GR's New Terms of Service

I'm a bit late to the table with this, but as many who frequent this blog know, Goodreads recently changed its Terms of Service regarding how criticism directed towards authors--as opposed to books--would be dealt with. As Kara, the Director of Customer Care at GR, states in the linked post:

We have had a policy of removing reviews that were created primarily to talk about author behavior from the community book page. Once removed, these reviews would remain on the member’s profile. Starting today, we will now delete these entirely from the site. We will also delete shelves and lists of books on Goodreads that are focused on author behavior.

Although the implementation of the change in TOS was handled badly, in my opinion (with deletion of reviews and shelves without prior notice to members), I think that the change was long overdue and will ultimately make GR a better and more welcoming place to discuss books. I have a few random thoughts:

Why Mommy and Daddy Can't Have Nice Things

I'm a U.S. citizen, and one of the founding principles of our country--as enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S .Constitution--is the concept of free speech. Although, the First Amendment only limits how the government can restrict speech, the ability to express our opinions freely is also more widely held and vital cultural value. A privately-owned web site, such as Good reads, has the right to restrict speech and dictate the tone of discussion on their site. I think that most people who are passionate about a subject--in this case books, reading, authors, etc.--see the value in having a place where discussion about that subject can be wide-ranging, i.e. with minimal restrictions. None of us particularly likes to be told we can't talk about certain issues or aspects of that subject. And to date, Goodreads has mostly allowed wide-ranging discussion to occur.

Wide-ranging discussions are all well and good, however, until some participants use--and I would argue abuse--the privilege by repeatedly getting nasty with other members. Not every discussion is going to be civil; there are always going to be disagreements--even heated ones--and yes, some insults are occasionally going to be flung around. That's normal. But what inhibits wide-ranging discussion is repeated nasty behavior and personal attacks either by individuals or *groups* of individuals who target other members, particularly for minor offenses that are treated as if the offender is the most EBILEST PERSON EVAH!!!. In such an atmosphere, the loudest voices shout down all the others. The others are disenfranchised from the discussion.

The nastiness and poo-flinging in some areas of Goodreads has steadily gotten worse over the last year. Sadly, even though the poo-flinging was confined to a couple of genres and/or publishing methods, it became incredibly intense and drew national attention via several news articles and blog posts. So what's a business to do when it reaches this point?

GR's answer, clearly, was to place additional restrictions on discussion in attempt to refocus on its mission (or what I understand to be its mission) of being a site where members could discuss books. Not attack authors. Not attack each other. Perhaps if more members had taken a step back and said, "Hey, am I really adding to the discussion by making rude and nasty comments and by piling onto other reviewers and authors along with 1294 of my bestest friends?", then wide-ranging relatively-restriction-free discussion could have continued.

Lest there be any confusion: I am NOT talking about critical reviews or discussions that focus on the book or even about reviews/discussions that discuss the author's viewpoints as relevant to the book. I am talking about the shelving and all the other drama.

I Don't Care Who Started It

The poo-flingers on the reviewers' side claim that some authors started the poo-flinging by criticizing reviews or reviewers. They claim that criticizing, not just a reviewer personally (which is wrong), but merely a reviewer's opinion constitutes an "attack" on a reviewer. That is, they claim that criticizing a piece of writing constitutes an attack on the writer. However, they then turn around and claim their own criticism of a book--an author's piece of writing--is not an "attack" on an author. This is logically inconsistent and one of the reasons that their self-righteousness fails on so many levels. For the record, criticizing a piece of writing or an opinion is not the same as criticizing the writer.

The poo-flingers on the reviewers' side also make mountains out of tiny little specks of dirt. Take for example, the whole Kiera Cass drama. An agent made an unkind and inappropriate comment on Twitter--which the author simply deflected and did not participate in--and that resulted in a months-long, thousands-of-comments-long hand-wringing woe-is-the-poor-reviewer thread in response to the review that sparked the agent's comment. A thread in which the author was repeatedly viciously "attacked" (personal criticism, not criticism directed at her writing) and then had her book placed on shelves with names that also personally "attacked" her by a large number of people.

The poo-flingers on the authors' side respond to critical reviews with both thoughtful responses (sometimes) and personal insults (sometimes) directed at the reviewer. They claim that critical, even snarky reviews, are bullying or that they are "fake". Thoughtful responses are fine with me, but the rest? Nope. Critical, snarky reviews--so long as they discuss the book--are not "fake" or bullying, and calling a reviewer names or suggesting that they didn't read the book correctly or are overly critical, is all out of line.

Both "sides" in this need to stop acting like five-year-olds. It doesn't matter who "started it"; both groups need to put on their big-girl panties and stop. Be adults. Stop with the nastiness, the insults, the personal attacks, the poo-flinging, and the group piling-onto people they don't like.

Reading Comprehension Problems on a Reading Site

Many poster on the comment thread conflate GR saying, "You can't say that on GR" to "You shouldn't say that anywhere." Logic fail.

Hypocrisy, They Name is ...

Reviewers in the feedback thread are going on and on about how GR is for reviewers not authors and how authors need to never ever comment on reviews or invade a a reviewer's "review space"...unless, of course, it's an author the reviewers like--Ilona Andrews or Stacia Kane, for example (who are all fine authors and we are not knocking them for talking to fans!). Or indie authors like Angie Horn, who led a lot of the poo-flinging against other indie authors and who has subsequently been banned from Goodreads. So it's not all authors that these reviewers want to "stay out of their review space", just the ones that don't agree with their reviews.

Thou Dost Protest Too Much

Of course, many of the comments on the thread come from some of the worst poo-flingers, who are upset at the new guidelines. There are also the random over-the-top ridiculous responses (you knew I couldn't end this post without a little bit of snark, right?):

User JLC claims that the new guidelines amount to harassment of members; this is laughable. At least he/she admits that he/she is not a lawyer.

User Leah makes a long post that (deliberately?) misconstrues or ignores part of Kara's posts. She says, in part:

Your new policy is also really vague and hypocritical. Does it apply to living authors only? What about deceased authors? You do realize the literary canon is pretty much full of racist, sexist, privileged Dead White Dudes, right? So can we no longer discuss Joseph Conrad's racism in context of Heart of Darkness? Or John Updike's sexism? How about T.S. Eliot and Roald Dahl's anti-Semitism? What about the fact that Walt Whitman faked his own reviews? And geez, you may as well delete Mein Kampf from the site right now, considering it's nigh-impossible to discuss it without referring to its author, aka The Worst Human Being Ever.

This comment was eventually reposted on her author blog, and it currently has 591 likes. The problem is that this a complete strawman argument as Kara's original post already dealt with this issue:

Some people are perhaps interpreting this as you can't discuss the author at all. This couldn't be further from the case. The author is a part of the book and can certainly be discussed in relation to the book. But it has to be in a way that's relevant to the book. Again, let's judge books based on what’s inside them.

User Nicole the Reading Ninja thinks that the U.S. Copyright Act can be used to force a web site to post writing. She also says:

but when an author is free to write anything they want in a book, why aren't we free to express ourselves when reviewing said content, even if it means mentioning the author.

But an author is not "free to write anything in a book". They have to abide by the rules of the company that printed or published the book. Likewise a reviewer posting on web site has to abide by the rules of that web site.

There are also posters claiming that if they can't have shelf names slamming authors, then instead of doing the adult thing like creating a shelf called, for example, "not-for-me" or "not-interested", they are going to one-star all the books they haven't read by authors they don't like, thereby giving disgruntled authors yet more (legitimate) ammunition in this fight. Yes, behaving like pouty children is really going to improve the atmosphere at Goodreads. *sigh*

Final Thoughts

I will probably update this as I consider the issue more or in response to comments on this blog. I am open to discussing this, and I don't delete comments unless they are blatant threats or solely name-calling.

Carroll Bryant v Autumn Rosen - Round 2

In a continuation of yesterday's drama, Carroll Bryant has apparently been banned from Goodreads as his blog is gone and he is not listed as being a Goodreads author. So the mob got their way.

Yesterday, Carroll took to his own blog (linked above) and posted a response to Autumn's accusations in a blog post called, "Autumn Rosen - When an Author Slanders". I am posting almost the entire blog post here because it is short, and the entire thing is relevant to this discussion:

Well, one of the things that contributed to my being banned from Goodreads was this slanderous comment made by author Autumn Rosen. Keeping in mind that I do not even know this woman. She does not know me. We have bever met, never spoken, nothing. And yet, she took it upon herself to slander me without provocation. I don't need to tell you what she said, you can see it for yourself below. But this is just one small tiny sample of what I had to endure with these Goodreads bullies. People who didn't even know me, slandering me like crazy. And might I remind you, with absolutely no evidence what-so-ever to support her slanderous claims. I will be speaking with my lawyer later in the week to discuss our options where this fine lady is concerned. If he says I have any kind of a case, I am going all the way. Meanwhile, I will also supply a link to her blog and maybe you could go and tell her what you think about her remarks. Okay? Great! LOL

Yes, we know. Carroll really means libel, not slander, but an attorney will fix that for him. This is followed by a screenshot of the post in question where Autumn says Carroll dreams of being a pedophile and implies he is a threat to "little" children. We remind our readers again that, even though a relationship between a 36 or 48 year old and an 18 year old seems icky, it is LEGAL. Further a pedopfile is someone attracted to prepubescent children, and 18 is way past that. There is also a link to Autumn's main blog (not on Goodreads). Then the text continues:

Here is her Goodreads author page if you want to talk to her there. Keep in mind that all of her information is publically available. Being an author, you do not have to be a Goodreads member to view her profile. You do need to have an account however to leave her a comment. All you have to do to find her is type in her name on your search engine and it will take right where this link will. Just promise me that you will be nice.

This is followed by a link to her Goodreads author page.

Please note that in the text above, Carroll advocates contacting her by leaving comments her public blogs and says to be nice. He does not ask people to contact her privately (via phone or email), go to her house, threaten her, etc.

Here is the comment Autumn left on the blog early this morning:

I am requesting you remove this page as you do not have a Good Reads Blog since your banning and you have not posted the 589 other posts that include your rants and threats of physical harm to others. You are directly targeting me when I had nothing to do with your ban other than to support others who started it days before I became involved. After reading what you wrote it was hard not to speak out as a parent, like the hundreds of other people but you chose ONLY me. That is predatory behavior, only further proof of the reason for your bans.

I feel physically threatened by your targeting and threats. Putting me out there, inviting people to come and look me up because all my information is public (it's not), when I only stated my opinion, directly threatens my family and safety. I am NOT publicly available to talk to by anyone not of my choosing. You do not choose for me, so this needs to end. This is harassment and cyberstalking.

Autumn has missed a few key points both in the blog post and in U.S. law as we understand it:

First, Carroll is most likely targeting Autumn because she is the one who accused him of being a pedophile and a predator; other posters were mostly just asshats. We will have to review our screen prints of that to verify.

Second, we're not sure what Autumn's definition of "public" is, but when we Google her name, her author web site, Facebook author page, and her Twitter feed all come up, as do any number of other profiles of her on Smashwords, Linkedin, and other places. We fail to see how this is NOT "public". These pages are clearly for promotional reasons (and nothing wrong with that), but that means they are out there for the public to see and interact with.

Third, Carroll's blog posts do not advocate causing Autumn harm. Asking someone to leave a comment on a blog does not "threaten [Autumn's] family or safety". Even though, she may "feel threatened", the law seems to be on Carroll's side. If every author, blogger, or other person who "felt threatened" when they were publicly criticized could stop the criticism, the entire premise of the First Amendment would be undone. Autumn's lawyer should really review Brandenburg v. Ohio, a Supreme Court case which says in part:

the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

That said, we believe that Carroll would be better off advocating that others blog about the attacks on him on their own blogs or web sites, rather than advocating that those people contact the attacker through her public blogs and pages.

We will close with the fact that our hypocrisy meter is at full tilt by Autumn's ironic assertion that Carroll saying Autumn slandered him is harassment and stalking, yet her calling him a pedophile and child predator is peachy-keen. 

The post in question has been up and down this morning, but we do have screenshots of all this should those be necessary.

Update #1: Carroll has responded. He's not backing down. This looks like it could get ugly. Meanwhile, we also have reports that Autumn may be over on Absolute Write trying to make her case. We'll check it out as time permits.

Update #2: Carroll has removed the blog post referenced above.

Indie Authors Melt Down on GR

The latest GR blow up involves indie author, musician and blogger Carroll Bryant. He has made a couple of blog posts over the last few days discussing a relationship and break-up with an 18 year old book blogger, her and her friends' subsequent refusal to follow through on reviews of his book, and his posting of a list of bloggers who have supposedly done this (backed out after promising a review, interview, etc) to him and others. Without wading into the mounds and mounds of nastiness, name-calling, jumping to conclusions, etc.--by both sides in this argument--we did want to highlight two egregious meltdown by other indie authors participating in this thread.

First up is indie author Brittany Hiester--who has given an anthology that she appeared in a five-star review (where is the GR reviewer clique righteous indignation?)--decides to throw her comments into the fray, and we initially get this grammatically-challenged rant full of profanity and name-calling:

Dude you make NO sense as to what you did. Some girl that you know bullied you and got her friends to take part! No one said a damn thing to you until you started this whole thing. NO ONE EVEN KNEW WHO YOU WERE. The only person who knows you is Ira. Plus you're not only a Grade A jerk you're a grade A liar. None of those people from those blogs even know you! Plus I believe it seeing as your books have almost no ratings or reviews. If you want people to read those shitty shit shits you call books why don't you get connections like everyone else. Wait, too late you started this crap so now no one will review for you let alone buy your books. Even if they do review them now it'll probably only bash your book and brings it's rating down because of what you did. Besides I've seen the titles they are children's books yes? How about you wake up and open up your eyes wider and realize teenagers and adults don't read children's books. Oh and NOW after we said how you can't spell you come up with that excuse that the letters on your keyboard are faded out. But if that's so true how come there was an "e" at the end of the six on your blog. How stupid do you think we are? Oh yeah that's right you think we're so stupid because some people wouldn't go buy your poor, dusty, cobweb infested garbage! Oh and I'll keep saying this too FEEL FREE TO FLAG THIS ONE TOO! I know every time you delete my comment it's only because you know I am right and I embarrass you to the core.

Wow, that sure was a professional way for an author to present herself, no? Sure makes us want to read her book. [That was sarcasm in case you missed it.] Next come implications of sexual abuse of a minor and drug use:

Ohhh a lawyer. I bet you have same lawyer as Jerry Sandusky.

and

Damn right he's in prison. Just like this sick drugged up hypocrite should be. I love how we're all being called hypocrites for bullying when he did it before all of us decided to fight back.

Brittany's next two comments are merely childish arguing as opposed to the previous, possibly actionable language:

Fighting back for those bloggers that you're lying about. They don't even know you! You attacked them first by threatening to post that list so we're standing up for them against you. I love how you're saying you're on the phone with a detective when in reality you're not. You just say because you think people will be scared away. Well not me. Seriously go ahead and get your "detective". We'll all be waiting

Oh and I hope you know all those blog you blacklisted are getting new followers now. That's the only good thing about this shit. Oh no I cursed are you gonna get your detective after me for that too? XD

More allegations of drug use, plus more profanity (does an author really think that cursing and ranting is the best way to attract potential readers?):

They only take this stuff seriously if it's happening amongst high schoolers. That's why I was saying this crackhead is full of just as much shit as those blog posts he posted. Plus we have no physical contact so nothing will be done. And he's gonna look like a fool because he started it even if a police officer did bother to take a look at this.

Then the crazy-sauce hits the fan. Brittany needs to look up the definition of bullying, because she misuses it here. Ordinarily this would be funny, but since there are so many false accusations of bullying, harassment, and stalking floating around on GR lately, we feel that it is important to use terms correctly.

Yea you never mentioned anyone's name, but you mentioned those bloggers and it's their site that they own. So you are still mentioning them either way. You're right we did choose to come here. I don't recall anyone saying that they didn't. You wanna bully those bloggers that you've lied about? This is what you deserve! You're a big cry baby who can say all the shit he wants, but when it gets thrown back in your face you demand we leave you alone. How about you leave the people who've done nothing to you alone first and I mean those bloggers incase your drug infested head forgets like last time! This is why we are still coming at you! Because you did wrong in the first place by bullying those bloggers. Come on where's that detective where's that police officer I am waiting!!! 

Yikes!! If we had a GR account, we'd be putting this author on our own batshit-crazy-authors-to-avoid shelf. Our batshit-crazy-reviewers shelf would be larger, though, if it were possible to create one. Next comment:

So what you screen shot it. Where is your detective? Come on bring it! Feel free to screen shot mine too for all I care little boy. Hey check this out we're not playing either I'm sending this shit. Good thing we can still kinda see your name. Tsk tsk tsk what a poor troubled old fart you are

Name calling? Check. Profanity? Check. The previous comment occurs in the middle of a discussion of Carroll calling the police and/or his lawyer after another author accused him of being a pedophile--we have that coverage below--and the next comment is in reply to Carroll posting the comment was not criminal according to the police.

No shit she can't be arrested dippity shit that's what we were telling you before. Now maybe you'll be a good little boy and listen us better. Like I said I could care less if you screen shot mine. Tons of your comments have been flagged not only that, but your account is in the process of being shut down. I will have a nice day thank you! I'll be eagerly awaiting for your Jerry Sandusky detectives to contact me. I really hope you're not planning to go to the playground across the street from your house to watch those little kids.

Note that there are even stronger implications of pedophilia in that comment. In our opinion, although we are not lawyers, Brittany is getting very close to defamation herself here. That and she is just being an all-around asshat:

See told ya he's a class A liar. Not that I wasn't right before of course. And we'll leave it when we feel like it how's that?

Her final parting shot before the entire blog and its comments were deleted was the following:

Dude did you even read wtf we said. Clearly not otherwise you would remember who we said you were bullying and how exactly you were doing it. I refuse to repeat myself. Not only can you not spell, but I guess you can't read either. How in the hell are you an author? Whoever helped you must be just as much of a dippity shit as you are. This shit may be in a post, but it's still bullying no matter how you look at it. Stop making excuses for yourself for why you do this shit because none of us are gonna stop until you stop. You started it in the first place with your retarded post. I bet you have almost no money and no life. I bet you still live in your parents basement and all you do all day is eat, sleep, shit, and harass people all over the web. Unlike you I have a life and will be leaving for work in half an hour.

Brittany's line "how in the hell are you an author?" is particularly ironic given her own writing challenges so amply demonstrated by the previous comments. Brittany, honey, if you ever read this, please look up the proper use of commas. We learned how to use them in the eighth grade. Just sayin'... Overall, we recommend staying as far away from Brittany as possible.

***

Now let's expand on something we mentioned earlier: the accusations of pedophilia. Indie author Autumn Rosen--who, like Brittany, has five-star-rated one of her books without being called out by GR reviewer clique and has "liked" positive reviews on her other book (something Kiera Cass was castigated for merely considering doing)--also has a meltdown and posts comments on the same thread. Her first post just plain gets if wrong, about both "bullying" and "children" being involved:

This is just sad. Bullying children on the internet is pathetic at best, just stop before you are in over your head. "Karma's tool" is just a tool. What you post on the net is forever marked upon your digital soul. R.I.P. Carroll Bryant you have sealed your fate on G.R. I feel very sorry for you.

Then comes this doozy:

He's a joke with no punchline. I hope the ban goes through. One less sad example of writing goes into the wind and one less child predator around to spread hate when he gets caught lying about his age by some other poor unsuspecting under aged victim. He dreams about being a pedophile and even blogged about it. Please Good Reads have the sense to ban this horrible person. It may just protect a little girl or boy.

And that's the post that apparently sent Carroll to his lawyer. His relationship was apparently with an 18-yr-old--a legal adult--and whether he is 36 or 48 or 98, that is still a legal albeit rather squicky relationship. None of the girls was accused of being friends with was prepubescent. Further, Autumn's assertion that Carroll dreams of being a pedophile and blogged about it materially misrepresents the gist of the blog post. Even more telling is that Autumn deleted this post shortly after she made it. More whinging from Autumn:

I reported you to Good Reads and we can take this to court if you like. Threats will not bring you readers. Your character has been spread all over the internet without my help.I posted screen shots for Good Reads in the report and they can deal with you as they like. I have you for slander on your site already. We can compare notes and maybe bring in this girl who has so wronged you. Yes we can make this as large as you like. The law is on my side. Free speech is beautiful isn't it? I only wrote what I've read from your site and your words.

And after Carroll reports that he is talking to his lawyer:

Well my spouse is a police officer and I have broken no law in my state or country. Have fun with your chat in Ohio. I live in Britain most of the year and I don't have to tell you where. Catch me if you can, Carroll.

Her husband is probably only well-versed in criminal law not civil law, and aren't defamation and libel torts rather than crimes? Gotta hand it to the delusional chick though, she decides to "stick" to her guns:

I do think you are predatory and I stick by that.

Her last comment, again before the mass deletion, demonstrates her lack of understanding of the difference between opinions and something stated as a fact:

The law is on my side. My opinion of you cannot be found defaming. The end.
My lawyer said. For a statement posted on the Internet to be defamatory, it must be a statement of fact, by definition opinions posted on the Internet cannot be defamatory.
So please come on. You going to pay to fly over here? You would have to come here to sue me and file your complaint here. I guess you can afford that being an international best selling author.

Her lawyer is correct, to the best of our knowledge, about defamation. However, this is typically a matter for a court to decide--whether a statement is a "fact" or an "opinion"--and frankly since we are not lawyers, we can't offer any more insight. But here's the practical lesson: If you call people stupid or asshats or make other judgments about their character, you're probably pretty safe. But when you accuse a person of being a criminal--and a particularly loathsome type of criminal, at that--you better expect them to respond harshly. Even by calling a lawyer and suing you.

So what do we have from today's now-deleted thread: a personal relationship that turned sour and spilled over onto the Internet + two rabid indie authors rapidly destroying their reputations be behaving like reactionary asshats. Just a typical day in the GR cesspool.

Acceptable Author Behavior

We pose the following question to the GR reviewer posse:

Author A receives a number of 1-star reviews on GR which he/she claims are retaliation for something he/she posted on the Internet. Which of the following do you find as ethical and mature responses:

A. The author rates his/her own book 5 stars to balance out all those 1-star ratings by "trolls" and explains in the review that he/she has done so because of the "vindictive" ratings.

B. The author's significant other posts a positive review of the book.

C. The author's friends and "beta readers" post positive reviews of the book.

D. The author doesn't respond to the 1-star reviews because GR is a site for readers not authors, and authors and authors' friends and family posting positive reviews (or liking positive reviews) is gaming the system and therefore unethical.

E. A, B, and C.

***

Alright, we're back.

First, our answer to the above multiple choice: We find (A) and (B) unethical, but we would not be opposed to the  author or author's significant other simply liking the positive reviews. We find (C) ethical because friends aren't immediate family (and immediate family is TOO close to the author to be posting actual reviews for our comfort). We are also fine with (D) - the author not responding at all, not even liking the other reviews - although not because responding is "gaming the system" but because responding is futile and might come across as hyper-sensitivity. See "The Skinny on Us" page for more info.

Now, what do we think the GR reviewers would say? Easy, (D) of course!

Let's make the question more interesting then. Let's say Author A is also a GR reviewer and that the author's significant other, friends, and beta readers are also GR reviewers who contributed to some of the recent YA mega-complaining-threads. Now, GR reviewers, how do you answer the above question? Do you denounce Author A and the others just like you've denounced other authors recently? Or do you let these actions "slide" because you are all GR friends?

Since this question has now left the realm of the hypothetical, we already know the answer.

Reviewer Kira and "Tempest" by Julie Cross

GoodReads reviewer Kira wrote a review of "Tempest" by Julie Cross based a a few sample pages offered as a free preview. One of the characters in the sample pages is portrayed as man-hating, and another character refers to the initial character as someone prone to "feminist" rants. Kira objects to what she sees a stereotypical depiction of feminists as man-hating and angry.

Hm...

The quoted text actually just implies that one man-hating girl identifies herself as a feminist. It never says or implies that all feminists share that same view. Without actually reading the rest of the book, Kira also asserts that the book, as a whole, misrepresents feminism:

The attitude to feminism that this book has is the same as the masses; that all feminists are angry, man-hating bitches with nothing better to do than to moan. Apparently we're all lesbians, too, because the only reason anyone would be a lesbian would be to escape men - it wouldn't simply be because they're naturally attracted to other women. Why, no! How preposterous!

I am also extremely insulted by this book's quite overt insinuation that because I am a feminist, I'm a misandrist.

[As an aside: Kira's entitled to her own opinion of it, but this is a bit silly IOO. If you haven't read the whole book, you can't know how the issue is ultimately dealt with. You can complain about the scenes that you did read, but any further speculation is just...guessing and frankly, we're not impressed by guessing.]

Dan Krokos, author of another book, pops in (big mistake!) and asks what is actually a very pertinent question: "What did you think of the rest of the book?"

Then the discussion goes off into how the text supports harmful stereotypes, confuses feminism and misandry, etc., by reviewers who, mostly, haven't read the book and can't speak reliably about how the book portrays feminism beyond this single scene.

Dan gets accused of trolling by another reviewer, even though he was not the only one to ask what Kira thought of the rest of the book.

Kira feels paranoid because OMGWTFBBQ authors might actually read her review. Later she accuses unnamed authors of stalking her. For reading and responding, I think, to publicly posted reviews. This is about where we flagged this thread for inclusion on this blog.

Another reviewer mentions that reading the entire book might be a good thing. The first bandwagoner to respond to him states, "The narrative supports the 'feminist = evil man hating shrew' stereotype through other characters, including Holly, and especially through the characterization of Lydia herself. She's a walking stereotype practically designed to legitimate it." This bandwagoner also states that she hasn't read the book either, just the few passages that others have posted. 


Julie Cross, the author of the book, jumps in and is very gracious. Kudos from us, Ms. Cross!


And this only on page 2. The entire response thread is 8 pages and almost 400 comments long. There's much talk of abuse via Twitter, never-ever-OMG-never reading certain authors again, author bashing, high-horse lecturing by reviewers, whinging, etc. Many reviewers tell Kira how sorry they are that, OMG, poor thing, someone said something bad on the Internet about her and/or her reviews, and at the same time saying bad things about authors/author's comments. A couple of other authors make gracious appearances (kudos to them as well!). Dan Krokos eventually apologizes for posting anything at all in response to the review.


Even though we've read a few linked up blog posts, we can't find any screenshots of Dan Krokos' Twitter posts that supposedly "bullied" Kira. Kira says that she does not have a Twitter account and thus could not have been contacted by Dan via Twitter. Cyber-bullying is a very real problem, and it bothers us to see that term misused here. Posting a few stupid comments about someone somewhere on the Internet is, well, stupid, but it's not bullying or harassment.


The whole debacle was tiring to read. Authors shouldn't jump into review threads to complain, period. But it is the height of hypocrisy to write aggressive and hostile reviews and then act surprised and outraged when you receive some hostility in return. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

(OK, enough cheesy sayings...)

Reviewer Sophia vs. Jamie McGuire

A reviewer who goes by Sophia wrote a review of Jamie McGuire's Beautiful Disaster. She doesn't like relationship portrayed in the book...or at least the first nine chapters of the book, because that is all the further she read. The review is quite hostile to the book and includes some digs at other reviewers liked the book:

No really, how can you read this?

It scares the shit out of me to see that some people are able to read such violence and yet remain flippant and oh-so-casual like it's no big deal. It makes me wonder, if they ever witness a real beat-up, would they react? Would they care?

And for those who pretendedly realized that it wasn't healthy, but yet managed to like the book anyway: why would you want to witness such a relationship? What's the pleasure in contemplating two people who never, ever realize how deep they've fallen into violence and abuse?

This review comes to the attention of the author who, rather ill-advisedly, makes a blog post that criticizes some reviewers and asks them not to"demean and disrespect [her] fans" who liked the book. The blog post would have been far better without her comments about the attitudes of reviewers who didn't like her book, but still, she has a valid point about the reviewer in question attacking her fans.

Of course, this blog post seen as WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE AND UNPROFESSIONAL by scads of bandwagon-jumping reviewers on GR. Because authors are never ever supposed to react to reviews. Ever. Even if the review crosses the line from talking about the book to talking about the author and/or people who liked the book. For the record, we think the author should have left well enough alone, but the holier-than-thou attitude of some of the reviewers posting in that thread turned our stomach.

The author is later taunted via Twitter by a reviewer at - and owner of - a popular web site:

jane_l Jane L

@JamieMcGuire_ I'm posting my review on Sat of ur book & it contains everything that you seem to hate and despise in a review.

jane_l Jane L

@JamieMcGuire_ so if your google alert pops up with a link to a site called DearAuthor.com you probably don't want to read it.

Another blogger picks up the kerfuffle but says only that McGuire "abuses negative reviewers in blog" and leaves off the part about the blog asking reviewers not to abuse the author's fans.

Yeah, right. Look, folks. You can post nasty reviews that make unflattering comments about fans, other reviewers, etc., on the Internet all you want, but it's hypocritical to then get pissed off when the people you attacked - or their friends or supporters - get upset and respond. In other words: it's your right to be an asshole on the Internet, but it's also the right of others to call you on it.