Comments on: The Curious Case of the Flippant Release Letter, Part Two

By: Rational Moderate

Rational Moderate — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:13:18 +0000

Wow, proving my point again. I should take you on the lecture circuit.
Since it wasn’t clear that is what you meant by what you did, and since it took the larger context to figure that out, then, once again, your comments about the original letter are vacuous. Once again, you are blaming the Quirk person for doing something wrong that is exactly the same action as what you are doing.

By: James Heidecker

James Heidecker — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:05:22 +0000

Pam: oh. I must have misinterpreted your intended point. Good thing thing that’s a common, easily forgivable mistake on this part of the internet. oh..wait..nevermind.

By: Pam

Pam — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:57:30 +0000

Copy pasted on purpose dear to show how insensitive and that can be. No not a hand written note that is impossible but at least reading the article and the comments given and add something that is relevant instead of a form letter.

By: Rational Moderate

Rational Moderate — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:41:37 +0000

Pam,
Wait a second. You copied and pasted too!
Well, I supposed being a hypocrite doesn’t make you wrong. I mean, if we are both failing math and I tell you to study harder, that makes me a jerk but I’m still right…

By: James Heidecker

James Heidecker — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:39:50 +0000

Pam: You do realize that you just knocked them for cutting and pasting an apology by cutting a pasting YOUR OWN RESPONSE to that apology on 2 different sites? http://tinyurl.com/d3b8pt At least they apologized. What do you want? a handwritten note sent to every commenter?

By: Rational Moderate

Rational Moderate — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:38:38 +0000

Pam,
What a bunch of self-righteous nonsense. “Oh you disrespect us so with your original letter. Oh you have enough guts to offer a real and genuine apology, well I’m going to take that as disrespectful to. Imagine treating me, a blogger, as a real individual who can be offended (intentional or not) and then actually offer a sincere apology as if I were a real person which is what I was complaining about to begin with.”
And what’s worse is that it does matter very much whether it was meant in humor or not since for the humor to work you must actually have an understanding of the issue to see it as funny. Now, I’m not going to mind-read and say you clearly don’t have the intelligence to get it because that would be exactly the mistake you are making here. Again, you are making assumptions about her intentions of belittling you while performing the exact same action against her. In basic moral terms – if you were morally right about her actions, then you are now morally wrong with your reaction.
And let me cut off your counter that if it was sincere it shouldn’t be a form letter. Are you sure it was, or are you insinuating something about the intention of the person you are writing about?
And then there is the ad hominen attack. As if at any point there was a claim that this was literary genius. While there was something wrong with the original letter, there is definitely something wrong with your portrayal and reaction to it.

By: Pam

Pam — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:03:47 +0000

So by going around all the blogs and adding a comment saying you meant it to be humor that you aren’t even typing each time but just copy pasting is supposed to make it okay?
Whether it is a joke or not is not relevant. The fact that you spoke to blogger’s in a way that shows the true colors and beliefs of Quirk is the issue. You assume because we blog we are not intelligent. That point is proven in the way you talk down to blogger’s in the letter assuming we as a people couldn’t possibly know what the word embargo means.
If Quirk ever wanted to reach out to my readers, that now is an impossibility. Especially with the type of book you are pushing here. You assume we are not intelligent, but ripping off Jane Austen and turning it into a zombie book is okay? I think its not literary genius.

By: Quirk PR

Quirk PR — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:29:19 +0000

I just wanted to say that I’m sorry to have offended so many of you with my letter. I realize now that it came off as condescending, but it was actually meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Clearly, that tone was lost. There are good explanations for the other complaints, such as why we had the embargo, and I also understand your concerns with fair use. The way I discussed the embargo and excerpt practices in the letter came off all wrong. I sincerely respect and value what bloggers have done for the book publishing world in general and in particular–with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Without independent blogs and bloggers, our book would not have been such a success. I hope you can all accept my apology. It won’t happen again. And please, know that in no way was Seth involved in any of this. Quirk PR

By: MavenLady

MavenLady — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:07:05 +0000

Hi Rational Moderate,
I hope that I made it clear I understand that intentions at QBPR were good. In fact, my next blog post is going to be something along the lines of (as I said) there are Stupid PR Tricks, Stupid Blogger Tricks, Stupid EVERYONE Tricks. The point of examining Flavorwire’s call-out is to start a dialogue about book bloggers and professional standards.
Unfortunately, the letter’s tone was just…off. But no one at Quirk was trying to make all bloggers mad.

By: Rational Moderate

Rational Moderate — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:05:00 +0000

I know the folks at Quirk books and I know this is not what they meant – which is likely why they haven’t responded well to your criticism. Below is the same comment I made on this topic over at http://heylady.net but I thought it deserved repeating here:
I understand the way the letter reads, but think about it from a slightly different perspective. The letter is asking you to not print from a book the majority of which, the Pride and Prejudice bit, is freely available online in the public domain. That is a large part of the meta point of the book. To take something in the public domain, that is free and out there, and add to it to make something new. So they know parts can, will, and should show up online in reviews and such.
At the same time they are going to do what most everyone does when they make something, try to release it on their own terms. So, in an overly hyperbolic way, in light of the nature of the product itself, they wrote what they did in the letter.
Now I agree it didn’t work, but I can see the intention and take that as the ethical position rather than the consequences.