Most of you, no doubt, have already heard of the Stop the Goodreads Bullies drama unfolding on the Internet this week.
Here's the short version for those of you who haven't: they're a clique of angry tweens (some of them are adults, but mentally tweens) who have decided that reviewers on Goodreads who say mean things about books they like (almost all self-published and/or YA crap) are "bullies" who need to be "outed."
When I say "outed," I mean they post real names, photographs, and addresses and phone numbers of reviewers, and any other personal details they can uncover.
Now, in fairness — and this is about all the fairness I think they deserve, they claim that it's not about "bad" reviews. They claim that angry mobs of Mean Girl reviewers are going around picking on authors they don't like, posting 1-star reviews of books they haven't read, and harassing and tormenting their victims.
However, a brief examination of the evidence — like the so-called "bad behavior" they highlight on their own site — shows that this is transparently bullshit. The "anti-bully" campaigners are in fact the bullies.
So. Many. Authors Behaving Badly.
By some accounts, this latest iteration of spectacularly bad behavior began with a vanity-published author named Melissa Douthit, notorious for having been kicked off of Goodreads and several other sites and, among other things, harassing GR reviewer Wendy Darling after Darling posted a scathing review of The Selection, by Kiera Cass. (Cass is the author who exchanged Twitter messages with her agent following Darling's review calling her names and talking about how to game reviews to push the bad review down the page. Summary of this incident here.)
Melissa Douthit, not a direct party in the proceedings at all, but evidently the sort of person who just loves to step into other people's brawls and throw a few punches, proceeded to publish Wendy Darling's real name, photograph, and information about her children. Her defense being that this was all public information, which, yes, is technically true, but the act of hunting down a pseudonymous blogger's real identity and posting it for the express purpose of "outing" her is the sort of thing that could easily get her into legal trouble should some crazy person act on it. And even if it doesn't cross the line legally, it's a dick move.
(Details, including screencaps of Douthit's now-locked post, here. Another summary of Douthit's activities here.)
So, fast forward a few weeks. "Stop the GR Bullies" appears. Claiming to be against "bully reviewers" on Goodreads, they are, in fact, a deliberate, organized bullying campaign against reviewers who say unkind things about self-published and YA books. They dig up all the personal information they can about GR reviewers they have targeted, and post it publicly, complete with photos and in at least one case, where and when to find the reviewer out with her children.
(Latest reports are that the site owners have since purged a lot of the more egregious posts exposing personal information, but it is all screencapped if you care to dig into some of the links in this post.)
This alone would just be more fandom_wank fodder, an example of juvenile asshatery by children stuck in middle school.
However, these asshats, or at least people who have been egged on by them, are now posting one-star reviews for books of authors who speak out against them in various discussion forums (i.e., doing exactly what they accuse the "bullies" of doing, their justification being "giving them a taste of their own medicine"), and even escalating to harassment and threats.
In this Dear Author thread, you can also find, among the reasonable expressions of horror and disgust, a number of authors expressing opinions along the lines of "Well, {ritual token disavowal of violence, 'cause it's illegal}, but I can see why they did that because OMG REVIEWERS CAN BE SO MEAN!!!"
At first I thought it was just self-published and vanity-published authors who would be so shockingly unprofessional, but imagine my surprise to see Elizabeth Moon and Will Shetterly in the comments, both spouting high octane bullshit.
One really angry reader can influence thousands….and readers are not unaware of their power. Increasingly, online readers have made it clear–have said explicitly to writers both online and in direct communication–that they do have power, that they “made” the writer and and unmake the writer–that without them the writer is nothing.
Ms. Moon elaborates on this point at length: that writers are bullied, harassed, and can have their careers damaged.
Now, if Elizabeth Moon has been at the receiving end of vitriol that has actually damaged her career (I am skeptical), it probably has a lot more to do with her infamous anti-Muslim remarks. Likewise, Will Shetterly is... kind of notorious for publicly stepping on his own dick. So a couple of authors who've been at the center of shitstorms largely as a result of things they've said unrelated to book reviews coming out in defense of poor hapless authors being "bullied" by book reviewers strikes me as rather disingenuous.
Why do people do this?
So, to make this a discussion, let's discuss: why do people do this? It's easy to say "'Cause they're stupid and their brains aren't fully formed yet" when it's teenagers, but most of these people are adults. A lot of it comes from the YA and self-publishing worlds, both places where high drama, low maturity, and Special Snowflake Syndrome tends to reign, but what to make of veteran, professional authors like Elizabeth Moon and Will Shetterly jumping on the waambulance? Are their fee-fees really so bruised by 1-star reviews? Do they really believe that snarky reviews on Goodreads are damaging their livelihoods?
I think a combination of factors has given rise to this trend. The reading/publishing community has become much more interactive with book blogs, social networking sites, and public reviews (which can be responded to!). This is good and many readers and authors alike love it, love being able to talk to their favorite writers/fans and other readers, exchange recs or pans, and just socialize over books. It's not like in the old days when most authors would never interact with readers except maybe at a con, and you didn't see a lot of public discussion over books.
The downside of social networking is that social networks sometimes more closely resemble a pack of shit-flinging howler monkeys than a book club.
Many people over-identify with the things they love, thus taking criticism of books or authors they like very, very personally. A very small number of mentally unbalanced or just plain malicious people can easily put an entire community on the crazytrain to hell. The rise of self-publishing, which has made a lot of aspiring authors think they can make Amanda Hocking/E.L. James money, throws greed and self-identification and the opportunity to unleash one's unfiltered id into the mix.
But personally, I blame fan fiction. When a generation of children who grew up on fan fiction became old enough for some of them to start getting published, too many of them carried their sense of entitlement and special snowflakiness into the publishing world.
What reviews are and are not
Reviews are opinions. Usually unprofessional opinions , unless the reviewer is being paid to write them. Reviews can be insightful, even-handed, well-written, enlightening, and ennobling. They can also be nasty, snarky, biased, grudgy, and totally unfair.
Reviews are not for authors, they are for readers. A review is not meant to provide constructive criticism for the author. It is not meant to help the author improve his or her next book. The author's reaction is irrelevant to a review. That doesn't mean authors can't respond to a review. Go on with your bad self if you want to do that. It's usually a bad idea, but not always; some authors manage to engage with dignity. But be aware that many readers resent an author intruding into review-space, even if it's just to say "thank you." It has a certain air of "Maybe you'll moderate your tone if you know I'm right here listening." There are all kinds of reasons why most publishing professionals call it the Author's Big Mistake to engage with a review, especially a negative one.
The purpose of reviews is not to sell books. Often reviews do sell books (which is why Amazon and other sites encourage them). But reviewers do not and should not worry about whether or not their review will hurt the author's sales. (It is vanishingly unlikely that it will, no matter how scathing the review.) As with anything else, if you put out a product someone doesn't like, that person will tell their friends. Deal with it.
A negative review is not a personal attack. Unless it is. And even then... well, saying "This author is an asshat and can't write for shit" is not very nice, but yes, reviewers are allowed to say things like that. (Maybe not on Amazon, but certainly on their blogs.) "I think this author should be hunted down and killed" is a different matter, and I generally don't advise or approve of threats, even when obviously rhetorical. But, short of actual threats or libel (and 90% of the time, people who use the word "libel" use it incorrectly — "You suck" or "Your book is terrible and you can't write for shit" is not libel), anything is fair game in a review. Comments, upvotes and downvotes, "Like" buttons, etc., may be imperfect mechanisms for trying to sort out meaningful opinions from raving nonsense, but most readers can actually tell when a review is genuine and intelligent and when it's not.
Reviews are what they are. Live with them, and act like a grown-up about them.
Oh, and to the "Stop the Goodreads Bullies" folks? ('Cause I know you drama llamas are reading everything on the Internet that's about you.)
Grow the fuck up.
Had you heard of "Stop the Goodreads Bullies" before now?
Yes, I've been reading all about it.
35(24.1%)
I'd heard of it, but only a little.
31(21.4%)
No, WTF?
79(54.5%)
What should authors do when reviewers write nasty, inaccurate reviews about their books?
Vent to their friends, in private.
92(63.9%)
Writing a polite response pointing out inaccuracies is okay, but don't argue.
39(27.1%)
If you're in the right, it's reasonable to engage and point out (in a professional manner) when a review is unfair.
13(9.0%)
Give them a taste of their own medicine — reviewers should be held accountable for acting like assholes too!
0(0.0%)
What responsibility do (nonprofessional) reviewers have?
Reviewers should only write positive reviews and be as professional as they can. If you don't like a book, it's not fair to hurt the author.
0(0.0%)
Reviewers should write honest reviews, even if they don't like a book, but they should strive to be even-handed and polite. Nastiness and snark are unacceptable.
47(32.2%)
Reviewers should write honest reviews, and try to make them useful, or at least entertaining. They are not obligated to avoid hurting feelings or offending people.
64(43.8%)
Reviewers have no responsibility. Reviews are amateur opinions, worth what you paid for them, and if you don't like them, don't read them.
35(24.0%)
Bullying Links
John Scalzi weighs in (like a grown-up, as usual).
Hanging with the cool peeps.
It's not just books: Batman fans go nucking futs over bad reviews too
Relevant thread on Absolute Write.
SBD: Should authors engage with reviewers?
SBD: Book Reviews Spiced with Snark, and the Cult of Nice
Previous Saturday Book Discussions.