Authors should never respond to reviews?

yayeahyeah said:

As someone who's read an awful lot of reviews by Blythe, I'd love to know what she did that was 'kinda bitchy'. She started a book, updated her status to say she was really enjoying it, then updated her status again when she felt there were issues in it. While the actions Hale accused her of could be fairly said to be 'kinda bitchy', I see no reasons to believe that any of them happened anywhere except in Hale's imagination.

Click to expand...

I've never read any reviews from Blythe prior to the incident, nor have I heard off Hale before the incident, I found my way to the article from Twitter. I think it was probably one part of the article where (and this was how I interpreted it)

“Rape is brushed off as if it is nothing,” Blythe explained to one commenter. “PTSD is referred to insensitively; domestic abuse is the punch line of a joke, as is mental illness.”
“But there isn’t rape in my book,” I thought. I racked my brain, trying to see where I had gone wrong.

Click to expand...

Which made it sound as if she hadn't read the whole thing? Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and all that, but when they're making assumptions and/or accusations for something that didn't happen? Yeaaah...

Granted though, I read that article over the course of 6 hours one night, spliced between scoping out DeviantArt and AW. So my reading it was a bit disjointed at times, and I had to go back and reread paragraphs for context. So YMMV

Also, is it me, or is it really strange to obsessively stalk someone on the internet for that amount of time and not take any screenshots of their behaviour towards you?

Click to expand...

Hah, I agree with you there. You'd want as much solid proof as possible to try and justify your actions, however nutty they may be.

Marian Perera said:

I've written some snarky reviews. I wonder, if an author stalks and harasses me because of such a review, would people excuse the author provided it's the first time the author's done that and the author promises it won't happen again?

Click to expand...

I think that was my point? I'm confused. She claimed in the article (wait, did she? I think she did) that she wouldn't do this sort of thing, but after some browsing on Twitter, she's been guilty of similar things with other people who had negative things to say. I was sorta on her side prior to seeing that, assuming that she'd done the one (drastic) stalking thing, but she seems quite insecure in that she asking and justifying on Twitter against other negative reviews.

Bubastes said:

Side note: I'm tired of people saying she's crazy for what she did. She doesn't strike me as crazy at all. Privileged, narcissistic, self-absorbed, entitled, clueless, and lacking empathy? Yes. Crazy? No.

Click to expand...

I'd throw insecure into that mix too. An odd combination of insecurity and narcissism creates the sort of individual who feels proud of their work and yet needs to justify what's so great about it and how people are wrong when they find something negative to say. Probably not so crazy. Although, and I can't remember, when she was stalking Blythe, did she fly to.. wherever she was? Bus? Train? Was she relatively close or across the country?

Not read the book etc but I get the impression the rape she's talking about is statutory rape*

Which is still a real turn off for many people (and is still termed rape) It may not be forced, but....can a minor really give informed consent, is the older person abusing position etc etc

*Initially typed that as statuary...

Sage said:

That's weird, because I've never gotten that alert from GR

Click to expand...

J.S.F. said:

Me, either, with regards to the Goodreads alert. I've gotten only one one-star review and I'm not even sure the person read the novel...but still, I wrote back to this person and said thank you ever so politely. It doesn't pay to be rude.

Click to expand...

Very weird. The alerts have been there for the last year or so.

Channy said:

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and all that, but when they're making assumptions and/or accusations for something that didn't happen? Yeaaah...

Click to expand...

From a Goodreads review of my first romance novel : "You had to make life miserable for all your female characters? Furthermore, I just got the impression that the book was written by a dirty old pervert."

All of my female characters ended up safe and fine at the end. Yes, they didn't have an easy time on the way there, because they fought in a war, were captured by the antagonist, etc. but they survived and won (plus, I made life pretty damn miserable for my heroes too. I'm equal opportunity that-a-way).

And with regards to the personal comment, all I can say is that I'm not old.

Some reviewers make mistakes. I have another review which flat-out states that the hero doesn't want the heroine on his ship because women are bad luck, which makes him sound like a sexist idiot (he doesn't want her there because he thinks she's a spy and he has good reason to know she can't be trusted!). That still doesn't mean I should correct the reviewer or try to make her change her impression of my story.

I was sorta on her side prior to seeing that, assuming that she'd done the one (drastic) stalking thing

Click to expand...

For me, any instance of stalking or harassment or intimidation is too much. I'm not on a stalker's side as long as they've only done it once, especially because stalking isn't like losing your temper and yelling at someone. It's a campaign planned and carried out over a period of time, so whether a stalker does that once or several times, I can't approve or sympathize.

Marian Perera said:

From a Goodreads review of my first romance novel : "You had to make life miserable for all your female characters? Furthermore, I just got the impression that the book was written by a dirty old pervert."

All of my female characters ended up safe and fine at the end. Yes, they didn't have an easy time on the way there, because they fought in a war, were captured by the antagonist, etc. but they survived and won (plus, I made life pretty damn miserable for my heroes too. I'm equal opportunity that-a-way).

And with regards to the personal comment, all I can say is that I'm not old.

Click to expand...

So just a dirty pervert then? Well, then they weren't wrong. (I kid, I kid)

That's also a bit of a broad aspect of a negative comment (which, maybe they were referring to the tough journey for the characters, and only picked up on the female strife) as opposed to "This book had rape" which it didn't... but maybe Mr Flibble is right and they're talking about the statuary rape (having not read the book either, I don't know). I think maybe I've got something against using non-existant evidence because it's grasping at straws. But again, everybody, own opinion, this and that.

At this point I'm kind of talking myself in a not very eloquent circle, lol.

Some reviewers make mistakes. I have another review which flat-out states that the hero doesn't want the heroine on his ship because women are bad luck, which makes him sound like a sexist idiot (he doesn't want her there because he thinks she's a spy and he has good reason to know she can't be trusted!). That still doesn't mean I should correct the reviewer or try to make her change her impression of my story.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the same type of person who was previously upset because the women were undergoing hardship and miserable lives. And no, you're right, it doesn't mean you should or have to correct someone, but for someone (as Hale first prefaced at the beginning of the essay that she was very antsy with edits) who had some insecurity about the book already, it was the first step toward going down a dark path. She already had doubts about some things and now people were misinterpreting it? (And I know it's not about misinterpreting, readers had interpret a novel however they wish, I just can't find a more suiting word for that sentence at this moment)

For me, any instance of stalking or harassment or intimidation is too much. I'm not on a stalker's side as long as they've only done it once, especially because stalking isn't like losing your temper and yelling at someone. It's a campaign planned and carried out over a period of time, so whether a stalker does that once or several times, I can't approve.

Click to expand...

No, I know. And I don't have much of a response to this other than acknowledging it.

Here's the thing
Everyone brings themselves to a book -- all their notions, prejudices, hang ups, trigger points, kinks and phobias...

all of themselves (and we are all a mix of all of those)

Now. I cannot control those in other people. CANNOT.

I control only what I write

So if I have gone out of my way (frex re the op) to make a female character not a damsel in distress, she's got her own arc, her own character, she doesn't wait for a guy to rescue her, she gets out of a situation on her own skill...


Then I have nothing to feel bad for.

I can only do so much. I am not god. Do I need to try? Hell yes! Can I learn from critiques/reviews that point out where i went wrong, even if unknowingly? Hell yes!

If I have done that, do I need to feel bad? Hell no!

our bet is our best -- and will never be enough for everyone to like our book

There is no book, NO BOOK, that everyone loves. People will often pick holes in a book they did not like/engage with (maybe author's fault, maybe not) They will forgive exactly the same problems* in a book they like

So you did not reach this reader. Do they have a point? Learn from it. If, after serious reflection, you think not....so what? One person's opinion. One.


* prolly not huge massive OMG problems

PS: I get it hurts - I was called..some names...after my first book came out, and I got a bit...well. Teary. Did no one see that yes I wrote a sexist in order to show him learning? Often painfully? But death of the author and all that. It does sometimes gall me when people think my MC is an authorial insert. I mean I suppose I can see that..if I squint..and have gender reassignment surgery..and agree in any way with his attitudes...

I kinda blogged about it here

Channy said:

So just a dirty pervert then? Well, then they weren't wrong. (I kid, I kid)

Click to expand...

These days, that would probably be a huge selling point. BDSM, people!

But again, everybody, own opinion, this and that.

Sounds like the same type of person who was previously upset because the women were undergoing hardship and miserable lives. And no, you're right, it doesn't mean you should or have to correct someone, but for someone (as Hale first prefaced at the beginning of the essay that she was very antsy with edits) who had some insecurity about the book already, it was the first step toward going down a dark path.

Click to expand...

From what I remember of her article, she had at least one person trying to hold her back from that dark path. She chose to ignore their advice.

She's engaged to a journalist whose mother is an editor. I'm sure they had positive opinions of her book. She must have an agent, an editor, a publicist, a sales department, people who Harper Collins sent ARCs to for reviews. I'm sure they had positive opinions of her book too.

In other words, a lot of industry professionals were backing her up. So why did some small, anonymous stranger on the Internet make her so insecure she had to stalk them? It wasn't even like anyone forced her to read Blythe Harris's review.

She already had doubts about some things and now people were misinterpreting it?

Click to expand...

We all have doubts. She's hardly the first author who put out a book and felt insecure about it.

IMO, her article is written in such a way as to make herself seem like a sensitive, vulnerable person who really didn't intend to be a stalker. It's a play for sympathy.

Channy said:

“Rape is brushed off as if it is nothing,” Blythe explained to one commenter. “PTSD is referred to insensitively; domestic abuse is the punch line of a joke, as is mental illness.”
“But there isn’t rape in my book,” I thought. I racked my brain, trying to see where I had gone wrong.

Click to expand...

Which made it sound as if she hadn't read the whole thing? Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and all that, but when they're making assumptions and/or accusations for something that didn't happen? Yeaaah...

Click to expand...

Just jumping in super briefly here.

When I read that line, my thought was not Oh, the reviewer must not have read the book. My thought was: the reviewer considers something rape that the author does not. Which happens all the time.

Especially when the author has very different ideas about what rape is. For example, let's say the heroine was drunk. Let's say she was asleep when it started. Let's say she started out by saying no, but got into it halfway through. Are those things rape? Because I know authors who have written those things who would say no, and reviewers who would say yes.

It's not a sign of a dishonest reviewer, it's a sign of author/reviewer disagreement.

ViridianChick said:

When I read that line, my thought was not Oh, the reviewer must not have read the book. My thought was: the reviewer considers something rape that the author does not. Which happens all the time.

Click to expand...

There are romance novels (some published recently) where the heroine is raped by the hero. In at least one case, I know the author doesn't consider it rape when the heroine is crying and screaming no, because the author said in an interview that if the man is your soulmate, your body recognizes this and responds to him even if your mind is a bit slow to catch up.

So I'm with ViridianChick : this is a sign that people have different definitions of rape. Sometimes that's startlingly clear over real-life events, and it happens regarding fictional events too.

What's this "But I didn't meeeean to stalk them!" nonsense? It's not like accidentally copping a feel in a crowded mall or something. That shit takes effort--research, timing, planning, geographical relocation, etc. You think that happens by accident? Please tell me no one here buys that.

ViridianChick said:

Just jumping in super briefly here.

When I read that line, my thought was not Oh, the reviewer must not have read the book. My thought was: the reviewer considers something rape that the author does not. Which happens all the time.

Click to expand...

From what I've read in various places, there is statutory rape in the book. A female character who is under the legal age of consent has sex with a man who is years older than she is. Regardless of how people feel about the existence of statutory rape laws and what the age of consent should be, this isn't really a he said/she said gray area. Just because that author doesn't consider it statutory rape doesn't mean it ain't so.

ETA: Also, the reviewer states very clearly in her comments that she's referring to statutory rape, so that makes the author's contention that there's no rape in the book even more suspect.

Rhoda Nightingale said:

What's this "But I didn't meeeean to stalk them!" nonsense? It's not like accidentally copping a feel in a crowded mall or something. That shit takes effort--research, timing, planning, geographical relocation, etc. You think that happens by accident? Please tell me no one here buys that.

Click to expand...

QFT.

Someone does not accidentally rent a car months in advance by accident. They don't use connections to gain access to a stranger's personal information by accident. They don't refer back to a comment stream (the progress updates) months after it was begun by accident. There's nothing accidental about any of this.

Too many things to multiquote.. I'll admit, that my mind didn't even stray into the territory of "the reviewer considers something rape that the author did not". I was reading the essay with the beginning sense that Hale was the victim. At some point, I interpreted that (and I can't find the exact paragraph in the essay from which I formed this thought) that it was more than just the simple "she gave it one star review" and said some untrue things. I came away from it that Blythe was helping form angry mobs on twitter, on her blog and in discussion on the GR review. Again, can't find from where I pulled this conclusion from, and again, I read the essay in bits and pieces over a night, with disjointed thoughts.

...and then it got further into the stalking bits and then stuff stopped being okay.

absitinvidia said:

From what I've read in various places, there is statutory rape in the book. A female character who is under the legal age of consent has sex with a man who is years older than she is. Regardless of how people feel about the existence of statutory rape laws and what the age of consent should be, this isn't really a he said/she said gray area. Just because that author doesn't consider it statutory rape doesn't mean it ain't so.

ETA: Also, the reviewer states very clearly in her comments that she's referring to statutory rape, so that makes the author's contention that there's no rape in the book even more suspect.

Click to expand...

So, yeah, just another example of Hale twisting real events to fit her narrative. I seriously doubt there was ever a "Rape? Whatever could she mean?" moment.

Channy said:

Too many things to multiquote.. I'll admit, that my mind didn't even stray into the territory of "the reviewer considers something rape that the author did not". I was reading the essay with the beginning sense that Hale was the victim. At some point, I interpreted that (and I can't find the exact paragraph in the essay from which I formed this thought) that it was more than just the simple "she gave it one star review" and said some untrue things. I came away from it that Blythe was helping form angry mobs on twitter, on her blog and in discussion on the GR review. Again, can't find from where I pulled this conclusion from, and again, I read the essay in bits and pieces over a night, with disjointed thoughts.

...and then it got further into the stalking bits and then stuff stopped being okay.

Click to expand...

Whatever your conclusion, I'm glad you chosen to cast a more critical eye over the situation. If there's anything we know for a fact, it's that (1) Hale is, above all else, a writer, and (2) she has a grudge against this reviewer, as evidenced by her actions. And those things need to be kept in mind.

Having a grudge against someone is all well and good as long as you don't act out on it. Make a little yarn doll and poke pins in it.. throw darts on the wall with their face printed out... Yeah, don't drive over to their house. All I'm saying is I can kind of see where the people on the other side of the fence were coming from, patting Hale on the back for standing up to a bully and what not... but they're not really thinking it all the way through. And that link provided the other day with that young girl who got attacked by a writer from WattPad... that really drove home how wrong and how badly that could have really gone. But I think people are just brushing it off because it didn't. It remained "innocent" in that she went there, stood at her house, and walked away. Didn't confront her, though she wanted. So clearly it wasn't as bad as it could have been... and they're not thinking that it could have gone a lot worse. And that merely figuring all that personal info out is just the tip of the iceberg.

Channy said:

It remained "innocent" in that she went there, stood at her house, and walked away. Didn't confront her, though she wanted.

Click to expand...

She called up the reviewer, pretending she was a fact-checker, and then said "DO YOU USE THE NAME BLYTHE HARRIS TO BOOK BLOG ONLINE?" Capslock hers, from the article.

In fact, the subtitle of the article is "An author confronts her number one online critic". So if people are excusing her behavior because she "didn't confront" the reviewer, all I can say is, these people must have a different definition of confrontation than I do.

Well, I meant didn't confront her face to face when she was there. I think reactions would have been a lot different had she knocked on the door and straight up confronted her.

Though over the phone, in that she got that information and tried to get her to fess up, is also pretty bad. I may also be remembering the events different (again, read it, bits and pieces, spliced over several hours) as I'm thinking she didn't actually call her until after she'd already been there. But maybe she didn't. And that wasn't good enough for her. I dunno.

Channy said:

Well, I meant didn't confront her face to face when she was there.

Click to expand...

As I said, maybe people have different definitions of what it means to confront someone. To me, calling someone up to demand they confirm if they've used a certain name is confrontational.

If I were being stalked, hopefully I wouldn't need to wait for the stalker to confront me face to face for people to realize that this is a serious and threatening matter.

I think reactions would have been a lot different had she knocked on the door and straight up confronted her.

Click to expand...

I doubt it, personally. Then reactions would have been "Sure, she knocked on the door and straight up confronted her, but she didn't hit her or anything."

But I'm cynical that way.

True enough.

Lol, sorry. You have a point, but there is surprising support for Hale in that she confronted a bully, and sure showed her, and this and that. There might be less, had she actually knocked on Blythe's door and had a dialogue with her. That might make the situation more real, rather than her just sort of.. ghosting by her house. If that makes any sense. Probably not.

Has Blythe responded to any of this, by the way? Or... do we know her real/blogger identity? I know Hale used changed names for much of the essay, so I can't remember if we actually know who she stalking and whether they'be told their story in response.

Channy said:

True enough.

Lol, sorry. You have a point, but there is surprising support for Hale in that she confronted a bully, and sure showed her, and this and that. There might be less, had she actually knocked on Blythe's door and had a dialogue with her. That might make the situation more real, rather than her just sort of.. ghosting by her house. If that makes any sense. Probably not.

Has Blythe responded to any of this, by the way? Or... do we know her real/blogger identity? I know Hale used changed names for much of the essay, so I can't remember if we actually know who she stalking and whether they'be told their story in response.

Click to expand...

Blythe has made brief appearances on twitter. I think she's really shook up still.

jari_k said:

I think there's a disconnect between the way readers and authors see comments about books. To most readers, it is about the books themselves, not so much about the authors.

Click to expand...

Definitely. And that's the way it should be.

But I think there are cases where reviewers also blur the lines. I've read some books with an authorial voice that annoyed the crap out of me because I felt like it was condescending to the reader. I always tell myself NOT to confuse that voice with the actual author, but it's hard not to. I make sure to keep ad hominem stuff out of my review, but in my head, that author is still patronizing, a snob, or whatever (this tends to happen more often with nonfiction). I usually have to meet him or her to shake the impression.

Marian Perera said:

She's engaged to a journalist whose mother is an editor. I'm sure they had positive opinions of her book. She must have an agent, an editor, a publicist, a sales department, people who Harper Collins sent ARCs to for reviews. I'm sure they had positive opinions of her book too.

In other words, a lot of industry professionals were backing her up. So why did some small, anonymous stranger on the Internet make her so insecure she had to stalk them? .

Click to expand...

I wish I knew, because I have the exact same baffling, stupid insecurity. If fifty people tell me I'm doing an awesome job at something, I will fixate on the fifty-first who thinks I'm an idiot. That person's negative judgment automatically gives them more credibility than anyone else.

I think it's a defense mechanism that comes from growing up with perfectionist parents. Some people tell me it's actually a form of perverse narcissism. It's definitely messed up.

But, like you, I didn't get the sense from the piece that Hale recognized just how messed up it was to fixate on a particular critic and take that fixation to the stalking level. The tone is more "Yes, I got unhinged and did some crazy-seeming stuff, but I was provoked by the hideous incivility of the Internet."

Channy said:

Has Blythe responded to any of this, by the way? Or... do we know her real/blogger identity?

Click to expand...

Her blogger identity was Blythe Harris, which is one reason so many people are furious that Hale was allowed to use that name without changing it. She's been on a bit but is clearly incredibly shaken by the situation.

And I've talked to 5 people who've read it (including one I know offline and would trust completely); ALL agree there was statutory rape in the book. I'm absolutely stunned that the Guardian allowed Hale to say there wasn't rape without fact-checking this. And also that so many people are still believing her words to be completely true. (Appreciate that you're viewing it more critically, btw - thanks.)

Channy said:

True enough.

Lol, sorry. You have a point, but there is surprising support for Hale in that she confronted a bully, and sure showed her, and this and that.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the support for Hale seems stronger than it truly has been because the Guardian was deleting all the negative comments related to the piece. And I noticed comments are closed now.

Fuchsia Groan said:

But I think there are cases where reviewers also blur the lines. I've read some books with an authorial voice that annoyed the crap out of me because I felt like it was condescending to the reader. I always tell myself NOT to confuse that voice with the actual author, but it's hard not to. I make sure to keep ad hominem stuff out of my review, but in my head, that author is still patronizing, a snob, or whatever (this tends to happen more often with nonfiction). I usually have to meet him or her to shake the impression.

Click to expand...

It is really easy to do -- a book is an intimate form of conversation really, and when we read it's sort of natural to think we're talking with the author, rather than the character. Not everyone realises they're doing it either, because it's often sort of subconcious

I used to do it all the time. It's only now I'm on the other side I see just how problematic that can be!

But yeah, I think it's natural to do it, and as authors we should be aware of the effect and be prepared for it.

*looks at WIP*

*girds loins and puts on big girl pants*