Authors should never respond to reviews?

I just read this piece on Jezebel. Yikes! It is not okay to stalk a reviewer!

I just looked up the book in question on Goodreads, and she's got plenty of 1-stars now.

meowzbark said:

I'm not saying she's a bully herself. Sorry if it came off that way. I meant that -- with her reviewing style -- it's easy to understand why an author might perceive her as one. It is blunt and harsh. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, blunt and harsh is not bullying. A negative review is not bullying. Disagreeing with someone is not bullying. Even insulting someone is not necessarily bullying. Not trying to pick on you, meowzbark, but I get really, really tired of people equating every negative thing as bullying.

jeffo20 said:

I'm sorry, blunt and harsh is not bullying. A negative review is not bullying. Disagreeing with someone is not bullying. Even insulting someone is not necessarily bullying. Not trying to pick on you, meowzbark, but I get really, really tired of people equating every negative thing as bullying.

Click to expand...

I understand your point and that you're frustrated by what happened. Again, let me clarify.

In my original post here I said 'bullying' in quotations, which means that the author thought that reviewer bullied her and the reviewer thought that the author bullied her as well.

In my second post, I clarified that. Hale said that Bythe was a bully. I never said Bythe was a bully. I don't know either Hale or Bythe enough to pass judgement on their personality.

I have written negative reviews and I love to read them, even if I disagree with what is said. I've been called a bully by an author for a negative review that I've written. I don't envy any reviewer put in that situation. It sucks.

But, it's hard to classify Blythe's review as a constructive negative review. Does that necessarily mean that it's bullying? No. Does it have a higher chance of pissing off an author than a more tactfully written one star review? Yes.

Mclesh said:

I just read this piece on Jezebel. Yikes! It is not okay to stalk a reviewer!

I just looked up the book in question on Goodreads, and she's got plenty of 1-stars now.

Click to expand...

Like, I can understand being upset. I can understand looking at this reviewer's social media accounts as it was on Goodreads and goodreads accounts are often hooked up to a ton of social media accounts. Like, if she had tried to contact this person through her twitter or something, I'd think it extremely unprofessional, but certainly not the actions of a deranged individual, and probably not stalking.

But... but what this woman did? What the everloving fuck.

Wait a minute, she's gone from stalking this Blythe woman to attacking teen aged girls in movie theaters?

What's wrong with this woman? If you can't handle vitriolic reviews, don't read goodreads or amazon. I don't think I'll be able to, if I ever publish anything. At least not at first. Not because I'd stalk or hurt someone else, but because I'd probably just go into a tailspin of self-doubt (something I'm very good at).

But assaulting people is a whole new level of wrong. Even if a review is not constructive or is truly bullying.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Like, I can understand being upset. I can understand looking at this reviewer's social media accounts as it was on Goodreads and goodreads accounts are often hooked up to a ton of social media accounts. Like, if she had tried to contact this person through her twitter or something, I'd think it extremely unprofessional, but certainly not the actions of a deranged individual, and probably not stalking.

But... but what this woman did? What the everloving fuck.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. And these situations where the authors overreact always seem to end badly for the author in question.

Get a bad review? Leave it alone. Shake it off, and move on.

Roxxsmom said:

Wait a minute, she's gone from stalking this Blythe woman to attacking teen aged girls in movie theaters?

What's wrong with this woman? If you can't handle vitriolic reviews, don't read goodreads or amazon. I don't think I'll be able to, if I ever publish anything. At least not at first. Not because I'd stalk or hurt someone else, but because I'd probably just go into a tailspin of self-doubt (something I'm very good at).

But assaulting people is a whole new level of wrong. Even if a review is not constructive or is truly bullying.

Click to expand...

The attack happened in the past when she was fourteen to a girl that was her friend. Not her attacking the girl now as a woman.

meowzbark said:

let me clarify.

In my original post here I said 'bullying' in quotations, which means that the author thought that reviewer bullied her and the reviewer thought that the author bullied her as well.

In my second post, I clarified that. Hale said that Bythe was a bully. I never said Bythe was a bully. I don't know either Hale or Bythe enough to pass judgement on their personality.

I have written negative reviews and I love to read them, even if I disagree with what is said. I've been called a bully by an author for a negative review that I've written. I don't envy any reviewer put in that situation. It sucks.

But, it's hard to classify Blythe's review as a constructive negative review. Does that necessarily mean that it's bullying? No. Does it have a higher chance of pissing off an author than a more tactfully written one star review? Yes.

Click to expand...

I recognized that you were not saying Blythe was a bully--heck, you stated it pretty clearly in the piece I quoted--I just went off a little half-cocked on the back end of your post. Looking at it again, I was a bit blunt and harsh myself--sorry!

Did Blythe ever write a formal 'review' of Hale's book? I followed the GR thread and saw her mostly reacting as she went along, and she mostly explained what she objected to. I can say, reading her reactions to some things in Hale's book, I don't think Blythe would exactly be my ideal reader. I certainly wouldn't stalk her, though.

Roxxsmom said:

Wait a minute, she's gone from stalking this Blythe woman to attacking teen aged girls in movie theaters?

Click to expand...

The attack on the teenage girl was from another essay Hale wrote, recounting an event that occurred when she was also a teenager. In this case, she poured peroxide on the head of a girl who had accused Hale's mother of sexually abusing her.

If I get a bad review, I have no qualms about making a thoughtful and impartial comment which is respectful and appreciative of the critic, such as, from my experience, "Boo! You stink!" and "That's what Cheese said."

If, however, I find the bad review might make good press and therefore profit, I sit silently, like a cat... a cat about to gack up a hairball or eat the neighbor's hamster.

Reading the other posts, I see that it is probably not acknowledging the issue at hand.

Roxxsmom said:

W
What's wrong with this woman? If you can't handle vitriolic reviews, don't read goodreads or amazon. I don't think I'll be able to, if I ever publish anything. At least not at first. Not because I'd stalk or hurt someone else, but because I'd probably just go into a tailspin of self-doubt (something I'm very good at).

Click to expand...

I don't talk about this much here or elsewhere, but the old saw "Don't read reviews!" is not always realistic with the personality of the writer.

I would say more, "Don't read any reviews or read them all."

Three guesses which category I fall in. I would advise people like me, read them all, but only with the strictest rule of never responding beyond an enthusiastic 'thank you' --- for only those reviewers who specifically route their reviews to you.

It's not that hard. One you read a good few of them, you'll learn what they weigh and process them accordingly. For me, it became actually very useful - almost more personally than professionally because I realized that I, necessarily, am not real to the reader or reviewer. And that's as it should be. It's not about me, it about the book.

Mclesh said:

I just read this piece on Jezebel. Yikes! It is not okay to stalk a reviewer!

I just looked up the book in question on Goodreads, and she's got plenty of 1-stars now.

Click to expand...

Reading that Jezebel piece, I didn't realize that Mulaney was a friend of hers. I like Mulaney's comedy, I think he's sitcom isn't that great but it's only a couple of episodes in. However, I don't think I'll be watching, at least not for awhile.

I understand wanting to support your friend, but you're supporting stalking and that turns me off.

Oh look. Another author reaction.

NSFW or queasy stomachs images of the reviewer's head injury.

These all read like horror stories...

bearilou said:

Oh look. Another author reaction.

NSFW or queasy stomachs images of the reviewer's head injury.

Click to expand...

This man also wrote about a blog stalking a woman and planning to ask her if she wanted to be 'fake' kidnapped. How the man is still walking the streets is a mystery to me.

Holy hell. That is truly scary.

CQuinlan said:

This man also wrote about a blog stalking a woman and planning to ask her if she wanted to be 'fake' kidnapped. How the man is still walking the streets is a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

He's got a new blog post called "A re-evaluation of romance" where he acknowledges he was wrong and that he has problems.

Even that post is deeply disturbing, IMO, because he explains the reasons for his conviction that she was secretly in love with him and subtly urging him to pursue her. Despite, y'know, saying "no" or "back off", she really meant the opposite:

a stalker said:

After I said “I just wanted to wish you a happy Christmas,” she tweeted later that day, “Just wanted to say that I love you.” It was the ‘Just wanted to’ which I took to mean that it was directed at me, since I had used the same wording.

Click to expand...

He deleted the stalking post, mentioning that it could have affected his employment prospects, and said that for every supportive message he got, there were a hundred condemnations. Seriously, he got supportive messages? Jesus wept. And it was this disparity which convinced him that he'd been doing some thing bad, because 99% of people couldn't be wrong.

Aaaargh, I can't stand reading anything with moving .gifs. I shall...do nothing. No, wait, I'll adblock them.

Yowsa, that makes Hale's actions look comparatively reasonable.

Marian Perera said:

He's got a new blog post called "A re-evaluation of romance" where he acknowledges he was wrong and that he has problems.

Even that post is deeply disturbing, IMO, because he explains the reasons for his conviction that she was secretly in love with him and subtly urging him to pursue her. Despite, y'know, saying "no" or "back off", she really meant the opposite:

Click to expand...

One thing that the new article he wrote highlighted for me is the possible dangers of subtweeting. Now, firstly, the woman who he was stalking deleted her Twitter account, so none of the tweets he recalls may have actually happened.

Either way, it got me thinking about subtweeting. I've always found it ridiculous and annoying. The high schoolers do it incessantly and even my fifteen year old thinks it's irritating. But I never thought about about it possibly fueling the delusional. If you post cryptic, undirected messages online, they might sink into their intended targets with all the sweet barbs and stinging arrows you had in mind, but they hit elsewhere, too.

Of course, this is no way serves as excuse for insane behavior, but it is definitely something worth considering when fiddling with social media.

Perks said:

Of course, this is no way serves as excuse for insane behavior, but it is definitely something worth considering when fiddling with social media.

Click to expand...

Not really. Anything can be twisted to fuel what a person wants to believe.

Buffysquirrel said:

Not really. Anything can be twisted to fuel what a person wants to believe.

Click to expand...

This is very true. It's why there are so many conspiracy theories and why people read up on their star signs. Part of why we've done so well as a species is that we are designed to see patterns...only sometimes we just make them up.

*gets out cane, cradles it as he stares into space*

Back in the old days, before this new fangled intrawebs thing, reviews were only found in these things they called newspapers and magazines. When an author got a bad review, he or she wrote a letter, on paper, with a pen or typewriter. It took time. His or her anger was transfered to the paper. When they were done, they looked at the paper... then ripped it up. Review and frustration taken care of.

With the speed and immediacy of the internet, that waiting period, that time to create and THINK about a response no longer is taken into account. I'd feel sorry for these authors nowadays who must really hurt their knees with all those knee-jerk reactions that they have to have RIGHT AS THEY READ THE REVIEW, but they make their own issues.

So really, I think the addage should go more like this:
"IF you are going to read reviews, walk away and think about them BEFORE you react."

As for the whole KH debacle... I believe in a continuum of people from drama to DRAMAH! to which Ms Hale seems to subscribe to the redder end. Or perhaps she's leaning on the "Any publicity is good publicity" addage for sales...

Buffysquirrel said:

Not really. Anything can be twisted to fuel what a person wants to believe.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. One of the tweets that Brittain commented on was the woman saying:

I just want this to stop :/

Click to expand...

To him, the emoticon meant she didn't really want it to stop. I'm sure if it hadn't been the emoticon, it would have been the word "just". As you said, anything can be twisted.

meowzbark said:

But, it's hard to classify Blythe's review as a constructive negative review. Does that necessarily mean that it's bullying? No. Does it have a higher chance of pissing off an author than a more tactfully written one star review? Yes.

Click to expand...

You can't see the review. The actual review is gone. The two words remaining were her answer to being harassed on-line. Her progress reports are still in place, but the review itself has been edited to "&*$% this." because she was tired of dealing with it.

bearilou said:

Oh look. Another author reaction.

NSFW or queasy stomachs images of the reviewer's head injury.

Click to expand...

Holy hell. That injury is [looking for descriptive word that fits]. What that author did is even more [looking for descriptive word that fits] than Hale.

Damn, maybe I should start carrying when I leave the house if I want to keep reviewing. Course, in this state, everyone carries a gun.

CQuinlan said:

This man also wrote about a blog stalking a woman and planning to ask her if she wanted to be 'fake' kidnapped. How the man is still walking the streets is a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

This is that guy? I wonder if the police (or at least the person who granted him bail) know the whole story or both stories, or whatever. Because he came all the way from London to Scotland to attack her, which I gather from English people is a long, hard journey. He's putting some effort into his crimes. I hope she shared that sequence of photos with the police and the prosecutors, who might have misjudged the seriousness of the attack. "Oh, it's a writer! A literary tiff, then?"