This whole story disturbs and fascinates me, and I hope someone will dig up the evidence to corroborate (or not) the blogger's supposed "bullying" behavior. Not because it could justify the author's response, but to get a fuller picture.
As I was reading Hale's account of her obsessive desire to speak to Blythe face to face (whether through video chat or IRL), I thought, "This would make a great novel." Me, when I encounter someone I see as a troll or a bully, online or IRL, I go to great lengths to avoid that person and pretend they don't exist (pretty much the same strategy I used with bullies who called me names on the schoolbus). Don't engage, don't encourage.
Why would someone want to engage? Laying aside Hale and whatever her issues may be, I think it's an interesting question to explore. To set the record straight? To convince the reviewer she was wrong to bash your book? To make her issue a public apology? But if the situation was as described here, none of those things was likely to happen. Either Blythe sincerely found the book offensive and despicable, in which case she was unlikely to change her mind despite the author telling her she'd misunderstood; or she had written the review as trolling, in which case the author's anger was exactly what she desired and would continue to incite.
And yet, part of me can understand a writer's desire to engage with the reviewer and convince her she's wrong. I would never do it, but I think it's a very human desire, and hence great fiction material. Some people don't want to live with the knowledge that anybody hates them, even a stranger on the Internet (who doesn't even really hate them, only the fictional world they created).
When I started teaching college, about 20 freakin' years ago, I got a comment on a student evaluation: "She really, REALLY sucks." No reasons given. Two decades later, this is the comment I remember. I will never know why the student thought I sucked-- maybe he just didn't get the grade he wanted. But an expression of pure disgust and contempt directed at you can be hard to let go, especially when you're just starting out in a profession and feeling insecure. (Note: I haven't read Blythe's review. It may have been far more reasonable, analytical and nuanced than my student's comment. But Hale appears to have read it as something similar: a provocative expression of contempt.)
If you look at the GR reviews for Hale's novel, it appears she has a strong voice or approach that alienates some readers, while totally winning over others. If I were shopping, that polarization would intrigue me, maybe make me download a sample. Honestly, I suspect it's better for sales to have a lot of polarized reviews than a few bland, "meh" ones. Even Hale acknowledges in the piece that her book is an odd one, and odd books, even bestselling ones, tend to get mixed reader reviews. So why fixate on one particular reviewer who "didn't get it"? Why care so much about unmasking her? That's what I'd write about.
.
