Buzz, Balls & Hype : The Doctor Is In

February 16, 2006

The Doctor Is In

And so we come to the end of the Book Tour Tool Kit – at least for a while. It was great fun for me -and I hope for a lot of you. If you have any other issues you’d like to suggest, I’m always open to suggestions.

One reader chastised me for not dealing with issues of race and prejudice when it comes to bookstore signings. I’d be happy to post a contribution on the issue if anyone would like to submit one.

And now for our usual Friday therapy session with Dr. Sue O’Doherty.

I occasionally give workshops in my Brooklyn Heights office on topics of interest to writers. There are two scheduled for next month: March 18 (Overcoming Writer’s Block) and March 25 (Overcoming Fear of Success). For more information, or if you’d like to be notified about future workshops, email me at Dr.Sue at mindspring dot com.

HEAVILY EDITED LETTER CONCERNING A PROBLEMATIC POSTER

Dear Dr. Sue,

I belong to an online community for writers. There is one novelist who constantly brags about her success and her deals. And everyone cheers her on—at least to her face. But behind her back everyone talks about how awful her books are. Yes, she gets sold, but a lot of crap gets sold.

My problem is, I don't have the guts to say anything. And I'm not alone. What's going on? This isn't about jealousy. She's not even as successful as the people she disturbs the most. Rather, she seems to have manipulated everyone into playing her game with her and it's dragging the community down.

Thanks,
Truth or Consequences

Dear Truth:

You provided so many identifying details about the author in question I had to wonder whether, in your frustration, you hoped she would recognize herself and clean up her act without your intervention. Because your letter came in unsigned through the Publishers Marketplace site, I couldn’t email you back and ask you to reword it. I nearly decided not to use it, but it touches on an important issue that I often hear discussed, but have never received a letter about. Instead, I edited out most of the identifying information—so if any readers think they recognize a member of their own online communities, they are probably mistaken.

Certain individuals do exert a mysterious control over groups, whether live or online. As you point out, this power appears unconnected with intelligence, ability, or personal charm. Although envy would be an understandable response to someone who is well published despite substandard writing, I agree that this is probably not the source of your discomfort. Groups seldom hesitate to bash those whose only offense is a higher level of accomplishment. Rather, this author sounds like one of those people who inspire fear that feels almost primal, and that baffles us because its source is hidden or indirect. Sometimes the individual projects a trait, such as extreme hostility or emotional fragility, that a group picks up on a subliminal level and shies away from confronting. At other times, especially in groups that place a premium on “niceness” and getting along, a relatively innocuous characteristic (for example, obliviousness to the tone or content of a discussion) can make the offender a target for the group’s disowned aggression. In this case, it is the group’s own antagonism that is threatening, because addressing it would entail acknowledging “not-nice” impulses of participants. In either case, the tendency is for the group to bond through backchannels but refrain from tackling the problem directly.

If this situation occurred in a community of friends or a face-to-face writing group, I would suggest a tactful but firm confrontation, including a discussion of ways the group has played into this dynamic. However, online communities are not “real” communities. We all know this, but it’s hard to keep in mind when someone’s posting style is as painful to us as our Uncle Jake’s lectures on politics or a two-year-old asking “why?” for the thousandth time. We feel we know the poster—what she looks like, what her life is like outside the community, her state of mind as she posts, the tone she intends to project. And, as anyone who has met an online acquaintance face-to-face can testify, we are invariably wrong. Even if we have seen her jacket photograph and spoken on the phone, there is that ineffable something about the person that is different. We discover that what we had read as an offensively snarky posting style is actually an impish sense of humor; that her wet-blanket negativity is a symptom, not of meanness, but of depression; that her friendly and supportive missives translate as cloying sycophantism in the flesh.

The poster you write about, in other words, could be a vengeful, narcissistic idiot. Or she could be boasting to compensate for some other problem—deep insecurity, an empty relationship, grief or loss that you know nothing about because you are not involved in her real life. On the other hand, you could be reading content or tone into her posts that is not actually there, due to individual or collective issues within the group.

Even if you are certain that the problem is all hers, and even if she is hijacking important discussions to feed her ego, I would advise against confronting her unless she attacks someone else. There is no tactful way to tell someone in a public forum that simply talking about herself is offensive. I would bet that others in your community also mention their successes on occasion. The difference between occasional sharing of good news by an involved and sympathetic group member, and constant boasting to the exclusion of other topics, may be obvious to everyone else, but your objections would be hard to communicate, especially since your posts, like everyone’s, are subject to misreading and misinterpretation.

Very few people are able to respond to public shaming by saying, “Thanks for pointing out that I’ve been acting like a jerk. It won’t happen again.” Anger, defensiveness, and hurt feelings are the more likely results, and, again, you don’t know what other circumstances she may be coping with. And if the other posters who can’t stand her join in, the discussion can veer rapidly out of control, turning a sincere effort to address a problem into an ugly exercise in group bullying.

What you can do is refrain from responding to objectionable material. I know this is harder than it sounds; her posts evoke strong reactions that seem to demand action and resolution. But keep in mind that silence is, in itself, a powerful tool for exerting control.

If the group was talking about, say, procrastination, and she jumps in to brag about her latest deal, open a new window apart from the forum, and compose the post you are tempted to send. Save and file the post and return to the original discussion, ignoring her comment (or acknowledging it briefly). Later, when you’re calmer, review your unsent post. Does it reveal anything that surprises you? People who spark strong negative feelings in us often have a great deal to teach us about ourselves.

If you stop taking the bait, other posters may join in this campaign of silence. With luck, your problematic poster will get the message and join the group. If she does, be sure to respond to her in that context, to reinforce her prosocial behavior. Even if she keeps posting only about herself, the rest of you can stay on-topic yourselves. Remember, she has only as much power as you give her.

Susan O’Doherty, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist with a New York City-based practice. A well-published author herself, she specializes in issues affecting writers. Send your questions to her at Dr.Sue at mindspring dot com.

Feb 16, 2006 11:40:32 PM

40 Comments

"You provided so many identifying details about the author in question I had to wonder whether, in your frustration, you hoped she would recognize herself and clean up her act without your intervention."

Or maybe the letter-writer merely was hoping to cause pain? It's such a passive-aggressive letter.

Posted by: Lauren Baratz-Logsted | February 17, 2006 at 06:03 AM

Lauren, I had the same reaction when I first read this letter, several months ago, and my first impulse was to delete it. The subject, how to deal with online (as opposed to in-person) group conflict, is an important one, though, so I held onto it. When I read it again, the writer seemed more frustrated than vengeful. In my experience, people resort to passive-aggressive behavior when they feel powerless to confront a problem directly. If the writer's purpose was to cause pain, then I think he or she will experience even more frustration since I cut out all the identifying details.

Posted by: Dr.Sue | February 17, 2006 at 06:46 AM

In any online interaction there is the risk of miscommunication and projection, especially in the context of a community. (Or a "community.") I think there are a lot of valuable issues raised in this letter and addressed in the response.

One of the powers a problematic person such as the one described can hold over others, whether or not other people respond to her as advised, is malevolent and subtle manipulation of the group. It's somethng we all know from junior high school. The powerful girl who dominated a group did so by bullying. Her minions stuck to her, and nobody stood up against her, because they were afraid of the consequences of being on her wrong side.

In an onlne community, silence can mean all kinds of things, from lack of interest to obliviousness to tactful not engaging to pursed-lip disapproval to fear of involvement or attracting the wrath of the bully.

Dr. Sue proposes the consideration that this problem member of an online community may be dense and oblivious but her behavior can be modified by positive group dynamics and individuals taking responsibility and having awareness of their own responses to her, checkng in to see how she pushes their buttons. And she also suggests that the obnoxious person probably has her own issues at work that are worth considering. This is all very wise and helpful.

But what if the problem person is a true sociopath?

Posted by: katharine weber | February 17, 2006 at 08:59 AM

Dr. Sue - I am one of the group of people who wrote the letter (yes it was a group letter) and are frustrated by this situation and don't know what to do other than throw up our hands and give up - which is basically what we have done.

Thank you Dr. Dougherty for responding.

You said, "people who spark strong negative feelings in us often have a great deal to teach us about ourselves."

That might be true if this was one person's reaction to one person's action but in this case very different types of people are all having the same reaction to this writer.

You wrote, "With luck, your problematic poster will get the message and join the group."

But isn't it almost impossible for a narcissistic to do that?

And lastly, isn't is okay to after as long as year of trying to understand someone's sensitivities and be thoughtful and work on the issues to just get angry and fed up with someone's behavior? Especially when that person has never shown any real concern? Isn't there a cut off point at which "understanding" is just self -flagellation?

Posted by: Truth | February 17, 2006 at 09:05 AM

I'm amazed how your topics coincide with issues I've been thinking about recently. Lately I've seen two of my lists get clogged with dozens of individual messages saying "Congratulations!" each of which must be answered by individual "Thanks-for-the-congratulations!" messages. To me, a private message would be more thoughtful and personal.

My feeling is, how will Obnoxious Author (OA) know that she is provoking this reaction if no one tells her? If I were OA, I'd prefer that someone tactfully explain (perhaps in a general note to everyone from the moderator?) on the appropriateness of certain types of posts, rather than have everyone hate me behind my back.

I can admit that part of my annoyance with boasters comes from envy and insecurity. For those of us prone to these feelings, should we avoid such lists entirely? I always hear how we shouldn't compare ourselves to other writers, but have yet to see any practical advice on how to do this. It's like telling an alcoholic, "Just don't drink!"

Posted by: Jeri | February 17, 2006 at 09:58 AM

Katharine, thanks. And thank you, too, Truth, for amplifying. Yes, if the poster in question is a true sociopath or a completely oblivious, self-involved narcissist, she's unlikely to take the hint and change her posting style. The original letter did not state this as the problem, though. (The material I cut out was personal information, not an elaboration of the issue.) There were no examples of backstabbing, personal attacks, or narcissistic rage at being slighted. This is a very different problem, and if it is occurring in an online forum, it definitely needs to be addressed directly. I would suggest that you, as a group, complain to the moderator, and if the problem continues please write again and we'll figure something out.

Jeri, you ask some important questions. My assumption was that OA was indulging in fairly innocuous behavior that angered a lot of people, either because she was being subtly (and perhaps unconsciously) provocative, or because the group itself had unaddressed issues. That behavior is fairly subtle and hard to explain to the offender. If she is, indeed, actively hurtful, that's another matter, and I agree, someone needs to straighten her out.

Envy is a huge topic that I hope to tackle in a future column.

Meanwhile, MJ has a characteristically brilliant article on electronic communication here: http://www.jugglezine.com/CDA/juggle/0,1516,109,00.html

Posted by: Dr.Sue | February 17, 2006 at 11:28 AM

Dr Sue,

Thanks so much for this column, but I'm having a hard time understanding the letter that prompted it. The complaint seems to be as much about the community (people who pretend they like the problem person's work but then talk about her behind her back) as about the problem person. Why would people pretend they like work and then complain that this person has made them do this? Or are there two groups in this community--(1) people who don't like the work but pretend to and then complain about the boaster behind her back; and (2) people who maybe do like the boaster (don't see her as a boaster) and maybe also like her work and express something they really feel when they congratulate her? I'd guess that in an online community, there could be people in both these groups and more (people who find her annoying but just scroll by; people who sometimes find her annoying and sometimes charming). Aside from my confusion about what the letter writer meant, I think this is an important column because it's good for all of us to stop sometimes and consider how others might be seeing us.

Posted by: Susan Messer | February 17, 2006 at 02:42 PM

As usual, great column.

There are undoubtedly people on forums who are constantly irritating and disruptive, it's one of those challenges of a newish social situation. But as far as I can tell from the letter (and that isnt much) the problem is as much that of the community.

If you (I mean that generally, as in 'one') feel compelled to say Congrats, good job, even if you didnt like the book, fine. You're being nice, if a bit false if you say you liked it. Understandable, IF it doesnt bother you to have been that little bit hypocritical. If it bothers you enough to spark the exchange of backchannal emails about the terrible quality of the book in question and the flaws in the author's character, it's a sign the hypocrisy was too much for you, and you should have posted nothing (my favourite option) or posted something reflective of your true feelings.

I find the idea of behind-your-(cyber)back nasty commentary just as irritating as having to scroll by egocentric boastful or bellicose posts. Though I should clarify neither really rocks my world. People are weak. There's usually a fairly good reason for the way they act, sneaky or in-your-face annoying.

In any case, an important issue to address. I am certain it will make many of us think.

Posted by: Jessica Black | February 17, 2006 at 04:45 PM

These are all really interesting comments. Susan, I had read the original letter to mean that the problematic author had several friends who always hijacked the discussions by talking about/praising the author's books, and that the other posters felt both annoyed by this and frustrated with themselves for not being able to change the situation. But "Truth"'s message suggests that the problem is more complicated, in ways that haven't been explained. Jessica, that's an interesting point, that we sometimes react against our own hypocrisy in praising someone, by blaming them behind their backs.

Posted by: Dr.Sue | February 17, 2006 at 05:36 PM

This week's column --- the situation the letter describes and Sue's reply -- is, fascinatingly, like a Rorschach Blot.

Posted by: katharine weber | February 17, 2006 at 06:52 PM

Please note: The placement of usernames in relation to comments on this blog can be confusing, and my email indicates that some readers have mistakenly attributed one or more comments. The username follows the comment. The spokesperson for the group that wrote today's letter is "Truth," not Katharine Weber.

Posted by: Dr.Sue | February 17, 2006 at 07:00 PM

Thank you, Sue, for clarifying. How unfortunate if anyone thought I wrote "Truth"'s post.

It is not really that hard to identify wh wrote a comment if you start at the top, or the bottom.

Posted by: katharine weber | February 17, 2006 at 07:38 PM

Fantastic column, Dr. Sue!

We, too, are part of a forum, maybe even the same one, since members of a certain forum all seem to be popping up in the comments section.

You’ve given voice to the voice-less. (Okay, so we do publish books and post things in forums, but because of this self-hyping dominatrix, we have been silenced.)

We cannot tell you the number of times that this one woman has posted an announcement that she has yet another book deal in what could only be called total BS(P). We cannot tell you how often she has posted about another sale and we’ve all had to type, “You’re the greatest!” “Way to go!!” “You Rock” along with some blasted smiley face when what we really wanted to write was “DIE, BITCH, DIE.” She’s dragging the community down by forcing us to play her praise game. We feel manipulated, controlled and captive and by posting your column today, we are one step closer to the freedom we deserve. You’re the greatest, Dr. Sue!

We don’t know how we would’ve done it without you. You see, we email one another about her, but openly criticizing her would make us look like jealous bitches and not the innocent victims we are. We also can’t really post anything about her publicly because that woman is always such a goodie-two-shoes--she helps others out, encourages wannabe writers who we know will never make it—you get the idea. She doesn’t flame or dis’, so there wasn’t really any way we could get to her—until today. Way to go, Dr. Sue!

You’ve helped us pathologize her. But you could’ve gone a step further. (We emailed each other about what we really thought about you on this one—no offense, but we were silenced.) You mentioned narcissism, but you really should’ve explained narcissistic personality disorder and given her an Axis-II diagnosis. (But BRAVO to Katherine Weber who had the guts to speculate that the woman might really be a true sociopath!) We were also disappointed in your follow-up comment that you really had to point out, “There were no examples [in the original complaint message] of backstabbing, personal attacks, or narcissistic rage at being slighted.” This made us feel silenced again because pointing out her absence of overtly hostile actions minimizes the true toxicity of her coercing us to post insincere congratulatory messages. You did the responsible thing by examining this important problem. You rock, Dr. Sue!

Posted by: Truth or Dare | February 17, 2006 at 07:47 PM

There seems to be an assumption that I know who the problematic author is and that I have somehow taken sides with one group or another. Please understand that I do not know this author's identity.I don't know which online community s/he posts on. I don't know who wrote the letter. Further, I do not want this information. This column is not a forum for people to work out their personal vendettas. The letter touched on issues concerning online group dynamics that friends and clients have expressed concern about and interest in, and I answered it in that spirit. I'm always happy to "rock," but not at the expense of someone else's feelings or dignity.

Posted by: Dr.Sue | February 17, 2006 at 08:33 PM

"There were no examples [in the original complaint message] of backstabbing, personal attacks, or narcissistic rage at being slighted."

It seems that Truth or Dare has given us an example of the poster's narcissistic rage.

How fascinating to see her perception of herself as kind and encouraging to writers she has just called "wannabees."

Posted by: Emma | February 18, 2006 at 02:49 AM

Why is everyone assuming they know who these people are?

Yes there are a lot of people commenting here from one online community - that's beause Dr. Sue frequents it and so do I.

It doesn' t mean Truth or Consequenses does.

In fact, I have gotten email from four people since this post went up who hang out at THREE TOTALLY DIFFERENT online communities and each of them are all certain they know who this person is.

Besides if Truth or Consequences is a writer I'd imagine he or she put in details that might seem identifying but could be exactly misleading on purpose.

How many of us have written a character in a novel only to have an email arrive from a man treatening to sue us beause we have perfectly described his wife.

Dr. Sue. said she took out identifying details -- that didn't mean she could identify the person -- rather that it seemed to her if someone reading the blog might.

Let's not put her in the role of villian here. She's trying to dicuss an issue - which is the purpose of her column in the first place.

Posted by: MJ | February 18, 2006 at 09:06 AM

I am not an author. However, I am a reader who enjoys being at Readerville which might be the community being discussed. It really matters little. What matters is that the letters appear to be growing into an appalling, rude, spiteful gang attack. (Note that I am not criticizing their feelings, but their behavior.)

Dr. Sue, my personal opinion is that while the topic--group dynamics in online discussions--is a valid one, using the oroginal letter was wrong. Even though you heavily edited it, it is provoking strong feelings that seem to be growing more bitter, not less.

Nothing has been solved, the wounds appear to be growing deeper and harder, and what has really been accomplished? Hate has erupted into the open, and I foresee no resolution. This is not at an end, unfortunately.

Posted by: RV reader | February 18, 2006 at 10:45 AM

I sense a note of hyperbole--farce even--in Truth or Dare's post. This sentence especially got my BS detector quivering: "This made us feel silenced again because pointing out her absence of overtly hostile actions minimizes the true toxicity of her coercing us to post insincere congratulatory messages."

I think someone is pulling our leg. Which is funny, in a post-modern, meta-whatever fashion, but it mocks a very real problem and trivializes the reactions to it.

Posted by: Bella Stander | February 18, 2006 at 11:03 AM

I was really shocked to read the following: We cannot tell you how often she has posted about another sale and we’ve all had to type, “You’re the greatest!” “Way to go!!” “You Rock” along with some blasted smiley face when what we really wanted to write was “DIE, BITCH, DIE.”

Who feels so compelled to type, "You're the greatest?" Is someone in your home holding a gun to your head? Why not just say nothing? This is so ridiculously dishonest. You don't have to write something inflammatory like DIE BITCH, but you don't have to lie with bogus smiley faces either. Why not just say nothing? What would happen that would be so bad? That the narcissist would write, Why hasn't anyone congratulated me? Would they really say that? And that could just be met with more silence. It seems like a very silly game to be playing, and giving undue power to some invisible individual.

Posted by: Susanito | February 18, 2006 at 11:21 AM

Readerville reader, why are you assuming that the letter to Dr. Sue is about Readerville? As I posted but perhaps you missed, I have four letters saying the author in question belongs to 3 different forums other than Readerville. Why should Dr. Sue have assumed otherwise?

Posted by: MJ | February 18, 2006 at 11:52 AM

Why is anyone reading that post literally? Why dignify it with such painstakingly literal responses when it was really a very obvious and mean-spirited send-up?

Posted by: katharine weber | February 18, 2006 at 11:53 AM

I'm not sure why Dr. Sue, of all people, is being attacked here. I've been a part of various online communities since 1998, some of them about writing, some of them not, and every single one of them has had SOME member who would fit the description of the "problem poster" presented by the original letter-writer. I think the defensive reactions and attacks on Dr. Sue speak more to the insecurity of those posters than any wrongdoing on Dr. Sue's part. As I read it, Dr. Sue is discussing both how to handle a problem poster and how to interact in a virtual community in general, and her advice works whether you're participating in a writing community or a place with another kind of focus. Moreover, the more the anonymous responder(s) make this personal and specific, the more they distract from the real "teachable moment" of this question -- that is, how do we find a way to deal with, work with, and learn from difficult people, and how do we make a community full of diverse opinions work -- and divert our energies toward "feeding the troll," as it's sometimes called in online communities.

Posted by: Andi | February 18, 2006 at 12:00 PM

Thank you, Andi.

I do think, incidentally, it is worth noting the different tone in the comments from those of us who sign our real names and those who do not.

The RV reader who criticizes Dr Sue using a letter written to her for the column (which is the basis of the column, after all) seems to miss the boat. This column didn't create the feelings expressed here; it only revealed them.

Posted by: katharine weber | February 18, 2006 at 12:06 PM

I have a few thoughts on this matter. First, I hang out at several different online communities, not all of them related to writing, and could "recognize" a person like this at all of them. I also have someone like this in my real life who continually brags about how much money her husband makes, their new possessions, and how she can write this gigantic checks in the $10,000 range and he doesn't even notice. Interestingly, they are all different people. Yes, they can be bothersome and annoying. I think what's useful to discuss is how we can deal with the personality type.

Now that I'm sober, I have been able to recognize I was once guilty of such behavior, too, in an online community not having to do with writing. Usually I would post while drinking and would get upset when I didn't get the attention I believed I needed. Sobriety has taught me that the peace and satisfaction I wanted could never really come from other people. It came from inside me.

It's possible the person discussed is unstable in some way or has other problems, perhaps with substances, perhaps not. In any case, the solution is to ignore her posts, not to get upset with her, just as we wouldn't get upset with someone who was gravely ill and very needy because of that. But we can't permit that person to destroy our own peace--we don't control her behavior. We only control whether we react calmly or with spite or rage.

I read the following AA story the other day:

After returning home from a business meeting I found myself with a huge resentment for a fellow at the meeting that was really bugging me. I immediately called my sponsor to "complain". My Sponsor stopped me mid scream and said, "Do you have a mirror?" Of course, I said "Yes, in the bathroom." My sponsor then instructed me to "hang up the phone, go into the bathroom, turn on the light, look in the mirror and you will find the S.O.B that is bugging you.

"Resentments are like drinking poison and hoping the other person will die."

Posted by: Alcoholic and Anonymous, Please | February 18, 2006 at 05:27 PM

I really do not understand this letter. A writer that somebody, or a group of people, think that they're better than has the gall to announce her deals and be a bit exhibitionist about it? And you're annoyed that other people praise her? And you praise her too, even though you know how much better you are and you e-mail about it all the time with all your friends?

How do you deal with this incredibly egregious behavior? I'll tell you how--ignore it. Keep with your conversations and ignore it. Why on earth would you say something? Saying something doesn't take guts--it's just rude. What do you want to say, "Stop announcing your deals because I'm better than you and so are all my friends and we talk about it all the time?" Oh, and "Everyone who's praising you doesn't mean it, because I'm better than you, so go away?"

It seems the real issue is that someone who annoys you, who you feel is inferior to you artisitically and personally, gets praised. And because she gets a lot of deals, and because she likes to announce them, you have to see it a lot. This is worth writing Dr. Sue?

Just because someone's annoying doesn't mean they don't have a right to be on the internet, and even on your message board--though I wonder, at this point, why anyone would want to be.

The only purpose of this letter is to humilate someone, rather like a note taped to the mirror in a junior high girls' bathroom.

Posted by: b.Nonymous | February 18, 2006 at 06:12 PM

The purpose of Truth's letter was not to humiliate anyone. The writers of Truth did not dream that the person they were complaining about would recognize herself. Quite the contrary, they assumed that if she was capable of recognizing this tendency to brag she would have long ago ceased the behavior.

However, they did know that the person in question can be frighteningly hostile if anyone dares to suggest that she isn't as wonderful in every way as she believes herself to be. The truth or dare response is an egregious example of this hostility. Anyone who knows Dr. Sue's work knows that she is a gracious and sensitive person who goes out of her way to help other writers. She had nothing to do with Truth's letter and responded to it in good faith, yet she too finds herself a target of this woman's explosive defensiveness.

If anyone has any doubts that one writer can take over a forum, look at her reaction here. Ask yourself why, if she recognizes herself, she is unwilling to consider that she might need to change.

Posted by: a friend of truth | February 18, 2006 at 08:04 PM

I post anonymously because I do not wish to invoke energies I work very hard to keep away from me.

I was once a similar target of a similar cabal (on a non-writing related site), probably for some of the same reasons, although I think Dr. Sue nailed it with this:

"Groups seldom hesitate to bash those whose only offense is a higher level of accomplishment."

Or, I would add, what the group *perceives* as a higher level of accomplishment, freedom, wealth, or even a more proficient ability to express oneself and present a coherent argument, defense or even simple thesis. (The latter probably applies less in a writing-related community).

Heck, I had people who despised me because I moved to a city they perceived as desirable and they could not. (I know this because someone admitted it to me later.)

Groupthink becomes powerful online and behind the scenes and people want to belong to a group, especially people who are isolated for some reason - geographical, personality, circumstance. If Mark, Betty and Mary are all up in arms against Kitty, you're not going to tell them that you think they're smoking crack, because you 'talk' to them every day and they are your 'friends' and so you'll go along, even if you think they're making a mountain out of a molehill.

The thing is, the group in question would be crushed if the writer they describe left the community. They just want him/her to shut up and, preferably, be humiliated publicly but continue to co-exist in their vitual world. If the poster just left that would be a greater offense, s/he would find, because the group would lose their scapegoat. (Again, I speak from experience.)

Posted by: anony-mouse | February 18, 2006 at 08:05 PM

If not humilation, then what's the point of this letter? What exactly do you want to accomplish? It seems like group think and cliquishness gone horribly awry. We all know people online who annoy us, but I don't know anyone who's banded together to write an advice columnist about it. And what really seems to get Truth is that this is a writer considered inferior to everyone in the group who has the gall to be arrogant. Who cares if people line up and congratulate someone who's work isn't as good as yours? Why is that so bothersome that you would make this enormous deal out of it? It does seem to be a form of jealousy--or at least pettiness. How could this inferior, annoying writer who all these diverse people don't like talk about her deals? How could she be so confident? How could people congratulate her? When she is so inferior?

For the record, I don't think Truth or Dare is criticizing Dr. Sue, but rather the people who are congratulating themselves for this letter. I also think TorD just find the whole thing appalling, as I do.

Posted by: b.Nonymous | February 18, 2006 at 08:41 PM

From anon: "I think Dr. Sue nailed it with this:

"Groups seldom hesitate to bash those whose only offense is a higher level of accomplishment."

Go back and read Dr. Sue's post again. You're misreading her. The full quote is:

"Although envy would be an understandable response to someone who is well published despite substandard writing, I agree that this is probably not the source of your discomfort. Groups seldom hesitate to bash those whose only offense is a higher level of accomplishment."

Translating: envy is not the source of the discomfort here. The group has not bashed this writer in the forum and Sue's point was that if they merely envied her, they would have.

Posted by: to anon | February 18, 2006 at 08:46 PM

Oh, and what I mean is I don't think TorD is the subject of the letter, just an outraged citizen. Anyway didn't Truth say this person was too narcissistic to see herself in the letter? Also, lets not confuse arrogance with narcissism; they're different things, and I think we're pathologizing arrogance and annoying behavior. The true narcisstic would actually assume it's about her.

Posted by: b.Nonymous | February 18, 2006 at 09:01 PM

Which apparently happened.

Posted by: katharine weber | February 18, 2006 at 09:05 PM

How do you know that?

Posted by: Lauren Baratz-Logsted | February 19, 2006 at 05:17 AM

Reading these comments.

Posted by: katharine weber | February 19, 2006 at 07:48 AM

I'm only a reader of this blog. I've never participated in an online writer's forum and after reading all of this, no way will I ever join one. They sound like snake pits.

One thing that strikes me really as weird here is how angry, almost venonmous some of the posters sound. How in the world can anyone be so sure of who's talking about who when anyone with a computer can post from anywhere? If I had psychic powers like that I'd be rich from a lot less work than writing my book.

Posted by: Martha Costales | February 20, 2006 at 02:52 AM

I hear you, Martha. I've said repeatedly that I don't know the identity of either the subject of the letter, or the author(s) of the letter and follow-up posts. M.J. has reported:

"In fact, I have gotten email from four people since this post went up who hang out at THREE TOTALLY DIFFERENT online communities and each of them are all certain they know who this person is."

And yet some people seem certain that they know who all the players are.

Please don't let this controversy scare you away from online writer's forums, though. If you scroll back over the comments, you will find one or two somewhat abusive comments, one which may be a send-up, a few that reflect frustration, and numerous thoughtful, searching posts. Clearly, the topic of online relationships is a highly charged one, and there is a tendency in any group (I am convinced this is true of online "groups" as well though I haven't seen research on the topic) to unconsciously act out the problem that is being explored. This can be valuable in a therapy group, because it brings the problem into the room, so to speak, making it clearer and less abstract, and easier to work with. Since this isn't a therapy group--we don't know one another, for the most part, and no one here has agreed to be prodded and scrutinized in that way--I think it's only necessary to recognize the phenomenon and not make it more than it is.

Posted by: Dr.Sue | February 20, 2006 at 07:57 AM

Interesting discussion. Even MORE interesting reactions to some of the posts. But this one ...

I post anonymously because I do not wish to invoke energies I work very hard to keep away from me.~ anony-mouse

... is my favorite. It is ironically apropos to the main subject, too. Here is a person who is afraid to attach their name to their thoughts because they fear a backlash from complete strangers will ensue regardless of how totally benign their post might read. For what they are worth, here are my thoughts on that fear:

a. Karma doesn't work that way. Do and say bad things and eventually, no matter how hard you try to hide, bad things will find you.

b. What's in your head, once it escapes, takes on a life of its own. Think of the web as a giant sponge filtering the detritus of the ocean into sparkling clean water. Picture your thoughts getting homogenized through millions of minds as they fire your post through their neurons. Become one with your posts.

c. Ok. I'm screwing with you. Forgive me?

Back to the serious discussion.

Posted by: FerfeLaBat | February 21, 2006 at 04:37 PM

The letter outlining the problem with the troublesome member isn't what sounds passive-aggressive. It's the 'member' who sounds passive-aggressive. And, indeed, narcissistic.

I recently joined a small writing organization that has the same problem. A 'star' who thinks the rest of the chapter should be her entourage. If everything isn't about 'her,' she gets nasty, insidious, calculating, and undermining. When she's not treating other members with an air of condescention, she's treating them with an air of impending doom. (Drum roll, please.) If the world isn't revolving around her, then it must be coming to an end.

The only time this female Narcissus is happy is when she's in the limelight. But even that isn't enough. She'll never be happy--never--because she's a crisis-junkie, a bottomless pit of need, and, above all, a control freak. If there isn't a crisis handy (for her to showcase her leadership skills, which are non-existent), you can be sure she will create one.

People like her make everyone else miserable. Most people by nature prefer harmony. Especially writers, who have rich and exciting inner lives and get their kicks from reading and writing fiction. They don't need or want the melodrama such disruptive and self-serving people crave. It's draining and exhausting, and writers need their energy to create.

So if it feels crazy, that's probably because it is. Trust your instincts. Get the crazy-makers out of your life. If you can't get rid of them, ignore them. It'll drive them crazier, which serves them right for thinking no one counts but them.

Get revenge. Live well!

Posted by: Matilda Madsen | February 21, 2006 at 10:52 PM

Yikes. One of us should write a novel about this. All the elements are there.

Posted by: patry | February 28, 2006 at 10:49 AM

What's wrong with folks? Those nicey-nice-girl loops slay me. Lord ha' mercy!

My reply would have been much shorter:

_________________________
If y’all can sit around griping about this woman behind her back, and take the time to write a literary advice blogger about it, y’all silly doggies should be woman enough to write,

“Nobody wants to hear that crap when either we don’t have new contracts and books to brag about or we are too damn good and nice to crow over our big, fat juicy book contracts. We think your books suck anyway. So shut the eff up.”

Either she shuts up or leaves. Either way, problem solved.

But y'all can't do that, can you? 'Cause then YOU wouldn't be the nicey-nice girls.

Newsflash, y’all are not sweet, nicey-nice girls, so stop lying to yourselves. Y’all are some evil heifers. Own it, ya silly doggies.
_______________________

See why I got to stay off those loops?

Posted by: Monica | March 03, 2006 at 08:15 AM

Posted by: JEROGatch | September 05, 2006 at 06:48 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Buzz, Balls & Hype

Because there are over 750,000 self-pubbed and 250,000 books published a year and they won't all get reviews in the NYTBR. Authored by M.J. Rose

February 16, 2006

The Doctor Is In

40 Comments

M.J. Rose

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments