Next week I will be a guest of the Surrey International Writers' Conference in British Columbia, Canada, and one of the workshops I've giving is on reviews. Specifically, it's called, Reviews: How to Get Reviewed, and How to Put a Review in your Rearview Mirror. I'm a blogger and reviewer who regularly gives negative review to books, and I'm also an author of two books, both of which have received positive and negative reviews. I both write and receive reviews regularly, but it's not that experience that gives me an understanding of where Kathleen Hale went wrong.
In an article published by The Guardian today, Kathleen Hale details how she targeted a reviewer on GoodReads who had given her upcoming book a negative review.
When Kathleen Hale stalked, monitored, and then personally harassed by phone and in person a reviewer who disliked her book, she had crossed what should be an obvious line of acceptable behavior. Hale repeatedly sought engagement and demanded attention from a person who did not consent to that contact, and moreover sought through every possible means to unmask a person's pseudonym because she wanted to, and she thought she had the right to do so.
There is a line between how you feel about a review, and what you do in response to it.
Here, in convenient list form, are two things I have learned as a reader, a reviewer, and an author – a micro-version of the workshop that usually lasts an hour or 90 minutes.
First:
When you publish a book, when you create anything and release it into the world as entertainment to be consumed and enjoyed by other people, you lose all control of the conversation about your creation.
I have written about this at length in a book edited by Brian O'Leary and Hugh McGuire. But here's the shorter version: once it's published, it's not under your control anymore. Your name is on the cover, and your name is likely part of the review, positive or negative, as well. But you cannot control what people say about it, and chasing people down, arguing with them about what they said, rounding up other people to tell that person they are wrong, is not helping. It's attempting to quell what could be a beneficial conversation. Negative and positive reviews have a purpose, and they both have important purposes – several purposes, really.
Second:
You and your book are SEPARATE THINGS. They are NOT THE SAME.
“Oh, I was reviewed by X. They flayed me alive.”
“I got a review at that site. They ripped me to pieces.”
As far as I am aware at this time, I have no magical powers to flay people, my eyes don't turn black and creepy, and I am not definitely not Alyson Hannigan. So I don't flay people, living or dead. If I had that skill, I imagine I'd be very popular among people who need to field dress an elk.
And I don't rip people to shreds, either. I don't have that kind of upper body strength, to be honest.
I may have disliked a book. Another reader may have disliked a book. That happens a lot. But the book and the author are separate things. A book is not the author, and the author is not the book. If I am offended, angry, disappointed, outraged or completely over the moon with glee about a book, that has very little to do with the author personally.
Truly wonderful people whom I like very much personally write books that are utterly not my thing. And there are books I absolutely adore with every cell in my body that were written by people who I find utterly repugnant on a personal level. Great art is often made by raging assholes. Raging ass work is often created by wonderful human beings.
(Also, where your line of raging asshole prevents you from enjoying a person's work is entirely yours to decide.)
Hale's account of her determination to connect personally with the reviewer leads me to believe that for Hale, there was no separation between book and author. She “longed” to speak with the reviewer, as she said, and that longing makes me question why that contact was so important? Why would Hale order a background check, call that person at work, and then go to her home address? Why was that so important? What was she hoping to gain? What did she win through all that effort? That she was right, that one person was in fact using two names and one or both disliked Hale's book? That if she could just talk to this reviewer, she could…accomplish what? Changing her mind? By showing up on her porch and leaving a creepy book as a gift/message?
As detailed in her own account of her harassment of a GoodReads reviewer, Hale seems to believe she is entitled to know who and where this reviewer is, where she goes on vacation and what other names she might be using. When Hale obtained this person's address, she didn't send the signed books and call it done. She uses it to further her research. She shows up at the woman's house. She calls her at her place of employment. She's entitled to a conversation that she “longs” for and she's going to have it.
But a review isn't an invitation to an author for a conversation. Most of the time, I advise that authors should stay out of the comments of a review. There are a number of reasons, but first and foremost is that, again, a review is not an invitation to an author for a discussion about the review or the reviewer's opinion.
(Also: the Guardian and Hale are both using “Catfishing” incorrectly. “Catfishing” is the deliberate creation of a fake identity to lure a person into a relationship who otherwise would have nothing to do with you. It's hiding your identity and misrepresenting yourself for the purposes of establishing a relationship with someone. Electing to use a pseudonym online is not catfishing. ETA: Jane at DearAuthor explains in detail how inaccurate Hale's account of the reviewer's behavior was, and that Hale was catfishing to gain information on the reviewer.)
I don't understand why the Guardian chose to publish that essay. I don't understand the thought process of the editor who gave it the green light and effectively condoned the stalking and harassment of a reviewer. The fact that the Guardian published it is as disturbing and abhorrent as Hale's actions – to say nothing of the degree to which she and the editors at the Guardian both seem to lack understanding of how inappropriate those actions were. The fear and horror and wariness that Hale's and the Guardian's decisions have created in many people is absolutely real and justified.
However, as confused and horrified as I am by Kathleen Hale's actions, her decision to write and brag about them, and the decision to publish them, I am equally confident that the connection we have to one another as writers, readers, authors and reviewers is not an inherently bad thing. We're all still figuring out how to interact with one another, but I do believe that that given the choice, most people will choose to be kind.
I'm beyond sad that there are people who lauded, praised and congratulated Kathleen Hale for her actions (and repeatedly misused and misattributed the word “bully”), but I do NOT think Kathleen Hale's actions represent us as authors, or us as reviewers and bloggers, or us as people who reside in book-focused spaces online. I believe we are kind, and I believe we are better than that.
Kathleen Hale's actions and her decision to write about them were abhorrent and beyond inappropriate, reachable only through hours of hiking into the Realm of Really Goddam Wrong. Even if the Guardian doesn't see that, and the people who supported and praised her don't see that, and if Kathleen Hale herself doesn't see that, I believe that most of us recognize how wrong she was.
But, more importantly, I believe we know better than that, and that while we may not always agree or get along, we are not enemies.
@azteclady
I agree with you, which is why I said authors make a mistake by personalizing their work.
I also said that authors needed to police themselves and refrain from interfering in the conversation.
So, to recap:
1. I said authors needed to not personalize their work
2. I said authors needed to refrain from interfering in the conversation regarding their work
3. I said reviewers should review the work not the author with which you agree “Yes, the review should be about the book and not the author”
Where do we disagree? I’m confused because you seem to be disagreeing with me and taking me to task when we obviously agree.
As a reader, I read all the bad reviews first and decide whether I can live with what the reviewer is criticizing before deciding to buy the book. For instance, if they don’t like the sex in the story, I won’t hesitate to buy it. However, if it doesn’t have an HEA (which is the reason I read romances) or ends in a cliff hanger, I won’t buy the book. There are other things I don’t want to read about that will sometimes come out in the negative reviews. After the NYT story about the widespread purchasing of reviews on both Good Reads and Amazon (which now owns Good Reads), I don’t really trust the good reviews anymore.
The kiss of death for a book and author for me, though, is to read comments attacking a reviewer for a bad review or seeing it’s been down-voted. Whether it’s the author commenting or their “friends”, it does not make the author look good. Even if the author just comments to thank the reviewer for their review, that comment inserts their presence into the conversation and can have a chilling effect on criticism and the openness of the conversation. It makes me feel uncomfortable to have the author involved in the conversation, and I’m not even the one who wrote the review.
Mis Sallinger, my mistake in addressing my reaction exclusively to your comment. It’s not about you.
The conversation here is about an author going so far into batshit crazy as to write a piece for a mainstream, widely read newspaper, in which she justifies stalking a reviewer.
The justification used was that the reviewer attacked the author personally—though I’ve yet to see evidence of this.
The reaction should be “stalking is crazy and criminal and there is no justification for it”
What I’m hearing more than I would like is, “well, yes, author is crazypants, but reviewers should…(insert preferred behaviour)”
Oh yes, I’m also hearing the first part “author is crazypants.”
However, and just as it is when other unacceptable behaviours, the moment we follow it with “but” we are negating the importance of that first part. We are in fact excusing that first behaviour by bringing up the second behaviour—which in this case didn’t even effin’ happen!
But so what if it had? Would saying, “this author sucks!” or saying, “this author is a racist/homophobe/whatever” justify having that author stalking the reviewer? Paying for a background check, going to her house and calling her job?
Is there a line where stalking is justified? Does that line start with “well, reviewers/bloggers should do this, shouldn’t do that”
This year my friend’s boyfriend self-published a book. (Don’t get me wrong. Kudos to him for pursuing his dream.) I had warned her (and thus him) before the book was published that not everyone will like the book and give it a good review. Whatever you do, DO NOT respond to any negative reviews. It would only make him look bad and get an unfair reputation on the internet. Do Not Retaliate.
They retaliated.
So far it has only been to personally attack reviewers on forums and such. But after reading Hale’s frighteningly disturbing article I’m now going to be worried about just how cray-cray my friend and her bf may get. Will they also begin to do background checks on reviewers and stalking Facebook accounts?
More importantly, will an author start stalking ME for writing a bad review? Heavens, there’s going to be a gaggle of authors after me.
@azteclady … understood. We’re all good. My answer is no. There is no line at which stalking is acceptable. I’ve been stalked in real life by a stranger who fixated on me and there is never a time when this is acceptable. I had to move to a different state and change jobs. It was one of the most horrifying times in my life. So, again, authors need to police themselves and divorce themselves from the work.
Again, we appear to be in agreement.
Best wishes,
Elene
@azteclady
I didn’t want to waste my time worrying about her motivation. 🙂
The only people who think things like that about romance readers (and writers) are simply ignorant.
Turns out Hale is the girlfriend of Simon Rich, writer for SNL and son of journalist Frank Rich and (former?) Harper Collins executive editor Gail WInston.
So there’s no question who has the power in this author/reviewer relationship.
I read the Guardian article when I saw it linked on Twitter, having no knowledge of either the blogger/reviewer or the author in question. Without that background, I thought the article read like one of the personal confessionals that’s so common on social media and Web site columns now. It seems like Hale finally knows she blew it, and her writing career is over. She did something stupid and unjustifiable. I hope she’s learned how unacceptable that is. Whether she did learn a lesson is debatable. I’m not clear on what you all mean about having the weight of her publishing house behind her. What reputable publisher would back an author who did this?
Let me say this again, because there seems to be some lack of clarity here: Hale was way out of bounds, and she did something she never should have done. Blythe did not deserve to be stalked. No one deserves to be stalked. Hale went far over the line.
Reading the Goodreads link that Sarah provided, I see Blythe engaging readers again and again in an effort to convince them that her negative opinion of Hale’s book was accurate. (I did misquote her line, “Fuck that.” For that, I apologize. I still believe it’s not the right language if you’re interested in having your reviews respected.) It’s beyond just providing a review where you explore why you are giving it a poor rating. I see someone who’s overzealous in her attempts to denigrate a book and its author. Of course she’s entitled to that opinion. When I see someone on Goodreads or anywhere else who seems that invested in their own negative review, however, I also see a red flag.
Please don’t denigrate rape victims by trying to compare my views on this to the accusation that a woman was “asking for it.” I haven’t said that anywhere. See my numerous comments to the effect that – again – Blythe nor anyone else deserves to be stalked. As I said above, the behavior of these two women cast a negative light on authors and reviewers alike. In my opinion, Blythe behaved poorly as a reviewer. But again – let me say it – that does not mean she deserved this.
Authors are told to ignore bad reviews – sage and sound advice. I’ve seen Goodreads members rag on authors they don’t like, for one reason or another. Sometimes it just goes on and on. If you’re human, that has to get to you, though thankfully, most authors seem able to avoid Hale’s frightening behavior. We tell authors to grow a thick skin when porous skin is an important trait for a writer to have. How do you turn it on and off?
And that’s what I’ve been trying to say since my first post. If I was unclear, I apologize for that.
That takes the crazy up by a degree of magnitude. Surely she has enough experienced people in her life to help her understand the author/reviewer/reader relationship and the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Any of the three people mentioned have had to deal with criticism of their creative endeavors. Her future father-in-law supposedly also has ties to The Guardian making that paper’s decision to run this one-sided piece even more incomprehensible.
@Jill: I take your point about taking other people’s photos and passing them off as your own, and creating personas that mislead by implying that someone has credentials where they don’t. But I’ve read Hale’s article numerous times, and I’m still left confused as to whether or not the person she confronted was the blogger. Hale seems to think so, even though the other person denied it. And the only conclusion I can come up with is either the blogger had created a persona—in which case, Hale basically confronted a completely innocent bystander in a way that, frankly, sounded terrifying—or that the blogger lied in the phone calls, presumably because she felt threatened and didn’t wish to confirm that Hale had found her home address and personal photos. Either way, Hale’s approach came across to me as creepy at best, and terrifying at any other time.
@Sarah:
‘But a review isn’t an invitation to an author for a conversation. ‘
I think this is what trips everyone up at some point. Social media is all about conversation, and it’s difficult to articulate to authors (and I suspect some authors find it difficult to appreciate) why that conversation needs to exclude them at this point. But it’s so important precisely because we’re in conversations with authors at other times. We need that reassurance because readers also need to trust that we’re being honest when we’re having conversations with other readers.
@Julaine: It also explains why her publisher hasn’t said a peep (her book was published by HarperTeen), and how she could have had access to the blogger’s personal info via the publisher (it’s unclear how much info she might have got from the publisher vs a book club).
I am small potatoes but have had “readers” that I don’t think read my work, say they were going to buy the rest of the series but couldn’t because of the way I insulted her on Facebook. I didn’t and she said this in public on facebook. I didn’t respond but I did research her. I cannot understand what motivates these people. I think I mentioned before groups on GR and Amazon forums devoted to bad mouthing (attacking) authors trying to defend themselves. Of course you have to let it go, but the injustice sticks in one’s craw. Yet, at least several times a week, I am asked to review something.
@Serendipitous:
I understand what you mean, yes. I think the ability to turn “thick skin” or indifference on and off varies person to person, or even day to day. Sometimes I can ignore things, and other times I know I need to avoid social media for awhile.
With reviews, though, if they’re going to upset someone, then my advice is: Don’t read them. There’s no law or guideline that says you have to read your reviews. If they’re going to be upsetting, don’t upset yourself. And my advice for authors who feel they need to know about what positive reviews are being posted is to set up a partnership with a friend. You have her Google Alert, and she keeps yours. She forwards you the good stuff and vice versa, and you both agree to leave the bad stuff alone.
It would have to be a friend you can trust not to take negative reviews of your personally, though.
I wouldn’t trust Kathleen Hale to tell me her name or the color of the sky, so it’s likely she’s also lying about having a friend send her the rental car company link, but honestly, the wtf is out the charts here.
Surely a review is about the author? It may not be about the person that the author is, but to some degree it has to be about the author that the author is. The best story in the world isn’t going to get a great review from me if I have to wade through clunky exposition, torturous metaphor and indifferent characterisation.
I’m sorry, but I consider an author culpable to a certain extent for their published work; similarly the publishers can be partially responsible for editing. If an author has released it to the world and are happy with what they’ve written there should be no interest to them in my opinion other than sadness I cannot share their vision – certainly not anger that I disagree with it. Moreover goodreads is supposedly a social site and not an authorised reviewing outlet (as, for example The Guardian is) where people can post or read personal opinions on books. I’ve never read and regarded reviews on the goodreads site in the same manner I would read reviews from a legitimate authorial editorial publication or even to those given on a blog such as this website. In fact there are numerous blogs I follow and even those vary in quality and thus the credit to which I give them. If I, a reader, not a writer, can distinguish between them, I find it astounding that a published author can actually take offense to such an extent and go to such lengths from a comment thread on goodreads. Yes, I’ve read the original thread, the Guardian article, the earlier teen peroxide account (which I very much hope is a form of short fiction on the authors part because otherwise it truly does lead to strong questions about mental predisposition, and if the novel’s content is then included…well…), the twitter review backlashes. All of these reflect poorly on the author, but also on society as a whole. A book is of course delightful but it is a commodity for which I have paid my hard earned cash – in some cases rather more than I can afford when considering the necessity of books over food, heat and shelter. If a book cannot be poorly reviewed for fear of impacting the authors’ livelihood then what of restaurants? Should I ignore that my paid for meal was lukewarm and my drink lacked ice? My trip to the cinema was interrupted midway by the screen going black for five minutes though the sound was fine, shall I still visit? I bought a green shirt online but was sent a red one, I’ll just keep it anyway shall I? My doctor failed to diagnose my broken toe, should I let that pass too? There is no intrinsic superiority to a book of fiction over that of a T-shirt or jar of coffee. Indeed, it could easily be argued opposite. I would personally be devastated without books, but I don’t really see why that should accord a writer lèse-majesté over every other provider of commodities.
Thanks very much for the links, plus info. Enlightening. I hadn’t been aware of what happened before now and have consequently had my own experience of being caught in a maelstrom because I made a generalised comment -a few days ago- in a discussion thread that I now realise was obviously focusing on this issue.
I agree that the author in this situation has behaved in an appalling manner. There are no excuses. I don’t care how the reviewer expressed her POV. I don’t care if she had thirty personalities. I don’t care if the reviewer made consequent lapses of judgement. The author’s actions are inexcusable. And I strongly agree with the person above who suggested that the author needs professional help, as much to protect others as herself. In my view, The Guardian and her publishers have an ethical responsibility to ensure this happens.
While I now understand that it is difficult to have a totally calm discussion about the author/reviewer relationship in the midst of this particular situation, I note that the Intro does so very eloquently, as have most commentators preceding me. So I’ll cautiously add my own – I’m very recently back reading a load of journals, scientific, political, literature. In all of them, authors are provided with the opportunity to defend their work after it has been reviewed. I know that romances are different and the reviewers we are discussing are not paid professionals and authors now face thousands of reviews. I agree that many authors stay sane by not reading reviews. But I think that it is worth considering this option for authors who want to take it up, as long as there are guidelines (that clever authors wouldn’t need) about defending the work and not attacking the reviewer. Because I’m not sure that I agree with the premise that an author MUST stay mute after a book is published. They didn’t prior to social media, so why now?
Lucky authors of the 19th century, when only a few reviewers got to publish views of books. However, this did lead to some heated author/reviewer verbal and/or letter exchanges. Having read a few of the latter, I am confident that the debate about the author/reviewer relationship is a longstanding one. Moreover, luckily for the authors of the 19th century, they generally knew who was bagging them (instead of today, when most reviewers, like me, can remain anonymous) and where to send their rebuttal, if they decided they couldn’t ignore the criticisms.
Something going on in the periphery of this revelation about Kathleen Hale strikes me as really creepy.
In trying to follow the discussions I’ve gone back to the Goodreads comments about her book. Lots of folks whose names I’ve come to recognize from #notchilled and other places have started leaving snarky posts on the review of No One Else Can Have You. They include low star ratings with messages that they have no intention of reading the book itself because of Hale’s behavior.
Surely this cannot be what we want to be doing as a reading community. Are we in the retaliation business now? Yikes.
“Are we in the retaliation business now? Yikes.”
Oh please. This happens to all Badly Behaving Authors. Readers get pissed off, and they fight back.
Hale has behaved worse than most BBAs. Is it surprising she’s getting pushback? After everything else that’s been going on with entitled authors and bloggers under attack?
The last thing this conversation needs is a manners monitor. If Hale is upset she’s been criticised, she better get used to it. She needs a whack with the common sense stick, if not a lawyer on retainer who can monitor everything she writes and says. Obviously a publicist isn’t enough of a leash.
Mzcue, I don’t do GoodReads, so I have no idea what exactly are those “snarky” messages, but as a reviewer who doesn’t pull her punches, you couldn’t pay me to review Hale’s book. Who on earth would want to invite the batshit crazy into their lives if there is no need?
At any rate, how is saying so, retaliation? Is it retaliation to say, “no way I’m every buying an EC book, and this is why” and then link to Tina Engler and co. shenanigans? If not, then I don’t know how saying, “I’m never reading this author’s book, and this is why” would be.
And yeah, authors in general need to know that readers and reviewers think that this behaviour—stalking, then bragging about it—will get them pushback.
What other tool do we have to defend ourselves from the batshit crazy, otherwise?
amen, azteclady. When I say that I will never read a book by Hale nor review one, it’s not retaliation, it’s reality. In the case of a) I don’t intend to give Hale my money. I don’t consider that retaliation so much as I consider it putting my money where my mouth is, just as I don’t give my money to certain businesses. If you consider that retaliation, then fine – it’s justified. In the case of b) why on earth would I review this woman’s books when so many other authors who aren’t going to stalk me deserve exposure? That’s not retaliation, that’s rationality!
Word.
I mean, look, I have a finite amount of time and energy. And I’m not going to spend any of either of those things reviewing a book by an author who does this kind of thing. None. Do I have mental list of authors who I’m not going to review because of shenanigans? You bet your ass I do. That’s my right and I won’t allow anyone to make me feel bad about it. Do I have it posted somewhere? No. But I have one. And if that makes me a terrible person…. dude, I’ll just add it to the list of things.
I feel a lot of people get arguments confused during things like this.
“Authors should not read reviews or take them personally (and for gosh sakes should NEVER go after the reviewers and stalk them!)” is an argument. It’s also quite frankly common sense.
“Some reviewers attack authors directly and say awful things about them” is not a counter-argument. It is a different argument. It is also common sense. The two can coexist (in fact, they do) without canceling each other out or justifying them. They’re both wrong. Anyone whose response to anyone else is threats (and in my current industry, rape and death threats as a norm for daring to disagree/like a thing/exist as a woman) is WRONG. Period.
This is extremely close to home for me right now because right now because the Guardian piece pretty much condones what happened and gives the author a platform of authority to which the reviewer cannot, dare not, respond to. This is going on all over the place right now in much higher stakes (death threats, massacre threats, campus shooting threats, people having to evacuate their homes) in the gaming industry because people seem to think that if someone says something you do not like, KILLING them is an option, nevermind stalking them, nevermind harassing them. People are not allowed to disagree—they are only allowed to agree or be silenced. What kind of world is that?
On the reviewer’s review, I saw her engaging in conversation with other readers who disagreed with her. She did not try to kill them. She did not stalk them. She did not threaten them. She simply engaged in conversation, and when both sides saw that they would not sway the other or felt very differently on it, the conversation ended.
That is a conversation. This is not a conversation and I never have believed it is—it is about people threatening others because they’ve learned they can get away with it, even if it’s illegal, even if you crow about it and doxx them publicly in an online newspaper. And you can get other people to not only accept those threats but agree that they were warranted because someone else somewhere threatened someone, or someone was asking for it by posting publicly, or someone’s feelings were hurt, or other reasons completely unrelated to THREATENING PEOPLE IS NEVER OKAY.
Stalking, by the way, is a threat—as is calling someone, contacting them repeatedly despite being blocked and told to stop, then going to a newspaper and trying to sway people to your side because well gosh you’re so darned QUIRKY that you just accidentally obsessed and stalked someone, whoopsie! There is absolutely nothing else involved except an author’s ego and them trying to convince the world that they’re totally justified in such incredibly egomaniacal, self-obsessed behaviour.
Honestly, my final thoughts on this? Would things have ever reached this level, including the sheer amount of victim-blaming, if Blythe had been named Blaine? Because I really… don’t think so.
Jesus, her essays have as much of a lack of self-awareness as Humbert Humbert except SHE’S A REAL PERSON.
As an aside, because I feel it really does derail from this conversation, I don’t understand the idea that negative review = lost sales or even that negative review = potential sale, now lost. I read the reviews before buying a book because I want to get an idea if I’ll like it (or more importantly, if I’ll hate it and waste my money). If I see negative reviews that resonate with me (like specifically the one constantly being featured—PTSD ridicule, rape, and victim blaming are all DNF and deal-breakers for me) then I will not buy the book.
Did that author lose a sale? No. Because if I had bought the book, gotten to that point, and gone FUCK THAT as this reviewer did, I would return the book. There’s a difference between a “meh” read and a “what the fuck offensive to me” read, and I feel very strongly about not letting people have my money for the latter. I would also probably post a negative review to warn others of these things because I know that is what I really appreciate most when others leave reviews.
Or say I don’t return the book. They got a one-time sale from me and a lifetime avoid for surprise dealbreakers/triggers (still using the ones in the example of this specific review). Meanwhile, if I read a negative review for one of their books and avoided it, but saw other reviews for other books by that author later on that did NOT contain these things, I might be more willing to give them a try. I probably would have forgotten about the first review by then, to be quite honest. If I liked the book, then I’ll likely buy another. If I really like them I’ll leave a positive review. If I am mixed and feel that there’s merit but it’s really not for me, I will leave a review about that, too.
But let’s face it, if an author is going to manage all of those above in a single book, chances are I won’t like ANY of their books, and they never had a sale from me to begin with. I’m not obligated to buy everyone’s book simply because it exists. Negative reviews are incredibly useful to me, and are not censorship, they’re reviews and information and I find that people have a much easier time articulating why they hated something than why they loved it. Pretending you are losing sales due to honest reviews—especially when you are ASKING for these reviews with ARCs!—is wasting everyone’s time. Fake reviews in retaliation for something, “bad” reviews (“book sucked, author sucks”), these exist but are no excuse for moaning about honest reviews and quite frankly are WAY in the minority if you are specifically going to a site like Goodreads.
Pardon my longwindedness, I just have a lot of feels about this, my current job has gone from Creative Fun to Life In Jeopardy Due To because people on the internet think it is okay to behave like this, and seriously. Fuck this and every attempt to excuse it.
I’ve rated nearly 800 books and written almost 700 reviews on Goodreads. I have never before worried about an author’s reaction to my reviews. And I’m not a nice reviewer – I curse like a sailor, I complain left and right, I lambaste the author for writing weak and stupid heroines. I try not to actually insult the author, but I am all for a “How could you possibly think this was a good idea?” kind of remark addressed to the author. If an author were to address me over a negative review, I would have laughed at them and told them to get over it. I’d have move on and forgotten about them.
But now I’m a bit nervous. If a one-star “Fuck this.” DNF review can result in stalking, I can’t even imagine what my own snark-filled and offensive reviews could result in. Should I be worried about using my real name? Do I need to take steps to protect my identity? Is my home safe? My family? Could a disgruntled author doxx me and post my child’s information on the internet? Will I have to censor myself so an overly-sensitive author won’t decide that I’d be a better reviewer after being shot in front of my own home? This is scary shit, people.
That somebody’s opinion about a book could inspire such behavior is completely alien to me. I mean, if I didn’t know it was happening in real life, I would think this was an elaborate hoax to gain publicity for a fictional romantic suspense novel. A reviewer is being stalked by a crazed author, so she goes to the police for help and gets paired with a hunky detective that vows to keep her safe and they fall in love while trying to stop the bonkers author from killing reviewers. Actually, I’m going to write that book – nobody steal my idea!
“I see Blythe engaging readers again and again in an effort to convince them that her negative opinion of Hale’s book was accurate. “
Funny, I see a bunch of readers engaging Blythe about her review, and her talking to them. How horrible of her to do that, I don’t think.
I just wanted to mention, regarding the one star ‘retaliation’ comment – Goodreads used to allow readers to create shelves with any names they wanted, including ‘DNR’, ‘BBA’, ‘hell no’ and so on. They *removed* the ability to do that – as in they literally deleted dozens of shelves by selected reviewers – after a furious campaign by BBAs orchestrated by STGRB, because they claimed this was bullying the authors.
As a result, people just one star books and point out in the review that they won’t read the book (sometimes giving a reason.) Suddenly a bunch of BBAs found their GR ratings took a nosedive. And whose fault was that? Their own.
So you can cry me a bloody river over stars and ratings and reviews. Authors need to keep the hell out of reader spaces if they can’t mind their manners, and let readers talk as they want to, freely. Aren’t we supposed to be big on free speech in this community? Or is that only for loud mouths like Kathleen Hale who can unleash the kraken when she’s cranky?
And on Goodreads, if I’m marking a book as “I’m not going to read this” in some way, it’s not meant for the author at all, or even for the rest of the internets—it’s for me. Goodreads is how I keep track of what I have, what I want to buy, and what I want to not buy. That note is to remind me, in case I forget a few months down the road, that this author did something offensive and I don’t want to give them my money.
As far as leaving 1-star reviews due to Hale’s behavior, I am of two minds about that and they are, I know, contradictory opinions.
Speaking for myself, and only for myself, I can’t judge a book based on the author’s behavior, and I can’t render judgment on an author’s behavior by grading the book 1 star, because my goal is to keep the author and the book separate.
THAT SAID, the 1-star reviews after poor behavior illustrate the power imbalance I spoke of earlier. THAT is what we’ve got. An author phones our home, comes to our porch, yells at us on Twitter, sends nasty email, espouses a position we find abhorrent? That’s our option: 1 star reviews and an explanation why. That’s the power imbalance right there. That’s all we’ve got.
So I understand why that is an option exercised by reviewers, and I don’t condemn them for it. I may not do the same but I appreciate what they do. Those 1 stars, especially if there’s a line of them in a row, are a signal to other readers in that community: heads up, someone is angry. Let’s find out why.
As a reader, when I see the 1-star reviews and the angry comments about something that’s happened, those are very useful to me. In a case like this, I will stay the hell away from Hale and her books because I don’t want her mess on my doorstep. I appreciate that warning. I imagine other bloggers and reviewers do as well.
I told my 11 year old about this while we were watching Flynn kid 2’s baseball game this weekend. Her verdict (and my vote for most succinct verdict): That’s wrong.
This whole thing just ticks me off. It was wrong. She knew it was wrong. She bragged about it in a sorta respected paper with a HUGE circulation and people are trying to turn the blogger into the bad guy. There is enough crazy in this world without having to manufacture your own personal brand. And if KH can’t take a crappy review or a mean-spirited review, then she needs to take her rental car down to the closest Target and buy some big girl panties.
Sometimes reviews cross the line from crappy honest review to mean-spirited review where the important thing isn’t to talk about the book, but get as many cheap laughs at the book’s expense as possible. That’s some reviewers’ thing. Do I think it’s a dick move to make being the mean-spirited review your thing? I do, but that DOES NOT justify stalking or trying to dox a blogger. You take the lumps, be glad that someone besides your mom is reading your book, and get your butt back in the chair so you can finish the next book.
Sorry, this thing really does put me in full rant mode.
It wasn’t until I finished the article that I looked up the author and realized I’ve read her book. No One Else Can Have You was pitched as a “YA Fargo,” which led me to pick it up despite the mixed reviews. As I read, I figured the spastic psychosis of the main character and some of the plot wackiness was intended as overt satire, much in the same vein as Fargo (movie and TV show, which both contain very, very dark humor and satirical portrayals of upper Midwest mannerisms couched in violence). You know, creative choices.
Though after reading the Guardian article, and moreso the blog post about the childhood chemical attack (which I read with fingers crossed this was a creative writing exercise of total fiction), I can’t help but draw disturbing parallels. The book features an obsessive, emotionally-stunted teen sleuthing for clues to her best friend’s murder. Everyone warns her to stop but she won’t. She does the type of things that characters do in many mystery or crime novels, breaking in to offices, following people, etc. But having this be the book where the real life author went off the rails to stalk a book reviewer feels all sorts of icky. I wonder where boundaries of fiction and real life separate, or if they do.
I hope the author seeks help, and I also hope the Guardian releases a follow up statement.
In defense of Kathleen Hale…
A writer-colleague of mine posted the Guardian article on FB. I read it with great interest because of the similarities in what happened to me with a romance novel I wrote several years ago.
I was vilified, flayed, personally disparaged, and stalked by a wannabe-reviewer who came at me through a romance reviewing website. Why did she come after me? I believe it was because she’d asked me for a free book and I honestly did not have one to give her. (I had given them all to friends and family; I did not know this woman.)
That was the prime reason, in my opinion, for the hateful reviews she posted.
The other reason, I firmly believe, was that she was encouraged to do so by an online romance-reviewing site – a site on which Ms Wannabe-Reviewer spent a lot of time. The operator of that site had given the book to a reviewer who did not like it and gave it a low rating.
Fine.
Not everyone is going to like one’s book. One person’s opinion, after all, and this was not a particularly qualified reviewer. What bothered me, however – aside from the unnecessary personal remarks aimed at me—were the several factual errors in the review, which indicated this reviewer did not understand English Regency society. I shared these thoughts privately with the site operator, whom I knew fairly well at that time.
The site operator – who, frankly, tended to be arrogant—chose to make our conversation public and decided to denigrate me further, defending the reviewer she’d selected and fanning the flames of Ms Wannabe-Reviewer – that first woman who’d wanted the free book. The book and I, its author, became the subjects of much nasty back-and-forthing for weeks.
Did the negativity hurt my book? Possibly. Did it hurt my reputation? Of course. And it did not stop there. Both the site operator and Ms Wannabe-Reviewer decided to go after me at every opportunity.
The incredibly vindictive Ms W-R went to every site where anyone with no reviewing qualifications could easily post a review and continued to damn the book…and me. Likewise, the site operator had at me for months in online interviews, like a dog that could not let go of a bone.
Yes, I did research her, this sad little wannabe-reviewer, because it puzzled me that someone could be so bloody nasty, and found out a great deal about her. She was a graduate student (I now forget what discipline) who spent an awful amount of time online. And, interesting, any review she posted was negative, no genre excepted.
I contacted Amazon – where she posted prolifically—and pointed this negativity out to them, along with her many factual errors in her Amazon review of my book. They got it…and took the review down. I did not bother with the other sites; I really had had enough of it.
So, cut to the chase… Did she—and this romance-reviewing site—harm my sales? Probably a little bit, but the book sold well and went on to be republished in hardcover, trade, and mass market. It also was selected as one of the Ten Best Romances of the year by a prestigious magazine.
But let me stress that this experience was not fun.
It was hurtful and unnecessary, propelled by people with no sense of what is proper in interactions between human beings…and what is not. I feel for any author who has been subjected to this viciousness, this spewing forth of hatred.
P.S. I was myself a reviewer myself for many, many years for this country’s most well-known print and online media. I always tried to be fair, and I never, ever, attacked an author personally. Wannabe-reviewers like the stalker who tried to cause problems for me – along with her aider and abettor, that arrogant site operator—are not professionals; they do not understand what reviewing is all about.
Neither do they understand basic civility. One could almost feel sorry for them.
The thing is, Jo Manning, you did not go out and tell lies to find personal info on that person, go to their home, ring them at their workplace.
Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that the author was at the receiving end of a bullying campaign. She said so; and that’s it. It has not been verified by anybody, and since she herself freely admits to lying to get what she wants—who knows. I am not going to condemn the reviewer without more evidence, since the author’s word is highly suspect to me. It seems that the review—a one star review, true enough, but no worse than other one-star reviews—is the thing that got under Hale’s skin. Blythe is the victim here, not Hale.
Ms. Manning,
I am sorry for your experience, however, is this supposed to justify what Ms. Hale did? I’m only asking for clarification. Also, I have yet to see proof that “Blythe” was trying to ruin Ms. Hale’s career, except for Ms Hale’s questionable/unreliable account. Is that where all of your proof of Blythe’s wrongdoing come from? I’m sorry, but documenting her (Blythe’s) personal experience reading the Hale book, and Blythe finally giving up due to issues she had with the book, are not harassment or slander. It is one person’s opinion.
I continue to be appalled that any posters actually think that what Ms Hale did was “understandable” or in any way justified! I wonder if she had gone to the blogger’s door (or the lady who MIGHT be the blogger, we still aren’t positive about that) with a weapon and hurt her, would we still be saying that this was understandable?
Lastly, and this has been said here over and over again, every time someone uses the term “bully” for what Blythe may or may not have done, I want to scream! Ask the parents of a 12 year old girl who is told to kill herself over and over again by other girls, until she does just that. Ask them if a grown person who writes a book and gets a bad review or has a bad relationship with a blog, but still sells a lot of books, is “bullied”…. I think they would take issue with that. I know that I would.
Ms Manning, you lost all credibility for me when you started calling a reader writing a review of your book “wannabe reviewer.” Anything you have to say after that belongs in the realm of “authors are better than readers.”
At some point in your life your feelings were hurt—don’t even start with how one review derailed your sales for that one book—therefore stalking a person is defensible?
Well, then, I suppose you will find it defensible if the person you keep calling wannabe reviewer pays for a background check on you, drives to your house and calls your employer. You are, after all, hurting her feelings with your derision.
What? You don’t like it when the shoe is in your foot? Imagine that.
I’m not about to go read all the source material on this, because I never read a book by Kathleen Hale anyway, and I don’t belong to Goodreads so I can’t comment on the “community” there.
The thought I had in reading this unexpectedly contentious discussion was …
Public figures *must* expect to be conflated with their work. The average reader or viewer does not, in my observation, analyze the distinction between artist and work with any degree of consistency, logic, or objectivity. To most readers or viewers, the artist IS the work. Just ask Orson Scott Card, or any actor who suddenly can’t get cast after doing something, in his/her private life, that is “out of character.”
When I decided to start publishing, I knew that eventually someone would read what I wrote, and eventually someone wouldn’t like it, and eventually someone would say so. But I know that *I am not the work.* They might not like the book, but they don’t know ME, so whatever they say is not about ME.
Anyone who writes about me or what I’ve published, who does not know me personally, is someone whose opinion I can disregard completely if I so choose. If they rave about loving something while simultaneously completely misunderstanding what I meant, I’m not going to try to correct them. And if they rant about something, well, I’m not going to rewrite the book to suit them, am I?
For me to try to engage a negative reviewer would be like … a farmer planting land mines in his own field.
To the extent that reading reviews may be useful, I think it lies in detecting common threads i.e. “unrealistic scenario” or “idiotic heroine” or “alphole hero.” And if a writer isn’t going to change how she writes in response to reviews, then reading them is pretty much a waste of time.
For the record, I think Hale sounds completely off her onion.
Ms Manning I recommend you read this article by Jim Hines:
Victim or Perpetrator? http://www.jimchines.com/2014/10/victim-or-perpetrator/
At some personal risk of on-line flaying I think I want to communicate something. I personally agree stalking by Hale was egregious and non-defensible, BUT Good Lord, people, can we call off the baying hounds? I have read all down this thread, the Dear Author thread, the Passive Voice thread, and of course, the original article with prior stalking link. The amount of “you are wrong” back and forthing brings to mind comments to my children: YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! State your opinion, let others state theirs and quit trying to bring them to Jesus. PLEASE!
Judy, contrary to an argument between your children, this discussion involves stalking, obsessive behaviour, and the justification of both.
Yes, one side of the discussion is right and the other one is wrong, and the more people become aware that what Hale did is stalking, and thus indefensible, the better.
This is not my space, but honestly, if you consider this a witch hunt, why are you reading every comment everywhere?
Here’s some things it’s OK to disagree about:
Jane Eyre vs Wuthering Heights (Jane Eyre!)
Kirk vs Picard (Picard!)
David Tennant vs Matt Smith (Tom Baker!)
Here’s something it’s not OK to disagree about:
Am I safe in my home (Apparently not – but I should be)
Do I have the right to speak my opinion (YES)
In the case of the question, “Can an author come to my house and my work place and harass me”, actually, I do have to be right. There are a lot of things I have to be right about that are in question on the internet right now and all of them involve non-abstract, immediate threats to women’s safety and to their right to speak. As far as when I’ll stop talking about this, I’ll stop talking about Hale specifically when she issues an apology and when the Guardian prints a retraction. I’ll stop talking about the issue of online harassment in general when it ends. I expect I’ll be talking for a long time.
After reading your article yesterday, I went to the Guardian and read Kathleen’s article. It was so disturbing. And then I read the comments and I was shocked. This so disturbing on so many levels.
From everything I read (and I read pretty much everything including the blogger’s blog) there is no cause for the steps taken by Kathleen Hale. Actually there is no good cause or reason on this planet why anyone should stalk another person. The blogger’s opinion is her own, on a website reviewing books and one of a thousand of books and one of a thousand of different opinions. That Kathleen chose to narrow the focus down to one blogger of one book from many many bloggers reviewing many books has opened her own Pandora’s box.
Kathleen, you needs to grow a thicker skin. Go out, run an extra mile, eat a gallon of ice cream (better than the booze your ingesting) and move on. You made this all about you. Yes, yes, I understand that this is on the internet. However for the most part, most would have ignored or agreed with the blogger, and moved on. Now we all know about it. You need to find someone or something or to help you get over this. In the long run, when all comes out, you are not going to come out looking pretty.
To the blogger- I hope you spent the morning with a very very good lawyer. I am not sure how legal or illegal her activities were, but the author’s activities need to cease and desist.
For those who can kinda understand Kathleen’s reasoning, you are implicitly or maybe not so implicitly saying, the blogger deserved it. No, no and just no. Get off your high horses. Authors are not the only ones who are out there, who have jobs, or go to school that expose us to the public on a daily basis. You are not the only one who can have scathing reviews posted online (one sided, of course), get harassed when you go to the store, threatened with lawsuits. It happens all the time to all walks of life. It is just easier now that there is instant access to vent the vitriol. On an aside, I have done a small polling of coworkers asking if they read Goodreads and guess what, their answer is “what’s Goodreads?”.
Also, how insulting to assume we can’t weed out the good reviews from the bad. Some of the best reviews are one star. They say so much in so few words. Like others who have said if the reviewer says “there’s sex in them there pages” I click the buy button. If they complain about my pet peeves like spelling, grammar or nuns, I won’t buy it.
I will continue to write reviews and I will continue to remain anonymous. This won’t slow me down. At this point, this is still an aberration. It is still rare and as long as we fight and hold accountable those who are badly behaving, we can stop this. I remain anonymous because of all of the possible trolling for information that is no one f***ing business. My present and future employer doesn’t need to know what I read, eat, or do in my leisure time.
For all of the Kathleens out there, if you had just kept your mouths shut, I would have either purchased or borrowed your book from the library. To one of my favorite author of the 70’s, I will never ever read your books again. Period.