that you said. I am not defending her, any more than I defend F. Scott Fitzgerald's adultery, Frederick Exley's horrible treatment of his first wife, William Styron's cold behavior towards his children, J. D. Salingers' weird stalking of Hollywood starlets, A.A. Milne's inability to relate lovingly with Christopher Robin other than through the printed page, or any number of other strange and self-destructive things that novelists do and have done and will continue to do. I think she should have ignored any comments that bothered her. Being a writer and putting ourselves out there means developing a thick skin, or just ignoring what people say. So I don't defend a thing that she has done. It was strange, middle-of-the-night behavior. As for me, if anyone wants to know what order they should read my books, or when my next reading is, or when my books are coming out in Japan, or how to get my books on Kindle, I am happy to help. I will personally get on the phone and help any of you with your Kindles. I'm that kind of fellow.
But Chelsea Cain is not.
My only point is that if we don't read work by authors who we dislike personally, we are the ones losing out. Where would I be without Winnie-the-Pooh? Back when I was a film critic, one director whom I admire a great deal was horribly and unjustifiably rude to me, regardless of the incredibly nice things I had said about him in print. At that moment, I understood one reason why he had not succeeded in Hollywood, in spite of being one of the most original and entertaining directors around. I still recommend his movies, because they are very good, but I won't have him over for tea. I hope he will still have a chance to continue to make movies, even though he is a jerk. And Zahara, I do think I would have lost out without that director's films, and without A.A. Milne's books, or those of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Frederick Exley, and so on. There are millions of books in the world, and reading one that isn't wonderful is a waste of time when there are so many that are indeed "unqualifiedly brilliant." (Or course, there are books that are guilty pleasures that I never would have wanted to miss, but those are unqualifiedly brilliant in their own way and have brought light into my life as well.)
Facebook and the internet has given a lot of readers a chance to have personal relationships with the novelists they admire, and this is not always a good thing. I have no sympathy for Ms. Cain and do not defend what she did. While this is relevant to my view of her as a person (and, again, it's indefensible but not the worst thing a novelist has ever done!), it's irrelevant to my decision whether or not to read her books.
Steven wrote: "My only point is that if we don't read work by authors who we dislike personally, we are the ones losing out."Sure, if the writer is in question is a genius and the writing so brilliant it out weighs a toxic personality. But unfortunately for Ms. Cain, she appears to a good but not great suspense writer who suffers from a severe case of special snowflake-itis.
Steven wrote: Facebook and the internet has given a lot of readers a chance to have personal relationships with the novelists they admire, and this is not always a good thing. I have no sympathy for Ms. Cain and do not defend what she did. While this is relevant to my view of her as a person (and, again, it's indefensible but not the worst thing a novelist has ever done!), it's irrelevant to my decision whether or not to read her books. I think having a personal relationship with readers can be a bad thing for some authors, but I would guess that most are pretty grateful to their readers and treat them well, as you seem to.
I still disagree about not reading an author's books based on behavior. I didn't even know who Winnie the Pooh was until I was an adult. (Don't shun me!)
Other than that, I agree with what you said.
Danni wrote: "Sure, if the writer is in question is a genius and the writing so bril..."If she is good but not great, then we shouldn't be reading her anyway (at least till we've finished with all the greats, which will take some time)! If we need great suspense writers, we can start with Patricia Highsmith before we bother with the good-but-not-great. Patricia Highsmith was really really not a nice person, but I am glad that didn't keep me from reading the first two Ripley books, and if she were alive and on the web, we'd all be in for a lot of abuse. Again, it all comes down to the quality of the thing. Many many many novelists are peculiar people who behave in self-defeating ways, and many of them really don't understand what they've done wrong. That's why they were novelists in the first place back in the good old days - they lacked the people skills to go out into the world and hold down a "real" job that required "people skills," and we could lock them away someplace where they wouldn't insult too many people, and they could drink themselves to death without ruining too many other lives in the process. Unfortunately, the advent of the internet has changed all that .... Novelists need to package themselves, publicize themselves, write entertaining tweets and so on. I'm hope I seem relatively comfortable in that sort of venue, but not everyone is. There should be some place in our world for the incurably socially awkward.
This is an interesting issue, I think, and Chelsea Cain inadvertently brought a lot of issues to the surface.
Steven wrote: "Danni wrote: "How about she just ignore the 'boneheaded' questions and spare us all the obnoxious posts about how put upon she is by the people buying her books?"Danni (and I guess really everybo..."
So long as you understand that these types of things are relevant to many other (potential) readers- as are more famous examples such as Orson Scott Card's homophobia, Marion Zimmer Bradley's abetting of her husband's pedophilia, or even Candace Sams/Deborah Ann MacGillivray/Melissa Douthit/Anne Rice, etc, infamous attacks upon Amazon readers/reviewers- there's no problem.
Zahara wrote: "I think having a personal relationship with readers can be a bad thing for some authors, but I would guess that most are pretty grateful to their readers and treat them well, as you seem to."A.A. Milne was an interesting case, and I wrote a column on it back in the '80s when the issue first came to light. (It's not on the web - it was pre-web.) I just couldn't believe that he didn't love his young son. I thought maybe he expressed it through the written word because that was the only way he could. A strange fish indeed, and it was very sad, and he created a lot of pain, not the least of which was the fact that his son, who felt quite unloved, had to hear throughout his life what a wonderful father his old pop was. He could not leave it behind, because it was always there in front of him, on TV, in bookstores, in movie theaters. I hope he found some sort of peace with this. While this wrinkle affects my view of Milne pere, he still created a magical world that I don't mind visiting. Now, A.A. Milne never had the opportunity to interact with his readers, because he wrote in the 1920s, but I suspect that if he had, it would have been awkward and unsettling for the readers.
As for me, yes, I like hearing from readers, though it never has reached a Chelsea Cain level. One of my readers once called me "the King of Crap." It was pretty difficult not to reply to him, but I didn't reply. What could I say? That was his view, and if this were 30 years ago, he would have told his wife, and that would have been the end of it. Authors need to develop a thicker skin than they did in the past, because the response out there is louder. It's just a new world.
John wrote: "So long as you understand that these types of things are relevant to many other (potential) readers- as are more famous examples such as Orson Scott Card's homophobia"I was going to mention Orson Scott Card as an example. A lot of people find other things in Ender's Game and defend it in spite of the author's fairly reprehensible personality. (I have not read it and cannot comment.) This is the view or legend that a novel is like a child that the author sends out into the world. He may not even know what it is about. John Woo (a filmmaker of course, not a novelist) was once asked about the strong homo-erotic content in his Hong Kong films, and whether this was intentional. His response was, "If you see it, it's there." It's just to say that human beings are complicated creatures who may not even understand their own art. Jackson Pollock was responsible for the death of another passenger in the reckless auto accident that also killed him. Had he lived, he'd have been charged with manslaughter. Should we listen to Wagner? Read J. Alfred Prufrock? These are not necessarily easy questions for people to answer.
We're getting a bit sidetracked here. Cain's behavior didn't bring a lot of things to light; she's yet another example of what's starting to look more and more like typical behavior on social media, especially from authors. It's not even that she'd said those things, it's the utter sense of entitlement that they sprung from. More and more authors are acting like an elite group whom the ideas of politeness and common courtesy don't apply to simply because they uploaded a .doc to Amazon or enjoy the good grace of actually being published by someone. Just this summer an author here on GR recorded two videos (since removed- what a shock!) calling readers who don't like books they've read too stupid to understand them and she oughta know since she went to COLLEGE and is EDUCATED and KNOWS what a PROPER REVIEW should look like and WHO should be writing them. WIll it surprise you to find out she was SHOCKED to learn that people didn't like what she'd said and informed her that they'd all warn their friends to avoid her books... just as well since they'd all probably be too stupid to comprehend them anyways.
This is what's going on here. And this is what needs to stop.
John wrote: "We're getting a bit sidetracked here. Cain's behavior didn't bring a lot of things to light; she's yet another example of what's starting to look more and more like typical behavior on social medi..."I agree with you, John, that novelists should stop acting like jerks online. That's a pretty easy thing for me to agree with. I've seen these online tantrums before - they're ugly and stupid. I don't even think that they should friend readers on Goodreads. They should generally sit in their rooms and write their books, like 30 years ago, and stay in the shadows. I can only imagine what an online conversation with Charles Bukowski would have been like. I've known authors who are completely unable to communicate with anyone in any way in a near-human interaction, yet they write the most beautiful books. I participated in a reading once with a writer who was horribly rude to me and completely unprovoked, but her work was beautiful, so I bought her book. Should she have been nice to me (or civil or professional, or whatever we're looking for)? Of course! But these are not always normal people, these writers.
The interesting problem for the socially awkward among us is that they're forced to go out and interact with readers on the web, which is not always a good idea. (Usually not a good idea, in fact.) If you met most of us in person you'd realize that these kinds of things arise not from an utter sense of entitlement but from an incredible awkwardness and lack of people skills, and probably a psychological problem here and there. They're people who should not be within 100 feet of an internet feed, because no good will come of it. 30 or 40 years ago, Gore Vidal would act like a drunken jackass at some party, and Truman Capote would get very upset, and some kind of literary feud would begin. Today, if either of them were alive, they'd bring their horrible social skills to the internet and enrage everyone, not just the unlucky few who happened to attend that particular literary salon dinner party. In Chelsea Cain's case, her book came out, she was expecting it to sell well, all the advance word was good, and it was a disappointment. A few days into "every author's nightmare," she was sitting around at 1 in the morning, and she lost her temper. If this were many years ago, she'd yell at her husband, or call an old boyfriend in the middle of the night and curse at him in a drunken tirade, and he'd come over and put her on suicide watch. But unfortunately she was sitting at her computer. And the rest is history.
What I wanted to try to explore in the post, and whether I did this successfully or unsuccessfully is up to you to decide, is that the web is forcing writers into situations that they're unable to adapt to and expecting social skills that they never needed in the past, and which they don't possess.
You're missing the part where she'd previously whined about not making the NYT Bestsellers List- which she'd done before- and about how she doesn't know if she can continue like this. Clearly she didn't have any problems 'selling herself' when it got the results she wanted.https://behindstgrb.files.wordpress.c...
What's kinda scary is all the supportive comments from her fans- people embracing this kind of thing right up until it's aimed at them.
https://behindstgrb.files.wordpress.c...
And it all looks to have stemmed from a blogger asking those same nagging questions about her books. A blogger. Who you'd think is trying to help Cain's career but gets treated like this.
https://www.facebook.com/destinys.boo...
Not to mention a hypocrite who doesn't follow her own advice. Just loves to spew platitudes when she's, y'know, selling herself.
https://behindstgrb.files.wordpress.c...
She's not socially awkward; she really is just a bitch, plain and simple.
(Thanks to KarlynP for the links)
John wrote: "You're missing the part where she'd previously whined about not making the NYT Bestsellers List ... she really is just a bitch, plain and simple."I find this whole weird mini-scandal really interesting, but this'll be my last comment on it. (I have a book to finish!) I'll say a couple of things in response, John, and I want you to know that I appreciate a vigorous debate. (I really do.)
First, I don't disagree with anyone who says she shouldn't have said what she said. I've made this point over and over. I agree; she lost her temper. Losing one's temper is bad. I don't disagree. I've seen all the posts where she lost her temper. She should have gone to a bar and ranted to the guy sitting next to her, or woken up her best friend in the middle of the night. "Oy, it's that Chelsea again," she would have sighed, when her husband complained. Like many of the authors that I cited above, I think Chelsea Cain seems to be an opinionated person who doesn't shy from a drink or two, and who should probably have someone look at her internet posts before she sends them. We all agree that her one a.m. rant was inappropriate and unfair.
Second, I didn't miss the part where she complained about not making the Times bestseller list. I listed it as one reason why she might have been pacing around at one in the morning, ready to blow her top. It must have been terribly disappointing; this was the book that was supposed to put her over the top. This blow to her career probably had a lot to do with her temper tantrum. It wasn't her readers' fault, but she blew her stack and took it out on someone, anyone.
Third, my upcoming book takes on the loaded topic of the Israel-Palestine conflict. While I received a lot of support, some of the responses I received attacked me specifically as a Jew expressing the views I was expressing. If I were a non-Jew, the same people would still have disagreed, but they would have used different language in disagreeing. The fact that you, John, chose to use the language you used undercuts your argument. I would think that you would have been just as enraged if, say, Stephen King had written the same messages. I would not want to say that you shouldn't ever use that word, although it's not a word I use. I would just suggest that if you do use that word, it will be harder to argue that there is no double standard at play, when that inevitable debate comes around. It's also harder to demand politeness and common courtesy from an author when you call her a name like that on the internet. Listen, people call me terrible things on the internet, including anti-Semitic names. They go on my page and make outrageous statements, even sometimes murderous statements, that I have to take down as soon as they go up. It's upsetting, but I know that I'm asking for it by putting myself in the public eye (and especially by writing about Israel and Palestine). This is what it's like for me, and I'm a pretty obscure property, I have to admit! The more books you sell, the louder the noise gets.
Anyway, I am done on this particular topic, though I'll leave the comments open in case anyone wants to continue debating this. Thanks for your thoughts. I hope that you found my responses courteous, even when I disagreed. I did my best. (I hope my next post gets as many reads! I'll have to think up something equally controversial to opine on.)
((The fact that you, John, chose to use the language you used undercuts your argument. I would think that you would have been just as enraged if, say, Stephen King had written the same messages. I would not want to say that you shouldn't ever use that word, although it's not a word I use. I would just suggest that if you do use that word, it will be harder to argue that there is no double standard at play, when that inevitable debate comes around. It's also harder to demand politeness and common courtesy from an author when you call her a name like that on the internet.))It doesn't undercut my argument; it makes it succintly. I don't need fifty words or a string of euphemisms to say what I mean to say. If you take offense to it, that's absolutely your prerogative. But there's no reason to say Chelsea Cain is 'a woman who has a really bad attitude probably stemming from feelings of self-entitlement and believes she's utterly justified in talking down to other people and insulting them when they disagreee with her or when she doesn't get her way.' If that makes you more comfortable, going forward feel free to cut-n-paste that description for whenever you'll need to use it in the future. I'm good with just the one word.
And if Stephen King had behaved in a similar fashion, he'd be a 'bastard' or at the very least a 'sonofabitch'. Equality and all that.
