Apparently there’s quite the furor going on about RTB’S conception and “anonymous moderators.” I can’t quite follow what’s going on, which is probably good, otherwise I’d feel compelled to dig deeper and spent what scant scraps of time I have reading up on something that doesn’t involve me or interst me much anyway. I was never all that into RTB — if I were interested in the columnists blogs, I’d probably already be reading them, and I don’t think there’s been a single RTB column that inspired me to read an author (or her blog) that I previously hadn’t been reading or visiting. But from what I *do* understand, everyone is fighting over who should have credit and why and why they weren’t taking it or were before and aren’t now… or something.
The isue of nom de plumes has been rearing its head again. No secret that “Peterfreund” isn’t the grooviest surname on the planet, and in regards to my current WIP, it’s probably a good idea to go pseudo anyway. Then again, one of my friends says I should milk the name recognition I’ve already got from my awards and participation in various RWA organizations. I don’t know if I buy that. RWA as an organization is pretty tiny (even if they ARE all readers) so I don’t think I’ve made a big splash, name-recognition-wise, with that. I am a little bit more intersted in keeping my name if I thought i could draw in some of my newspaper readers. After all, the Weekly Planet’s circulation is 95k. That’s more than 10 times what RWA is, and I think more Planet readers would recognize my name than RWA members who pay too much attention to contest lists. I was a contest coordinator, too, but I’m already going to publiczie the heck out of my books to the CLW and TARA, so they’ll remember me that way. I’m happy to take opinions, though.
5 Responses to scandals and handles