The Choices of Kathleen Hale

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.

Categorized:

Random Musings

Comments are Closed

  1. Can I mention some authors behaving WELL? For a refreshing change of pace?

    I went to the Emerald City Writers’ Conference this weekend (SB Sarah has been a keynote in the past) and we had the wonderful opportunity to hear Ann Aguirre (in full fuzzy unicorn hat) talk about perseverance. And Victoria Dahl be very blunt about the (exceedingly timely!) topic of how people treat women, especially in on-line reviews, and especially how they treat women/heroines/writers who write about women who like sex and/or aren’t perfect. It was a really clear and powerful speech and had something for all of us. And then we ended the conference with Terry McLaughlin, who first made us laugh with her career stories (ie, querying 27 agents in one day all because they had Irish-sounding names, not because they represented romance).

    Then Terry ended by reminding us of something she’d heard Suzanne Brockmann say soon after 9/11. That when the people in the Towers made their last phone calls, they all called the people they loved to say “I love you.” That the single most powerful emotion in the world is love. And that we should remember, when anyone puts downs us or our genre, or insults what we read or write, that “I love you” are the three words that all those people in the Towers and on the planes wanted to say. That is universal. So we should be proud as writers and readers to write romance and be part of that – the most powerful and important force in the world.

    Writers Behaving Well this weekend:  Ann Aguirre, Victoria Dahl (despite all her claims of misbehavior!) and Terry McLaughlin.

  2. Jan says:

    Damn it,  I forgot to write about those who commented to the Guardian article.  I was appalled how many women thought it was okay for Kathleen to stalk the blogger.  WTF!! What is wrong with them.  Why don’t you make it even harder to be a woman or a girl.  Why don’t you just continue to undermine our freedom.  Don’t stop at limiting access to birth control, sexual harassment, date rape, girls against girls, bullying, etc, etc and now it’s okay with you to add stalking to the list. 

    Okay, I think I’m getting off my soapbox now.

  3. Robin says:

    How do you view the comments on The Guardian site?

  4. Jan says:

    Robin –

    Go to guardian, click on UK.
    On right hand side click on Most Viewed
    Number 19 is her article
    above headline click on comments

  5. Jennifer says:

    I had a huge write up of her back in January about something else she did. Here is the link: http://hellojennyreviews.blogspot.com/2014/01/author-bashing-bloggers-and-reviews.html

  6. sharonmaasbooks says:

    The moment someone says “Hale was wrong BUT…” they show themselves up as condoning her behaviour on some level. I’ve seen far too much of this. I’m an author too and I either ignore my 1-star reviews, or I learn form them. Heck, I revised one particular book for a new edition on account of a legitimate complaint of a 1-star reviewer!
    1-star reviews are important. I’m a reader too, and sometimes (quite often, I’m afraid) I dislike a popular book so much that I go looking for the 1-stars just to see that I’m not the only one, just to see if any reviewer can put into words just why I hated the book. It’s an important dimension of the reading process, I feel. To understand what exactly accounts to that sense of “wrongness”. And almost always, I see that I am not crazy. People, amateur reviewers no less, provide the proof I need that no, I am not crazy to go against the tide and dislike this book.
    A case in point: The Fault in our Stars. Everyone was falling over themselves in their adoration of this book, and I hated it. I went to Amazon and Goodreads reviews to see if anyone could put into words just WHY I disliked this book so much. I found paydirt; not only excellent reviews putting my own feelings into words, but two websites which “sporked” the entire book, chapter for chapter and line for line (das sporking and dragon’s quill). These reviewers ripped the book apart one line at a time, and quite brilliantly (I gave up reading after a few chapters; I was quickly reassured that yes, I am not alone, and that’s all I wanted.) They were often quite mean, in fact. But we don’t see the author, John Green, getting his knickers in a twist and whining to the media. Who knows how he feels about these public flagellations of his book. Maybe they hurt him; maybe they ae water off a duck’s back. And THAT my friends, is professionalism.
    The thing is: there is nothing in the world wrong with what those reviewers did. It’s their OPINION. No matter that millions loved the book. They are allowed to say what they think without John Green going on the rampage and other people patting him on the back for it.

    As far as I can tell from Hale’s letter, at no point did BH contact her directly. According to her, she merely mocked and ridiculed the book with her friends. Guess what, she is allowed to do that. It does not warrant a full-on outing and a Guardian article.

    I am horrified that the Guardian published this and no, there are no two side here, no “let’s agree to disagree”. A retraction is in order, and an apology.

  7. Brenda Martin says:

    Not going to rehash, but I have to wonder – why is the author-baiting and bullying ever tolerated? We can’t deny that it happens, whether or not it happened in the Blythe vs Kathleen incident. But why are some reviewers out for blood? And who has the time for all this cyberbullying? We can continually sweep it under the rug, saying “but stalking! Stalking is the crime here!”, but that is really only half the story. What makes some critics so nasty, so cruel? What is the lack of power they feel in their own lives to feel it is so important to destroy a writer, a musician, an artist who does not produce art to his or her liking?

  8. Wanda Miller says:

    Could you imagine if an anonymous stranger observed you at your place of work and rated your performance, then shared that one-star review with multiple websites until your career and reputation was worthless, then you had to spend your time and your energy for years trying to repair it? It is happening in our cyber-review era, and the rules and ethics of all this are still as if we were living in the Wild Wild West. Yelp, RateMyProfessor, Goodreads, RateMyDoctor, on and on and on… It is completely and utterly disingenuous to make the reviewer – who often IS simply a wannabe, sorry to burst your bubble, in the position of complete power without a check or balance.

  9. Danker says:

    Could I ask the hosts of this site if it possible – some time in the future – to have a broader discussion about reviewing romance on social media separate from this discussion and definitely separate from Hale’s unacceptable behaviour?

  10. Melissa says:

    I decided last night to read down my TBR pile and not buy/review any more books from living fiction authors (no matter the genre) except for two (Courtney Milan and Nora Roberts – everyone else is in the to-be-avoided-at-all-costs pile). No more recommending books that I have read by new and new to me authors who could use a little signal boost from a reader-reviewer.

    At least I can rest easy knowing if I don’t like one of Shakespeare’s sonnets, I won’t have Billy looking through my living room window watching me and my children or Billy calling the base commander.

    To the authors/fan girls who think what Hale did was okay – karma is a bitch and I will laugh heartily when you get your just desserts.

  11. Amanda Niehaus says:

    This all smacks of a publicity stunt to me. Has “Blythe” actually publicly acknowledged that Hale came to her house? Part of me wonders if any of this, apart from the initial review, ever happened at all. It’s a great story no matter which side you take, but it reads so much like fiction that I just have my doubts.

  12. Hale’s behaviour was atrocious. But heckling is not a review, and “F—- this” is the equivalent of the guy in the comedy club yelling “you suck!”. It’s not sacred speech and it doesn’t make “Blythe” a “book blogger.”

    Want to trash people on the internet? You may not be able to control their reaction.

    http://www.parentwin.com/2014/10/how-to-handle-mean-baseless-reviews.html

  13. Liz Horton says:

    I read Kathleen Hale’s words and I was very moved by her openness and candor about the situation and how she reacted to it. She recognized her own crazy.

    Is there a right and wrong here? Was Kathleen wrong to track down this woman? Yes. Was she wrong to tell us about it in clear, painful detail? She should not be mocked for telling her side of the story. It was probably more of cleansing than a diatribe on bad reviews.

    Clearly everyone has an opinion but honestly, who can deny that people aren’t more venomous when they are hiding behind anonymity? It is the invisible airplane that allows the weak and frightened to believe they are Wonder Woman.

    We writers can handle being told our babies are ugly. We fight back when you hold our babies underwater and try to drown them.

  14. SB Sarah says:

    Ms Miller:

    When you publish a book for the purpose of entertainment, you will receive reviews and they will not all be positive. If you cannot handle that, don’t publish.

    A single 1-star review has never destroyed an author’s career, because for one thing, readers are smart enough to read more than one review for a book they’re curious about.

    Ms Williams:

    Here is the difference between “trashing you” and reviewing your book:

    [Insert title of your book here] was infantile, offensive, and poorly constructed, and I found it very very tedious. I don’t recommend it.

    Allison K. Williams conduct here is infantile and offensive, and her arguments are poorly constructed and illogical. I find her very tedious.

    Do you see the difference?

    ANYONE who reads a book has the right to an opinion about it, and they can express that opinion in many forms. You don’t get to control that conversation.

    Ms. Horton:

    You and your book are separate things. Reviewing a book is not the same as committing homicide against an infant.

     

  15. sharonmaasbooks says:

    Alison Williams: Blythe’s review was not heckling. It would have been heckling if it was directed at Hale. It wasn’t. It would have been heckling if it has been directed at Hale. It wasn’t. It was a book discussion on Goodreads in which she explained—perhaps very directly—what she objected to in the book. I’ve seen x number of such discussions. They are legitimate, and if an author is sensitive she should not read them. But it is NOT heckling.

    As for the “F—that “—I have to laugh. Really. See, I grew up in a generation in which women never used that word. NEVER. And I still never use it. But I see and hear it everywhere, and it doesn’t shock me. Everyone uses it. Kids use it. And when a word becomes so common, it loses its meaning, completely. It has no shock effect whatsoever. So I am astounded that people are shocked to see that two-word review. It seems to me that she is simply slamming the book shut and saying enough is enough.

    In a nutshell: a negative review is not bullying. People can say whatever they want about a book, and it is not bullying. As far as I understand it, never once did Blythe aim her critique at Hale herself; it is Hale who went digging, and saw what she did.

    If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. The moment you put your book into public space it is fare game. If you don’t get this as a writer, then you are not mature enough for this profession. Reviews are not for authors. They are opinions, nothing more. Learn to grow a thick skin, wear big-girl panties, and all that.

    This is what can happen when an author takes a reviewer too seriously. Read down to the bottom of the review, and read the comments. Scary stuff. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1056564898

  16. SB Sarah says:

    @Danker:

    Could I ask the hosts of this site if it possible – some time in the future – to have a broader discussion about reviewing romance on social media separate from this discussion and definitely separate from Hale’s unacceptable behaviour?

    Happy to! Can you email me at sarah @ smartbitchestrashybooks.com with what specifically you’re thinking about, or what questions you have?

  17. sharonmaasbooks says:

    Ms Horton: A book is not a baby. Please, please authors—stop using this metaphor! I have written books and I have had babies. There is a difference, trust me!

  18. Liz Horton says:

    LOL, Sarah. Writers use metaphors and similes all the time.

  19. Elyse says:

    I wish I loved every book I read, I really do. I don’t though, and as a reader I have the right to voice my opinion good or bad, on a public forum. Books are intended for public consumption and are open to public criticism.

    Even when I write a negative review, it sells books, often more books than positive reviews. That sa

  20. Robin says:

    Jan said on 10.20.14 at 08:08 PM • [link]

    Robin –

    Go to guardian, click on UK.
    On right hand side click on Most Viewed
    Number 19 is her article
    above headline click on comments

    >>>>  Thanks Jan.

  21. Elyse says:

    Got cut off, whoops!

    Anyway, I don’t have the power to make or break a writer’s career. One negative review won’t have any significant im

  22. Elyse says:

    Dammit!

    Significant impact on a writers career.  Just because I don’t like a book doesn’t mean that others won’t. I’ve hated books that sold millions of copies.

    Negative reviews aren’t meant to hurt feelings or destroy careers or drown anything. They are part of a public discussion about literature, and the fact that we can have civil, uncensored and diverse conversation about books is truly awesome

  23. sharonmaasbooks says:

    Ms Horton:The Books-as-Babies metaphor is just sentimental nonsense, and not at all appropriate. Authors really need to let go once the book is out there. Let go, and write another.

  24. Liz Horton says:

    We are all trying to converse regarding Hale’s post and I’m told I can’t/shouldn’t use a certain metaphor to describe the situation, as I see it. Does no one see the incongruity? SMTB has always been an good forum for discussion. Let’s keep it that way.

  25. CarrieS says:

    LOL, Liz, good writers use metaphors that make sense.  Yours does not.  A book is a product – one into which we pour love and feeling and care, one to which we are deeply attached – but still a product.  Writing is an art and a passion, but also a business.  You are responsible for the quality of your product.  No one can kill your product except you.  As evidence, I give you Stephen King and Stephanie Meyer – critics hate their books and the authors laugh all the way to the bank, and more power to them.

    When you write a book, you can make copies for friends and family and give them out at Xmas or you can publish.  If you choose to publish, you are choosing to release your book into the business market and you should expect it to be evaluated.  That’s how publishing works.  It’s the job of you, your editor, your publishing house, and your friends to nurture your genius and your feelings (and I’m not being sarcastic, those things are important).  It the job of reviewers to evaluate your product.

  26. redheadedgirl says:

    Comparing books to babies after they’ve been released into the world is ridiculous.  Just ridiculous.  Calling criticism of your book like “drowning your baby” is just… you can’t see what a false equivlency that is?  Really?  Because it is. 

    Book reviews are not infanticide.  They are not.  You know what IS infanticide?  Infanticide.  That’s it. 

    I seriously, SERIOUSLY cannot believe we’re having a discussion where people are defending the actions of a stalker.  An ADMITTED ON AN INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM stalker.  For fuck’s sake people, check your priorities.

  27. Liz Horton says:

    This is why many, many people do not comment or share their true feelings in a public forum. The immediate vilification (over the use of a metaphor) is over the top and doesn’t address Hale’s response. I don’t think anyone read what I said in my original post.

    I would go so far as to say Blythe and Hale were antagonizing each other.

    Much like my response to yours above.

  28. CarrieS says:

    No one vilified you, Liz.  We have disagreed with you.  The inability of an author to grasp the difference between vilification and disagreement is at the heart of the original discussion.  We read your original post and we disagree.  People can do that.  That’s life.  No one’s called you names.  No one has personally insulted you We have responded TO YOUR COMMENT much as reviewers respond TO A BOOK.

  29. azteclady says:

    Yes, Liz Horton, Harris was antagonizing Hale by posting reading status and then a review at a reader space, for other readers reviews.

    Do you know how stupid that sounds?

    Almost as stupid as books = babies, and as stupid as panning your book = drowning your baby.

    As stupid as blaming Harris, the victim of stalking, for the actions of Hale, an unhinged gleeful stalker.

    That stupid.

  30. sharonmaasbooks says:

    Here is an account of how Hale got Blythe’s home address:
    http://www.yareads.com/my-side-of-the-story/news/13970#.VEaK0kDhgwA.twitter

    And I think this clarifies a lot of open questions. Blythe was “confused” that Hale wanted to be interviewed by her, because she had “given her a bad review”. That was it. Surely, if she had truly carried on a vitriolic Twitter campaign against Hale, behaved as badly as Hale claims, she would have had even more reservations? Be even more confused? Scared, even? Instead, she only mentions the bad review, and gives permission for her address to be handed to Hale. My conclusion: there was a bad review, and that’s all. No hate-feast and certainly no determination to “ruin Hale’s career”.

    I still cannot believe that the Guardian published this. But, as we know, Hale has the right connections…

     

  31. Sharon L says:

    Serendipitious: “I’ve never, ever, ever seen a blogger – or anyone who wants to be respected for their reviews and comments – say “Fuck you” in a book review”

    She didn’t write “fuck you”. She got sick of the book and wrote “fuck this”. I’ve often uttered that exact phrase while reading a book, it doesn’t mean I despise the author, it just means I think something is shit and don’t want to finish it. I had Kathleen Hale’s books on my TBR list, I’d bought ‘No-One Else Can Have You’ and I hadn’t seen Blythe’s review. I don’t pay much heed to reviews, I take all on board and then read the book myself to see what I think.

    I have zero interest in reading anything by an author who would get so obsessed over one bad review that she would physically go to the reviewer’s home, that is beyond scary. I think Katheen Hale will be using a few aliases in the future, I can’t see how she will shake this off. As a professional who relies on her name to sell books, I think this was above all a horrific career choice. I honestly can’t believe an author would behave in that way – you can never please everyone and not everyone will like your book. Why did she target this one particular reviewer? To openly admit that you engaged in “light stalking”……..mind boggling.

  32. Nadia says:

    @Brenda Martin

    No, it isn’t half the story.  The stalking is the whole story.  Because having an opinion about a book and leaving a negative review (about a book, about music, about any creative work) is NOT BULLYING.  And people need to stop pretending it is.

  33. Elle says:

    @Nadia – agreed. There’s no justification for stalking. Nada.

    Expanding on your comments:
    It’s profoundly disturbing to think that, because someone might disagree with something I say, that person would then feel justified to follow me and intrude upon my life. Flip it around: Let’s say the author was a man and the reviewer was a woman. They went out on a date – the woman didn’t feel any connection and didn’t want to go out on another date. We’d probably all say, yeah, that’s fair, even if the guy did want to go out again.

    But rather than walk away, the guy took it as a personal rejection and started hounding her at home and work. I think most people would say, yeah, that’s not OK. Therefore, why is it somehow OK when the two people are strangers and the only contact is that Person A disagreed with Person B’s online opinion?

    Add to all of that: since when did one negative review posted on a social media site become that powerful? It’s not – it’s one random person’s opinion on a website full of opinions.

  34. Brenda Martin says:

    @Nadia – While I agree with you that the stalking is absolutely the most serious component of all that has occurred here between KH & BH, why are you counseling us to ignore the “reviewing” altogether? I believe we can actually consider more than one aspect of the situation without being shut down.

    It is a very troubling statement on who we have become that there are people/trolls who spend hours and hours online harassing people whose art they don’t agree with. And that IS part of the story of the relationship between critics and artists, if you choose to believe so or not. That said, I do not condone how KH handled this in any way, shape or form. However, that doesn’t excuse book reviewers to mistreat authors, either.

  35. CarrieS says:

    Brenda, I have not seen, on this thread or in Hale’s account, a single example of how a critic harasses an author.  There are a lot of reviewers out there and presumably some of them are jerks, but no one has shown me any evidence of one.  Hale claims Harris fabricated something about the book, which would be out of line, but fact-checking revealed that this was not the case.  There’s mention that reviewers leave negative reviews on every possible review site – well, yeah.  Review sites are places in which it’s acceptable to leave a bad review.  That’s the point of a review site – to be able to leave bad (or good) reviews.  I’m very anti-bullying but no one has shown me any bullying yet except, in this case, the bullying that Hale subjected Harris to by stalking her.  How are critics harassing authors?  Leaving bad reviews is reviewing, not harassing.  Additionally, making consumer choices isn’t bullying – there are artists I choose not to fund for a variety of reasons and that’s not bullying, it’s a consumer decision.

    If you really feel that a bad review, or even a series of bad reviews, is the same as bullying, than our viewpoints our so radically different that I doubt I’ll be able to change your mind and I’ll move on to more productive pursuits.  If you are talking about something other than bad reviews, then feel free to say so.

    Frame of reference:

    I consider this a bad review (I’m making it up, and picking on my own book )  “CarrieS’s book is so awful that I’d rather hang myself than read another word of it.  It’s superficial and dull”.  I consider this bullying:  “CarrieS’ book is so awful that she should kill herself because she’s a stupid waste of space”.  If you can’t tell the difference between my two examples, then we have nothing more to say to each other.

  36. Nadia says:

    Leaving a negative review of a book you didn’t like isn’t mistreating authors.  And it’s not harassing authors.  I don’t understand why you think it is.  People are entitled to their opinions and they’re entitled to share them in the appropriate forums, whether that’s goodreads, amazon, a book review blog, etc.  Those reviewers not bullying and they’re not doing anything wrong – not legally wrong and not morally wrong. 

    And why is your “reviewing” in quotes?  Just because a review isn’t positive doesn’t make it any more or less legitimate. 

    I would advocate ignoring reviews you don’t agree with, and if you are a reader, seek out reviewers you DO agree with and buying/avoiding books they don’t recommend. If you’re posting from the position of an author than … get your books into the hands of more reviewers, so that there’s a greater number of other reviews to counterbalance the negative.  But stop pretending that people who don’t share your opinions are bullies for expressing their own.

  37. azteclady says:

    Ms Martin, unless the reviewer in this particular case actually harassed the writer—see comment 110 by sharonmaasbooks and read When Manipulation Masquerades as Memoir: the #HaleNo edition—then this discussion is about stalking.

    Stalking.

    Not reviewing.

    Nor reviews.

    Stalking.

  38. Enough. I checked. The horse is really dead.

  39. Jessica says:

    This story is absolutely insane.

    I agree with the argument that it’s not fair for Goodreads or Amazon users to issue blanket 1-star reviews to all of an author’s books based on anything other than the content of the books. You can mark a book “will not read” on Goodreads without affecting its overall rating, and you can even write a review in which you discuss your issues with the author without issuing a rating that affects the overall score. You can write status updates on Goodreads or join discussion group that discuss author behavior without negatively rating the book. I have zero problems with that kind of behavior, but wielding the star-rating system in a retaliatory fashion is not a fair thing to do and I understand when authors complain about that.

    If you’ve read the book, how you rate and review it is nobody’s business but your own. Blythe had clearly read this book, as the review in question was actually a series of comments on the progress she was making as she read it. She didn’t like the book and she said so. I have no problems with that. She’s under no obligation to keep her opinions to herself. There is no evidence that she has engaged in any kind of “campaign” to damage the book’s sales or Hale’s reputation other than post a negative review on Goodreads and engage with other users who commented on her post. Hale claims Blythe tweeted in response to a “Give me suggestions for future books” tweet that Hale posted, but I don’t think I’ve see anywhere what the content of that tweet was. Hale also claims that Blythe has tweeted in response to other people defending the book, but I have yet to see any evidence of this.

    There is, however, plenty of evidence that Hale has a history of over-reacting to negative criticism of her books and engaging in dangerous behaviors against people she feels have “wronged” her in some way. There is the ThoughtCatalog article, several screenshots of Twitter conversations, and the Guardian article itself.

    Hale claims that she targeted Blythe because Blythe made untrue claims about the content of the book. Hale says there’s no rape in her book, but Blythe and a few other reviewers have referred to a sex scene between a 16 y/o and an 18+ y/o as “statutory rape.” Blythe also felt that the book was dismissive toward PTSD and domestic violence. That may not have been Hale’s intention, but readers are within their rights to be opposed to the way subjects are handled in a book and to comment on it in open discussion. Had Hale maybe asked Blythe why she though the book was dismissive towards these issues, she could’ve had the opportunity for a rational discussion that possibly changed Blythe’s mind. Doing so also could have given Hale pointers on how to handle that kind of thing in her next book (such as: “Oh, my satirical intent wasn’t clear to many readers? Maybe I need to learn how to make that intent more clear next time.”) She could have brought the review to the attention of Goodreads moderators.

    I see nothing wrong in what Blythe did. She didn’t like a book and she took to the internet to explain why. It’s possible that she was a little mean-spirited or childish in some of her interactions with Hale on Twitter or her interactions with people who liked the book on Goodreads, but no one has produced any evidence to support that. She apparently used a pseudonym and was dodgy when a creepy woman called her work trying to get information from her. Even if she had been mean or childish, even if her claims about the book were false, even if she posted the review under a pseudonym…absolutely none of that is justification for Hale’s psychotic response. Stalking then writing think-pieces in defense of stalking? NEVER OKAY.

  40. Brenda Martin says:

    @Nadia & @CarrieS & @azteclady –

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to the *documented* instances of trolls who have become awful presences in writers, musicians, or artists’ lives, who wreak havoc with their reputation. Not 1-star reviewers, who do not deserve the treatment that Blythe received.

    The reason I put “reviewing” in quotes is that often times these are barely reviews but simply the click of a button with a few damning words. We will have to agree to disagree on semantics, but that to me is not (much of, if at all) a review. After I’ve read a book that drives me to write a review, I feel it is the least I can do for the author and readers of the review to give it a few minutes of my time to praise it and/or describe my issues/concerns.

    The worst part of all this is that it seems to only exacerbate the issues that exist between YA authors and GR critics. I’m not entirely sure what causes this genre to elicit the strongest feelings from critics. Thanks for letting me comment on this forum. I appreciate the opportunity.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top