Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Kat Kennedy Gets It Wrong

Yes, we're back and bringing more snark and reviewer bad behavior. We found today's snark on Goodreads, and even though it occurred in another place, it seemed like good fodder. (Note this was written some time ago but just recently posted, so if any of our links don't work, please let us know)

GR reviewer Kat Kennedy writes for a blog called Cuddlebuggery Book Blog. Back On April 2 of this year, Kat wrote a post that took pot shots at Rebecca Kennedy, author of "The Forever Girl". According to Kat, Rebecca "ever so inno­cently tweets [a] neg­a­tive review" on Amazon "which, sur­prise, sur­prise, means that Hamilton’s small fan­base heads over to attack the reviewer." Snotty tone? Yep. Ridiculous implication that the author is responsible for her fans actions? Yep. 

Kat continues, "On another review, the author and some of her fans try to reach out and try to explain where the reviewer is getting it wrong." However, there's one large problem with this statement: the author never told the reviewer she was "getting it wrong". In fact, Rebecca repeated several times that the review was just fine with her. So this statement is a blatant--and we would argue, deliberate--misrepresentation of the author's actions.

The self-righteous post continues with, "Hamil­ton later believes that peo­ple are pur­posely down­vot­ing pos­i­tive reviews and so does the pro­fes­sional, clear-headed response of…requesting peo­ple upvote the reviews?" and is followed by some Twitter screencaps. To answer Kat's question:
There is nothing unprofessional about an author
asking her fans to like positive reviews.

We don't know where Kat gets this asinine idea that an author can't ask people who like her reading to share their opinions by writing reviews and liking other reviews that share their opinion. But she's off in some odd only-readers-who-don't-like/know-authors-get-to-have-opinions left field. Again.

Next Kat brings up a review on Fangs for the Fantasy and claims that Rebecca tries to explain to them why they are "getting it wrong". But, oops, Kat forgets to mention that the "getting it wrong" refers to a discussion in the comments regarding use of the word "crazy" that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REVIEW. And frankly, the way Rebecca got lectured to, we're surprised that she managed to maintain as polite and considerate as she did. Please go read the comments for yourself if you don't believe us.

Kat says this leads to an argument--which is actually close to a correct characterization form Kat for once--and angry tweets. Note that both parties in the exchange said some heated things, however, and this STILL has nothing to do with the book or book review.

Then Kat writes: "
But this is all fine because, as Hamil­ton explains in her own words below, she wasn’t argu­ing with the review or reviewer, she was argu­ing with the per­son!  Never mind that the entire dis­cus­sion over the term “crazy” began with Hamil­ton cor­rect­ing the reviewer over their opin­ion of her rep­re­sen­ta­tion of minor­ity groups…"

No, Kat, that Rebecca was NOT arguing over the book review or the opinions expressed in the review, but about the site owner's personal bad reaction to her use of a word in a comment--so her statement is correct. The italicizing simply shows that Kat doesn't understand that distinction. And Rebecca did not correct the commenter's opinion, but rather she clarified how she (Rebecca) meant the word. Big difference and to say otherwise is mischaracterizing the conversation.

Kat's blog post continues, and we'll pick up the dissection of its errors in a subsequent post. But would you want to read book reviews by someone who continually either doesn't read something correctly or reads correctly but misrepresents something? Not sure we would.


No comments:

Post a Comment