Eden Connor’s rebuttal to John Havel’s piece at The Hustle is boss. But you’ll have to give the site hits to read it.
The Hustle is on the ball about courting page hits, I’ll give them that. It’s not a bad thing, per se. It’s the currency of the blogging world, so I understand. By now, I’m a little cynical about why they decided to post a rebuttal piece addressing John Havel’s problematic Amazon experiment, but as the rebuttal is actually very good, I’ll give props where it’s due. Author Eden Connor’s piece is pretty great, and she tackles the problems with Havel’s article and approach head-on. She also explains why references to ‘jungle fever’ were extremely troublesome.
So, what was really accomplished here? You stole a book from someone, and in doing so, opened yourself and your publication to a lawsuit. You insulted every romance writer I know, and slung an extra measure of dung on the writer of color, writing in the interracial romance category, who checks her Amazon account and knows damn good and well that if she’d made both her characters Caucasian — or made up a profile purporting to be a white, middle aged woman — her books would reach a wider audience.
I particularly love this burn:
Thanks to a thing called the internet, we can now run you to ground and call you out for what you are. Turning off comments and switching Twitter links won’t save you, either. The first thing any entrepreneur learns is to not insult people as a matter of course.
Kudos to The Hustle for publishing the rebuttal. But minus points for some of Sam Parr’s comments on this site that basically amount to the old (and tired and unproven) argument that plagiarism in this case benefited the author by generating sales. That is douchey language, and undermines their otherwise seemingly in-good-faith apologies.