Guess it wasn't a consensus opinion after all

So a few little birdies have alerted me to a rather interesting little invective sent over the DorothyL transom by a judge on the Edgar Award committee for Best Paperback Original. In the interests of harmony (and to protect the guilty) I'm redacting the judge's name, but the vitriol and outrage should speak for itself.  The argument isn't new, and I'm sure it'll be one that pops up over and over again, but I do have to question why a judge would so publicly question the merits of a winner -- although I suppose it does demonstrate that someone can hate a book so much and their opinion doesn't end up counting in the end.

Oh yeah, be warned: lotsa spoilers for the book in question as well. Read the full thing after the jump.

Date:    Tue, 3 May 2005 13:25:41 -0500
From:    [Redacted] 
Subject: A Dissenting Edgar Vote

I was on the Edgar's committee for 2004's best paperback original. When my fellow committee members voted for THE CONFESSION to get the prize, I was so appalled by their decision that I lost sleep over it for the next several weeks. The cover art depicted a beautiful woman with her eyes wide and mouth agape in terror is she is about to be strangled with a blue necktie. And that's what the novel is about. The protagonist is a remorseless sociopath who enjoys raping and strangling women, which he does throughout the book and always gets away with it. At the end, he is smirkingly eyeing his next victim.

And that's the story. No mystery is solved here.  No criminal is brought to justice. After the votes were added up and announced among the committee, on January 10th, I wrote my concerns to the other members:

"What constricts my stomach is the concept that fantasies about raping and strangling women are what get rewarded in our field." The other commitee members said they understood my feelings, but believed *The Confession* to be so very well-written that it deserved the Edgar in any case. Yes, the word-smithing was very good.  But at least 12 other PBOs we received were written as well, plus had *real* plots with a mystery, twists and turns, a denouement and closure.  Not just "I killed her, then I killed her, then I killed her, then I killed her..."

Other books had fascinating themes like tracing the geneology of native Americans to establish tribal rights. (JACKPOT BLOOD), ancient Japanese puppetryin modern- day Osaka. (KINKI LULLABY) and the science of arson investigation (WEEPING.) The theme of THE CONFESSION is simply that there's no downside to slaughtering females if you're clever about it.

One member believed it took "courage" for the author to write about "a character who would not be sympathetic". I replied that in a world where men kill their wives and girlfriends every day, and countless others would like to, I wouldn't call writing about someone who gets away with it to be an act of "courage", but rather pandering to the basest instincts. I really believe that if the victims in this book had been black people instead of women, or had been Puerto Ricans, or Jews, or even *alley  cats* then the author's sadistic fantasies would not have been rewarded with an Edgar.  But beautiful women are acceptable targets of atrocities.

Comments

[Graham]

Plenty spoilers here as well.

No mystery? Up until the end of THE CONFESSION, it's never clear that the narrator is a killer. Not a surprise, since this man clearly denies he's the killer, even to himself. No development? Throughout the first half, the book is more about the narrator's deteriorating relationships than anything else.

Unlike most first-person books, which take a just-the-facts approach, THE CONFESSION never lets you forget that you're seeing everything through the narrator's eyes - essentially seeing only what he wants you to see (though sometimes he slips up).

And the idea of judging a book by the uplifting value of the content is pretty shallow. Otherwise ABC's After-School specials, always drearily boring, would be sweeping awards every year.

[David J. Montgomery]

This has sparked quite a discussion on DL, with Jan Burke and I, among others, weighing in.

What's given me the willies is how many people are writing in to praise the dissenting Edgar judge for her courage, to condemn Stansberry's book (without reading it), and to express their horror that books like this are written at all.

So far the most stomach-turning response has been:

"For the first time in my life, I thought, there ARE some books that should simply be BANNED and BURNED. So I took a book of matches to the thing myself. And I'm not alone in thinking this garbage should be banned."

And this is on a list of readers and writers! Scary stuff.

[PK the Bookeemonster]

I've been following it on DL as well. I don't think the judge who posted the dissent had courage, I think she had an agenda, maybe after the fact. What Jan wrote in response - the role of an Edgar judge -- was on target. Whether we agree with the choice isn't the point (does anyone agree with the Academy Awards anymore?), if the judges made decisions in good faith I don't want to hear about the process. Besides, its a done deal, who cares if she didn't agree now? What does she hope to gain?

[David Terrenoire]

I haven't read the book, and I don't need to. I'm appalled that anyone who loves books is willing to burn any novel, even the DaVinci Code.

I've judged advertising award shows and if I were the only person on the panel who didn't like an ad, I figured it was just me and moved on. It's a real jump to go from being a lone dissenting voice to the assumption that you're the only one in the room with any taste or sensibility.

[Ray]

What bothers me most about this is the phrase "the author's sadistic fantasies". Never having met DS, I can't testify to his fantasies, sadistic or otherwise, but this blurring of author and character, coupled with the idea that writing unsympathetic characters appeals to the basest instincts is the kind of cottonminded hokum that I thought had been dispelled sometime in the fifties (possibly along with the word "hokum"). And it makes me question not the morality or value of the author, but what qualifies this person to judge a crime fiction award in the first place.

Then again, I'm probably the kind of writer this judge would despise. Mainly because I'm obviously a murderous, cowardly drunk.

[John]

I guess the dissenter wouldn't like much of Jim Thompson's work either. I haven't read THE CONFESSION yet, but it appears that Stansberry wrote the book in order to take an unblinking look at evil. How can one do that and not expect to see ugliness? To me, that makes for an intersting read. To each his own, I guess.

[Ingrid]

Given the venue, this is very funny.

[John Rickards]

I'm inclined to agree with Ray.

And I'm mildly offended by the judge's use of the phrase "*real* plots" as if the only worthy stories are ones which have vast wider themes or in which the bad guy gets his comeuppance, and everything else is just shite.

Personally, I like the idea of a book where the writer didn't feel required to have some kind of happy ending. I'm rather intrigued by this one as a result.

But then I'm a fan of other immoral garbage like 'American Psycho' and 'Fight Club', so I'm bound to say that.

[Keith]

I guess THE AX sucked, too.

[Lee Goldberg]

The author who wrote that post was Tony Fennelly...and she was wrong to write it (what exactly at you protecting Sarah? Tony had no problem putting her name on her comments, why do you?)

This is the second year in a row that an Edgar judge has come forward and discussed the deliberations of the committee in public. When I read that post, I was enraged but held off saying anything until I could cool down.

Jan Burke was absolutely right when she wrote "the judging process is confidential, should never be discussed outside of the committee, and individual judges' opinions on works under consideration should not be made public." Tony didn't agree with the vote of the committee. Too bad. She shouldn't have agreed to be a judge if she wasn't willing to honor the confidentiality rules. Already her negative comments about the Edgars and Stansberry's books are being picked up here and by other Litblogs. I believe she's done the Edgars, the MWA, and Mr. Stansberry, a disservice.

I'm not debating the merits, or lack thereof, of Tony's opinion (I happen to think the book was terrific and well-deserved the Edgar). As you well know, I have no problem with authors not jumping on another author's bandwagon. But she could have voiced the same concerns about Stansberry's book without disclosing that she was a Judge on the committee or what the other judges had to say.

[Kevin Wignall]

I think this kind of brouhaha (another 50s word for Ray) is going to be increasingly common, partly because the moral landscape is more in flux than it has been for some time (incidentally, John, I think "amoral" rather than "immoral" is the more fitting term), partly because America is involved in a moral conflict with itself that's quite alien to those of us on this side of the pond. As Europe, which has no legally enshrined tradition of free speech, becomes more libetarian in regard to unpopular or unpalatable art, so America, which has free speech as a central pillar of its constitution, seems to be flirting with repression (and I fully accept in advance that this is by no means true of all Americans, but is certainly true of a powerful conservative rump). P.S. Is the book any good?

[Sarah]

Kevin -- well, I thought it was, at least that it stuck with me quite a while after I read it.

Lee -- the reason I redacted Fennelly's name was for two reasons: one, as you mentioned, the judging process is confidential and I was more interested in the opinion expressed than in who expressed it; and two, it seemed like adding fuel to the fire. Especially since this whole business seems to me a way for her to attract attention to herself.

Which sort of brings me to another question: why is it that whenever authors act out, engage in bad behavior or the like, they tend to be somewhere among the murky midlist (or out of print?) Is professionalism something you learn when you're successful, or are the truly successful the most professional?

[Dave Zeltserman]

From what I could tell from the DorothyL list, a person on the Edgar committee found the theme of this book offensive (first person killer getting away with murders, especially offensive to this woman since women were being murdered) and didn't want to be associated with the award going to this book, and a couple of others on the list chimed in - with one brilliant person suggesting that books like this be banned. Not a huge debate, and certainly not worth the discussion it has generated.

[Kevin Wignall]

Interesting question. I suspect it's more about desperate people being prone to desperate measures. But there is also a kind of unwritten rule that you don't openly criticize another author, something which I've only overcome in the last year - because it's silly, really. We can take the knocks from each other, and it's not really meant personally. I'm sure if this judge and DS were to share a bottle of bubbly, they'd agree on a lot of things.... okay, maybe taking it too far there.

[Guyot]

It's nice to know that one need not leave the mystery community to have others try and inflict their morality on you....

[Mary Root]

Read the DorothyL exchange(s) at lunch. Yes, people on a readers and writers list saying books they don't approve of should be banned and burned.

Made an interesting discovery when I looked up the author/judge's website. I would think that in the current climate, someone writing two series, one starring "gay, New Orleans aristocrat, Matt Sinclair" and the other "former topless dancer" Margo Fortier shouldn't be throwing the first stone. Aren't they trying to ban her books in Alabama?

[Charlie W]

This is all great for Dominic, of course. I bet he's sitting there punching the air, going "Yesss!" A little bit of controversy generates a lot of attention. (As we're seeing here.)

[Keith]

This kind of ruckus always seems to me to relate to a confusion about the difference between glorification and depiction.

My best theory--probably not a good one--is that some people raised on the Bible can't see books in any other way.

[Joseph Goodrich]

There's something that those-who-would-censor never seem to understand. I might have read Stansberry's book because it won an Edgar. Now, because of all the ruckus, I know I HAVE to read it.

Thanks, Ms. Fennelly, for pointing me toward what sounds to be a challenging work of art. I might have missed it otherwise.

[Steven]

"Which sort of brings me to another question: why is it that whenever authors act out, engage in bad behavior or the like, they tend to be somewhere among the murky midlist (or out of print?) Is professionalism something you learn when you're successful, or are the truly successful the most professional?"

I don't know that that is a fair assessment. I've heard some stories of terribly unprofessional doings by big money authors.

[Steven]

I've not read DS. Yet. I probably will soon, but not because of the award or the controversy -- I've heard good things from a lot of people I respect. Also, the publisher (Hardcase?) seems to be trying something new with their line, and I'd like to know what it is.

I do agree with what others have said -- if you agree to be part of a committee with certain rules, you should abide by them reagardless of the outcome of the vote.

Which book was found objectionable last year? I don't recall any controversy.

[The Evil J Winter]

Personally, I recommend Fenelly read FAHRENHEIT 451 before she continues her rant.

I haven't read THE CONFESSION, either, but given the comments about it before Fenelly found "courage," I'd say Stansberry wasn't glorifying the slaughter of women. He was giving us a peak inside the mind of a monster. Isn't that what Thomas Harris does? How about Truman Capote with IN COLD BLOOD? How dare he write a book from the POV of two real-life murderers!

I remember the howls of outrage that greeted FIGHT CLUB when it became a movie. Then I saw it. There was a mix of "I GET IT!", "Well, who's fault is that, stupid!", and massive laughing of ass off. At no point did I say, "Tyler Durden's a monster. Palahniuk is an evil man for writing it." Nope. Never happened. I'm sick of the scared sheep mentality in this country. Jesus, when did America go Communist?

[Xavier Lechard]

Kevin Wignall wrote:

"As Europe, which has no legally enshrined tradition of free speech, becomes more libetarian in regard to unpopular or unpalatable art, so America, which has free speech as a central pillar of its constitution, seems to be flirting with repression"

Some binary a vision I think. There are repressive forces in Europe as well, they are just not polarized the same way as American ones are.
That being said, I agree with Dave that this debate amounts to making Mount Rushmore out of an ant-hill.

[Justus]

The Talented Mr. Ripley won an Edgar in 1956 for Best Novel and it is about a remorseless, sociopathic murderer who gets away with it all. There is no mystery, no one is brought to justice.

I barely read any mystery/suspense books but I've heard and read Highsmith. I would have thought an Edgar judge would be even more versed in the genre than me.

[Charles Ardai]

Dear god. THE CONFESSION is not a fantasy about raping and murdering women any more than L'ETRANGER is a fantasy about murdering Arabs or CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is a fantasy about murdering pawnbrokers. And Stansberry (who sat beside me with his young daughter at the Edgar banquet and revealed himself to be a sweet and doting father) is hardly the drooling monster of perversion the morally upright author of THE GLORY HOLE MURDERS imagines.

I suppose it's gratifying to know that a book we published inspired such a profound and intense emotional reaction, when so many books inspire nothing more than indifference; I sometimes even find myself sympathizing with Meursault, who, at the end of L'ETRANGER, takes a defiant pleasure in imagining the "howls of execration" of the crowd calling for his execution. But speaking as someone whose entire family spent the 1940s living in Hungary -- or more precisely someone whose entire family began the 1940s living in Hungary and mostly ended the 1940s in mass graves -- I get very uneasy when demagogues start talking with glee about taking matches to the pages of books.

[Xavier Lechard]

The Talented Mr. Ripley was indeed nominated for the Edgar but it didn't win. The actual winner for that year was Margaret Millar's Beast In View.

[Joseph Goodrich]

The point Justus makes is a good one, but the New Yorker-fact-checker part of my brain feels impelled to point out that THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY was nominated for but didn't win an Edgar---the award went to MArgaret Millar's BEAST IN VIEW that year.

[Brian Thornton]

Coming late to this discussion, and I haven't read Stansberry's "Confession," either, but I wanted to weigh in on a couple of sub-threads being interwoven in this dialogue.

First, when it comes to questions of free speech, I'm inclined to follow the dictum of Oliver Wendell Holmes that it "does not include the right to shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre." The physical safety of those engaged in or witness to any acts of free speech aside, as far as I'm concerned, all bets are off.

To be blunt, "If you don't like it, don't look" strikes me as the most sensible approach to stuff like this. Speaking as someone with a day job that keeps him (regretfully) in tune with what passes for "popular music" these days, I can tell you that anyone who thinks that a *book* about a murderer who gets away with it should never, ever give a listen to our good friend Fifty Cent.

And sure, right now we Americans (even blue staters like me) are fortunate enough to live under the governance of a pack of Mayberry Machiavellis who get their kicks screwing the poor while both playing on their fears about physical attack from without and moral attacks from within, in order to pandering to the cupidity of that 1% that our president not-so-jokingly refers to as his "base." As far as I'm concerned, it's a hair shirt I can live with wearing. Not very comfortable, but not so uncomfortable that I'm willing to remove it (or remove myself from the country). So what if they want to ban a few books? Good grief, as has been stated here already, where do I get in line to have *MY* books banned? Is there any such thing as bad publicity?

Also, Sarah asks a question about whether or not professionalism has a chicken-or-the-egg relationship to A-List success. In my thinking, it's like talking about sex in a relationship. It's only an issue if it's a problem. Scott Fitzgerald drank like a fish and danced dead drunk with his wife in the fountain at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. Did that crimp his sales when he published "The Great Gatsby", which didn't really take off until it was re-issued in the 40s, by a post-war generation who "got" its central question? I doubt it. Hemingway was a miserable, drunken, philandering creep... and one of the finest stylists who ever hunched over a type-writer. I don't like his characters much for the most part, but I *love* his writing. Perhaps A-list writers these days aren't as "colorful" because they have agents who are good at pressing upon them the importance of good risk management once one has incorporated oneself? I for one would like to find out.

Also, I'd like to point out to anyone who has a problem with Mr. Stansberry's Edgar-winning book because of its premise that sometimes life is rough and evil does win ought to skip most of the best works of William Shakespeare and the entire canon of guys like Franz Kafka and Feodor Doestoyevksy. Perhaps it might be safer to stick with cozies? After all, Agatha Christie was a pretty good plotter. Oh, wait, better make sure that you don't read "And Then There Were None."

Lastly, I'd like to pose a general question to those reading here. Has anyone here ever read the 1931 Thomas Burke short story "The Hands of Mr. Ottermole"? I'm sure curious whether or not Dominick Stansberry has!

[David J. Montgomery]

Well, that certainly filled my RDA of pretension.

[Darrell Grizzle]

I really enjoyed "The Confession," and I didn't realize the "surprise" plot twist until almost the very last chapter. After all, the main character is a forensic psychologist -- they can't be killers, can they? :o)

I had my suspicions about him a few times along the way, but I think that's the sign of a really good mystery novel. No, it's not a mystery in the vein of Miss Marple or Perry Mason, but I don't think it claims to be. Right there on the cover is the publisher's logo: HARD CASE CRIME. "The Confession" lives up to that description.

[Brian Thornton]

Hi David-

Thanks for the thoughtful response to my post above. I'm very flattered by your comment. Usually, I'd think that someone associated with the Chicago Sun-Times could get their daily fill of pretension before lunch.

Guess this means I won't be making the review page in "Mystery Ink" any year soon.

[Brian Thornton]

Or better yet, maybe I could get labelled "pretentious and displaying something of a God complex"? If I could, that would be swell. It could net me a best-seller!

[Terrill Lee Lankford]

I think Ms. Fennelly should make a love connection with Otto Penzler.

(Maybe Mr. Stansberry could use that premise as the foundation for his next book. I think both sides of the fence would pay to read it.)

TL

[The Evil J Winter]

The difference between Otto and Ms. Fennelly is that Otto would think it was funny.

[Terrill Lee Lankford]

That's probably true, Evil J. I bet she would do a pretty good impression of the lady on the cover of The Confession at the very thought of a date with Otto.

TL

[JDRhoades]

I'm brand-new on the DorthyL list, so I'm still in the "looking around and keeping my mouth shut" stage...

But I, too, found the "some books should be banned and burned and I'll supply the matches myself" more than a little troubling.

Once I get my bearings and get over N00b anxiety, I'll probably say the same thing there...

[tod goldberg]

Here's the big question no one has tackled yet: Who still reads DorothyL every day? I realized just the other day that I'd been deleting it unread four times a day for about 18 months and unsubscribed. Of course, now that I find out it is filled with conflict and strife, I feel I should re-up, but by the time I do, it will be all cat mysteries again, and I don't know if I can take that. (Though I did like the time my brother got banned for something or other...I think it had to do with people being mad at him for writing Monk, as it is a show insensitive to people with OCD, and Lee told them to do something like get a life. It was a rich moment.)

[Donna]

I'm going to agree with Brian and everyone else who have said something along the lines of 'if you don't like it, don't read it'. A majority of the judges thought it the best novel in the category, so it won, and that's that. Judging a book is always going to be a subjective thing and thank goodness for that. Try and put boundaries on the judging process that say books can only be considered for the award if they have a whodunnit element / that the murderer has to be brought to justice / that you can't kill off more than 5 people / that there has to be a cat involved (still alive and unharmed at the end, of course, and you're going to have a hell of a lot of really wonderful books not being considered. As for the book not being as good as one of the others because it didn't have a sub theme of ancient Japanese puppetry or the art of constructing lifesize models of the 7 Wonders of the World out of Spam...well, that's just ridiculous.

If we couldn't have unsympathetic killers then we wouldn't have Jim Thompson's The Killer Inside Me, or Patricia Highsmith, or Jason Starr.

I also found the whole beautiful women shouldn't be fair game argument a bit ridiculous. But maybe because not being a beautiful woman it's not something I worry about. Presumably it would be OK if the murder victims were nasty old Colonels who deserved being shot with a dart coated in the poison of the rare Guatemalan Blue Kneed Tree Frog.

Regardless of whether she liked the book or not (I couldn't tell, was that clear ;o) ) I thought her whole attitude was unprofessional and I hope she never gets to be a judge again. I know one thing and that's that there will be one author whose books I shall be avoiding, and it's not Stansberry.

Donna

[Bill Peschel]

Jeeze, the mystery community finally gets ahold of something we can all talk about and all I hear is bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch.

Y'all rather talk about cat mysteries? Fine. Join DorothyL.

We should be expressing gratitude to Ms. Fennelly for breaking the Omerta code and saying what she thinks. (Of course, as Lee points out, if she did break a confidentiality promise in doing so, anything thinking of recruiting her for the job should think twice, and again, before asking).

[Craig Larson]

Regarding the DorothyL list, I'm surprised that the monitors have let this particular discussion go on for as long as it has, with people throwing accusations about, etc. Earlier this spring, one of the moderators over-reacted to a humorous message from someone whose wrists had been slapped for a minor infraction and she was ready to shut the whole listserv down. I do still read the thing every day, though sometimes I wonder why. It isn't nearly as much fun as it used to be, and a pale reflection of the list I first subscribed to about 10 years ago. I'm wondering if the moderators may not be in silent agreement with the anti-Confession crowd and that explains why this controversy continues?

[Jim Winter]

"We should be expressing gratitude to Ms. Fennelly for breaking the Omerta code and saying what she thinks."

I don't question her right to state her opinion. I question her soiling the judging process. Now I'm always going to look at the Edgars a little suspect.

That said, I'd like to win one, just so I can put it in my mantle where I can keep an eye on it. Then I can draw from my own insecurity and paranoia to really be suspicious about it while bragging to all my friends about what a great writer I am.

(At which point, I then start cranking out bloated bestselling thrillers with no plot, lots of explosions, and a ten-year, multimillion dollar development deal from Jerry Bruckheimer wherein Steve Buscheme plays Elaine from NORTHCOAST SHAKEDOWN.)

[John Rickards]

Damn it, Jim, that's MY career plan!

[Sandra Scoppettone]

I have to laugh at Fennelly's comments of revulsion about The Confession. Years ago I read her Glory Hole Murders and found it gross. All you have to do is read the first page and you'll get the idea. You can do that at Amazon. And at the time she wrote it the gay community, in the grip of AIDS, didn't need a book like this.

This book was nominated in 1986 for Best First Novel. It didn't win.

[Laura]

I haven't seen the confidentiality agreement -- it was developed since I last served as an Edgar judge -- and it may be that Tony received bum information about her right to go public. As a former Edgar judge, it was my understanding that we don't talk about it. Ever.

But I know what the intention was, as I served on the MWA board during the last uproar over the Edgars. In this case, a non-nominee asked a judge to explain why the writer's book was not nominated, extracted information that the non-nominee felt was incorrect/unfair, and then threatened to sue MWA. So judges were reminded not to discuss the voting process and, eventually, the confidentiality statement was drawn up, although I think there were also some larger concerns about secrecy and alleged leaks in previous years.

Here's the thing that I haven't seen addressed -- discussing the discussions kind of casts of a pall over all five nominees. Does anyone think it made me happy to have an Edgar judge tell me in a bar, many years ago (pre-rules) that I was the runner-up? Um, no. (Although it did make me very happy to reply: "That's okay, I've already won one," which was news to the judge.) Does any Edgar winner want to be known as the consensus pick who was no one's first choice? Does any nominee want to hear: "Oh, you were last by a mile, feel good that you were even in the group." I don't think so. MWA is very keen that the nomination be recognized as the honor it is.

Furthermore, Tony's complaints paint her fellow judges in a most unflattering light. She gets to carry the banner of being the enlightened feminist on the panel, which makes the other judges -- well, what? And how can they defend themselves without placing the winner in context, which means discussing why they chose it not just on its own merits, but over the other books?

I just think this whole incident is regrettable, except for the fact that it probably will mean more readers/buyers for the book in question.

[Keith]

I was once told "You were on my shortlist." It was two parts awful, one part validating.

I don't think the banner Tony's carrying says what she thinks it says. As I see it, this is a self-correcting problem.

[Jan]

Leaving aside for a minute what she said and the resultant controversy, was Tony Fennelly's e-mail posted here with her permission? If not, am I the only one who's bothered by that?

[David J. Montgomery]

She posted it on an open listserv with 3000 members. Seems fair game for general distribution to me. Besides, I don't think she's shy about her remarks. If anything, I'm sure she wants to get them out to a wider audience. Why else make them in such a public forum?

[Terrill Lee Lankford]

Jan,

Are you suggesting that some sort of confidentiality has been breached by posting that e-mail here?

That would be very ironic.

TL

[Jan]

Not necessarily confidentiality, Lee, but I'm on a list where something of this nature (one member posting another member's message to a separate list without the permission of the person who wrote it) threatened to become A Major Incident, complete with the dreaded word "lawsuit" being bandied about. It basically boiled down to more of a copyright violation issue (the writer of an e-mail in effect holding copyright on what s/he has written therein), something which I'd think would concern people here since it seems like a lot of you are writers.

David, I'm not sure what you mean by "open listserv," but the last time I checked, admittedly over a year ago, you had to be a member of DL to post there and to access the archives. Whether there are 3000 members or 3 members isn't the issue. If she'd posted her rant on her own website or on a blog, I agree that it would have been fair game. But she didn't. She may indeed want to get her remarks out to a wider audience, but that's her decision to make. My point was that her original message was intended for a specific group of people (ie, the members of DL). This was not a case of someone summarizing what she said, it's a case of her exact e-mail being reproduced here. If - again, IF - this was done without her permission, I find that troubling.

[JDRhoades]

Oh, Lord...Jan, David, TL....I mean you no personal disrespect, but there are few things more tedious than an online discussion that has devolved from the original topic into an eternal and unresolvable debate over netiquette.

Somebody wake me when this is over.