When you’re an author, you expect that you’re going to get bad reviews. You expect that you may even get extremely bad, unfair reviews. But there is a segment of Goodreads that has gotten completely, utterly out of hand.
I recently read Bennett Madison’s terrific YA novel September Girls, and when I marked it as read I took a peek at the Goodreads reviews to see what others had to say. I was utterly horrified at some of the “reviews” I saw. (And for the record, I do not know Madison or anyone connected with the book. I’m just speaking as a reader here).
Sure. Not everyone is going to like a book. The point of Goodreads is telling the world what you think. But reviews that are over the top serve no purpose. They are not funny. They are not constructive. They are just plain mean. (UPDATE: I removed links to specific posts because some were concerned that these people could be targeted. Those reviews are online if you want to search).
Reviews like these demean and dehumanize authors, and in fact the only way someone could write reviews like these is if they pretend the author and everyone connected with the book are some dispassionate robots who have no feelings. (Or they pretend the author isn’t going to see it, but come on).
Everyone knows that it takes a thick skin to be an author. But no one who writes a book deserves to be subjected to online abuse. It’s one of the strange aspects of online life that it feels like nothing to attack someone through a computer screen, but the recipient of that attack feels as acutely as if it happened in “real” life. Make no mistake: These aren’t reviews, they’re personal attacks.
And this is just the tip of one very dark iceberg. Author Lauren Howard noticed bad reviews when review copies weren’t even out yet, and when she complained she saw people putting her book on shelves like ‘author should be sodomized’ and ‘should be raped in prison.’ She ended up pulling her book. (There are some questions about what exactly transpired here. Porter Anderson has a very good summary).
It’s an axiom among authors that you can’t complain about your bad reviews. You never win.
But some authors are saying enough is enough.
A blog has been launched called STGRB (for Stop Goodreads Bullies), to share horror stories and to press Goodreads to help change the culture. (UPDATE: There have been some questions about this site’s tactics raised on the comments section that I was unaware of. Please read for more. The allegations are serious enough I have removed the links to the site.)
It’s terrifying to stand up to online bullies, who can quickly make your life a nightmare, but also because many aspiring writers feel as if published writers somehow have it made and have forfeited their right to complain about anything.
The truth is that it’s hard enough to write and publish a novel without having to worry that the result of that immense effort will result in getting unfairly slimed and harassed by a pack of online bullies. It’s not hyperbole to say that there are talented authors out there looking at this landscape who will conclude it’s not worth it, and great books that won’t be published as a result of this culture if it continues.
This really has gone too far, and the tide needs to turn back. People writing these reviews need to wake up and recognize the humanity of the authors they’re trashing and think of the people they’re hurting. It’s eminently possible to write a negative review without abusing the person who wrote the book.
UPDATE: I also want to stress that I am not advocating censorship, nor do I think people leaving bad reviews are bad people. I’m just advocating a culture shift. Let’s acknowledge each other’s humanity.
Also, for the record I LOVE GOODREADS.
Anonymous says
All of these book reviewers and goodreads fans have swayed my opinion. It’s not considered bullying if you’re not talking about the author! If you’re talking about the author’s product, you have the right to be as vitriolic and caustic as you want. If I want to call an author’s work a putrid abortion that should never have seen the light of day and then share my opinions with as many people as possible so we can all cackle at each other, I’m not being a bully! I’m simply providing an honest, straight-forward review.
Now, if I called an author a bad person, I agree, that would be completely unacceptable. One does not attack the author personally, and one would be a horrible person for it. But if I want to dedicate 2000 words and fifteen assorted gifs and memes as to why an author’s story was the most ridiculous tripe, the most egregious of offences, the most disgusting attempt at storytelling I’ve ever seen, why would you call me a bully?
And furthermore, I am simply a blogger with thousands of viewers. If you contend that my reviews are rude and improper, I will remind you that I am not bound by professional regulations of any sort. If I compare reading your words to being sodomized by an HIV-infected tampon, then I expect your professionalism to be upheld to its highest standard. Because that’s what you, author, should be: a complete professional.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to read a 75,000 word novel that I can tell I deplore after 10 pages so I can spend three hours and 1,500 words on a massive take-down so other vapid people can tell me how witty I am.
And don’t you dare call me a bully.
Anonymous says
This last post, written by "anonymous," at 4:21 PM, is just what Nathan is speaking about. Here we have the perfect example of a bully. Someone who doesn't give a whit if they ruin an author's career, or cause others not to read something that could entertain to possibly save lives. (Yes, literature has done that for many.) People like you have lost sight of kindness, of making the world a better place, by taking your negative views and making them as spiteful as possible. So let me be the first to say it: YOU ARE A BULLY. I dared. And there's nothing you can do about it but resort to more ugliness, which seems to be your method.
Anonymous says
Psst- anonymous @4:31. It was satire.
-anonymous @4:21
Anonymous says
Nathan if you want to read a good article about the bullying on Goodreads and what STGRB has done to stop it, read this:
https://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/authors-readers-band-together-to-stop-goodreads-bullying
It's appalling what has happened to some authors. One author had her information stalked and posted online. Then she got a threatening phone call from one of these people that STGRB calls bullies. The bullying on Goodreads has gotten horribly, horribly out of hand.
Jessa Russo (Stadtler) says
Second time I've deleted my comment today because I just can't find a way to put my thoughts on this into words.
But frankly, the bottom line is this:
Authors write because they love the written word.
Readers read because they love the written word.
Will I love everything you write? Doubtful. And vice versa. But I swear there's a way to hate a book without demeaning the author, or personally attacking the author, and I think getting to THAT point is the bottom line of this post AND this debate.
And now I'm off to focus on the writing I'm *supposed* to be doing instead of this. lol
Just be kind. It's so super easy. I promise. IT WON'T EVEN HURT, YOU GUYS. 😉
Anonymous says
It seems like some of the members of STGRB have made their way onto this post judging by the sudden influx of anonymous commentators.
PJ Dominicis says
Thank you for writing about this, Nathan. I came close to deleting my Goodreads author account several months after a blogger "critic" and her fervid followers went after me, and then after the readers who came to my defense.
My crime? I complained that her review of my debut novel was unfair because she had personal issues with the subject matter, so her entire review was really about that instead of the novel. She also quoted things out of context to make her points. So I politely cried foul. And then it began!
Her followers went on attack-mode like an angry swarm of wasps. I could not believe the vulgar and abusive comments they were bombarding me with. My readers tried to defend me, but then they too became targets.
I was distraught. My boyfriend had to contact Goodreads and complain. They removed the worst comments; however, some still remain. Then to top everything off, the bullies hacked my account and erased my entire Goodreads blog. (My stupidity for using the name of one of my characters as a password.)
If you look at the reviews of my novel you will find some good reviews, one horrid review from that blogger, and lovely comments like this one from that blogger's followers: "marked it as author-sh*tlisted-will-not-read…" And that was one of the nicer ones.
I later received emails from other authors who had similar experiences with this blogger critic.
End of story: now I seldom go on the Goodreads site, and I would never post anything there again.
Anonymous says
Hmm, okay, so you say 4:41. 🙂 However, the real bullies sound just like this, self-righteous, arrogant, and shamelessly bold, and I find it impossible to tell the satirists from the hecklers.
Anonymous says
"STGRB published reviewers' real names, jobs, photos, etc and even threatened a reviewer repeatedly via her home phone and joked about kicking her puppy's head around like a soccer ball."
I've read STGRB's posts since its inception in July 2012 and I have yet to see evidence supporting these claims. The person Wendy Darling is referring to here, the reviewer who allegedly was called and harassed, is Lucy Davis (Wendy's GR friend), who lied about receiving these calls. She had no number to show HuffPo's Andrew Losowsky or the police. She never went to the police about it and had no one to corroborate her story. Lucy, on the other hand, has been proven to stalk authors, look up their personal identifiable information and threaten to publish it online. If you all want to see a screenshot of that, go here:
https://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2013/01/13/more-bully-reviews/
Shaun Duke says
Just a note: that little Goodreads group you mention also wants to stop people from posting negative reviews of books which focus on the *merits* of the book itself. This includes someone saying they hated the book because it was poorly written.
There is a lot of abuse on Goodreads, certainly (just as there is on any online community), but I'm naturally skeptical of groups which think a harsh review is the same as saying an author deserves to be raped. One is legitimate, though harsh, criticism; the other is borderline illegal.
Anonymous says
"It seems like some of the members of STGRB have made their way onto this post judging by the sudden influx of anonymous commentators."
Oh okay, Anonymous 4:45.
Pot meet kettle.
Anonymous says
Anonymous at 4:45, are you saying that YOU are a member of STGRB since you, too, posted as Anonymous?
Jessa Russo, I have read all your comments, deleted and otherwise, and they are all great. I love your points. Well said, and also thanks for reminding me that I have to write today. 🙂
Lesley says
I think it's pretty unfair to remove the links to the negative reviews because of concern about those reviewers being targeted but to then leave the image of Blythe's review at the top of the post.
Nathan Bransford says
Lesley-
There isn't an actual link though which is why I left it? At some point these reviews are just out there, anyone can click over to the page and see them, no?
Aitch748 says
I'll just repost what I posted on another site about this ugly little war between authors who are expected to be thick-skinned professionals and reviewers who are allowed to be as childish and spiteful and vitriolic as they like:
Certain people on Goodreads pretend to be book reviewers in order to pick fights with authors.
The situation is this:
(1) Reviewers should be free to say what they like, within reason, about the books they review.
(2) It is unprofessional for an author to protest a negative review of one of his books.
But the bullies on Goodreads have interpreted this to mean:
(1) Reviewers get to use whatever gutter language they want and vent their hostility toward the author, personally, in whatever way the reviewers feel like. They get to lie about both the book and the author, and they have no obligation to be professional, civil, truthful, sane, or even readable. They even get to tag the author's books — all of them, including books the reviewer has never read — on shelves with ugly, childish names that suggest that the author is a misbehaving crybaby who hates free speech and deserves to have felonies committed against him.
(2) Authors who take the bait and respond to the libel in a review — hell, authors who make any response whatsoever to a review, no matter how civil or justified the response might be — deserve to be destroyed, on Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. as well as on Goodreads, and the whole Internet needs to know that this author is a walking well of excrement who does not deserve to be read by anyone. In fact, anyone who does read this author's books and dares to speak up in the author's defense also deserves attack, because that person is probably a sock puppet that the author created anyway, because nobody sane could possibly like anything this author wrote.
In other words, these fake book reviewers believe that they have the bully's perfect setup: a situation where they can bait and pester and harass someone who is in no position to fight back.
And because the powers-that-be at Goodreads (1) have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reining in even the most disruptive "reviewer," and (2) are quicker to admonish and even ban authors who talk back to "reviewers," that means that Goodreads is a hostile environment for authors.
Yet every once in a while, there is another article on the Web, telling authors that they are missing out on a golden opportunity to promote their books if they are not signed up with Goodreads. So a new author signs up, attempts to promote her work, and learns the hard way that the membership there is extremely hostile to authors promoting their work — and that apologizing for breaking the rules just encourages the "reviewers" to ramp up the harassment further. [Also note some of the reactions right here on this thread to Nathan, accusing him of failing to do his research, and continuing to scold him even after he amended his article.]
So Goodreads is useless to authors — but it's a wonderful place if you want a setup that lets you be as nasty as you want about an author's work, even if you've never read the work, yet prohibits the author from making any sort of reply.
Doug Brown says
Well said. As an author, I know bad reviews do hurt. But when they are just maliciously bad for the sake of being mean, it's unfortunate. I know that it gets to even the most successful artists, so how could it not bother starving artists and everyone in between? I recently read an interview with Nine Inch Nails front man, Trent Reznor, where he talks about how much the online bullying bothered him until he recently said he just didn't care anymore. He said it a little more colorfully than that, but you get the point. Having said all that, there is an important distinction between a poor review and just being malicious. My books have been criticized in reviews and, agree or disagree, I felt they were fair. My books have also been shredded and I've been personally attacked. That doesn't seem fair. I'm not a complainer and I'm not complaining now, I'm just making a point.
Anonymous says
I think STGRb are nothing but a bunch of crap-stirrers looking from drama where there doesn't have to be drama. Most of their evidence really isn't evidence at all and they only provide part of the story that they want their readers to know. They take things out of context and they never question whether or not the author stepped over the line. In my opinion, a book is just like any other product. If I can buy a golf club and give it a terrible review and bitch and moan and call names, etc. (and I can do it all without the president of the company calling me names and trying to get back at me), then I should be able to buy a book, say what I want about it and bitch and moan without the author stepping in. I don't write reviews for authors. I write them for other readers. I won't tell anyone that they are (insert choice word here), but that's my opinion. I'm a writer. I don't care about reviews on Goodreads. I don't even read them unless I have to or I am asked to. I also think that sales won't be hurt as much by having a bad review, as it would if I freaked out on one of my readers. I would never cross that line and other people might want to recheck their priorities.
Aitch748 says
I'll also point out that whenever STGRB posts an article about people on Goodreads baiting another author, the post includes both screenshots and links, so you can see for yourself whether the poster is telling the truth or just exaggerating for the sake of drama.
Mike Jung says
I think a common reaction to thoughts about aggressive, toxic behavior on GoodReads is to assume that the person expressing those thoughts is stating that everyone on GoodReads engages in that kind of behavior. That is a misperception and an overreaction. It's valid to note that there are a lot of people on GoodReads who are overtly decent, articulate, thoughtful reviewers – they deserve some acknowledgment for their style of engagement. They participate in and contribute to our culture of letters in a way that promotes its health and welfare, and we need them.
There ARE quite a lot of people who do engage in aggressive, toxic behavior on GoodReads, however, and more and more I find it difficult to accept the assertion that metaphors about rape, torture, murder, hate crime, and warfare are completely fine to use as long as they're applied solely to the book in question, and not the author. The greater the intensity of the toxic behavior, the more difficult I find it to keep it contained within a neat little box.
There are also people who engage in what I unquestionably describe as bullying. I know authors who GR reviewers have described on a personal level in the ugliest, most hateful terms. I know of an incident in which GR reviewers found which school an author's child goes to and posted that information as part of a string of aggressive, toxic comments. There have undoubtedly been many incidents in which GR reviewers have openly communicated about posting the greatest possible number of negative comments on venues outside of GoodReads. Those behaviors are not merely negative reviews of the work. I can't see how it's conscionable to defend them as such.
Is GoodReads actually for reviewers only? I don't know, although it seems like a restrictive way to define the space. I've always thought of it as a place for readers, which I personally believe is a group that includes people who aren't interested in being reviewers. I've yet to meet a professional author who isn't also a devoted reader.
I do think that readers are entitled to have and express their opinions of an author's work. And I also think one of the previous individuals to comment on this post made a point worth remembering – many GoodReads reviewers are not professionals in any sense of the word. That doesn't mean a GR reviewer who's not a professional is incapable of clarity, insight, and genuine elucidation – as I said before, plenty of GR reviewers ARE capable of those things. There are GR reviewers who care very much about being decent and ethical.
However, the people making the most toxic and aggressive comments on GoodReads are probably not people who feel any responsibility to adhere to even vaguely defined standards of ethics or decency. That IS their right, of course – free and open discourse, even when it's ugly, is something we all have the right to engage in, at least as long as it doesn't cross over into the realm of hate speech or slander.
That doesn't mean it contributes to our culture of letters in a positive or useful way, however. Free speech that's ugly but protected by the letter of the law can still be destructive. I don't think every review on GoodReads is destructive in that way, but I do think some of them are.
Carroll Bryant says
I have no problem at all with a reader trashing my book(s). They're just books. However, I do have a problem with someone trashing me in a book review. Especially when they don't know me. And in my book reviews, I have been called just about everything under the sun. LOL Including – but not limited to – a rapist, stalker and even a pedophile.
I don't even mind people going to my Youtube channel and trashing my songs.
But yes, there is a huge difference between a bad review that is honest and a review that bullies.
Tom Braun says
Wow, this is a… popular… topic.
My negligible contribution is this: I have noted that GoodReads ratings tend to be little bit more level-headed then those on, say, Amazon. And as such I've come to rely on them more.
For instance, a fairly mediocre book will likely warrant a 4 1/2 star average rating on Amazon, whereas on GoodReads it's more likely to have a 3 star rating.
I don't think this comes down to the excessive negativity of GoodReads reviews. Instead it seems like people are just more accepting of the fact that a three star review doesn't mean the book was the worst thing you ever read in your life.
Now, the specific reviews you linked to did not seem particularly abusive to me with the exception of their over-reliance on GIFs. I would expect an abusive review to include personal attacks, unsupported claims or to give no indication that the person has actually read the book. I skimmed the reviews, but none of them seemed to do this.
I feel like there may have been some confusion about the difference between what the book was saying and what the characters in the book were saying, but I haven't read the book so I can't say for sure.
From my perspective, GoodReads remains head-and-shoulders above the YouTube comments section, and I even prefer it to Amazon.
Anonymous says
This Carroll Bryant above me is one of the worst people that contribute to STGRB. I want everyone to know that. He has personally called people "cunts, fat whore, etc." on his blog and harasses a few reviewers, one of which shut down her blog to get away from him. He is not a nice person.
Amanda says
I'm a Goodreads librarian and while I think it's ridiculous to suggest that reviewers can't say whatever they want within the site's TOS about a product they paid good money for, others here have already said that better than I can.
I will say, in reference to STGRB, that one of the authors associated with the site sent friends to threaten me with violence on Goodreads. I'm not in any "gang of reviewers," I don't leave negative reviews about authors, I have no snarky shelves- I mostly blog about classics, written by long dead authors. I had to pull professional strings to get to the community manager on a weekend to have the person and their sock puppets removed from the site. Your point will be better served by disassociating yourself from such a histrionic and possibly dangerous website.
Anonymous says
Really, Amanda? You have proof of this no doubt.
No? You don't? Interesting.
Also, you say, "an author associated with the site"? How exactly is this author associated with the site? Did anyone on the site tell this author to attack you? Did they encourage it?
I can answer that for you. No, they didn't. Because STGRB does not condone that behavior. They say it again and again on their site. You should probably also point that out before you blame STGRB for anything that supposedly happened to you.
Amanda says
Yes, actually, I do. I have screenshots and I have the emails sent to and from myself and the community manager, which I would be glad to show to Nathan. The author is "associated" with the site in that he has posted on it. Snark at me all you want from behind your anonymous tag, but I was threatened, I can prove it, and that's the end of that.
Anonymous says
"This Carroll Bryant above me is one of the worst people that contribute to STGRB. I want everyone to know that. He has personally called people "cunts, fat whore, etc." on his blog and harasses a few reviewers, one of which shut down her blog to get away from him. He is not a nice person."
Another lie. The person you mention was Amanda Welling who was investigated by the police for death threats against Carroll. Not only was her blog removed, but also her Twitter account, her GR account and her Facebook account.
If you're going to come and leave a comment libeling someone, you should really get your facts straight.
Anonymous says
They may or may not condone that behavior, Anon, but they sure condone a lot of bad behavior on their site, including and not limited to, doc dropping.
https://bbawhisperer.blogspot.com/2013/09/f-keeps-it-classy.html
Anonymous says
"The author is "associated" with the site in that he has posted on it."
So blame the author who did this. Not the site. STGRB had nothing to do with it.
Laura W. says
As much as I like this blog, I have to disagree with this post. I think you made an error in singling out this image. You said, "Reviews like these demean and dehumanize authors," but all the critiques the reviewer made of the book were about the book. Yes, writers put so much of themselves into their books — but this review had perfectly valid, if sarcastic, things to say about said book. She said it was boring, predictable, had insta-love, etc. They are all valid critiques of the book and valid reasons why someone would dislike it. Could it have been said more nicely and politely? Absolutely. Does it deserve to be compared to other reviewers who threaten authors and say they should be gang-raped in prison? Absolutely NOT.
I take issue with this post because you seem to be saying that the line should be drawn when reviewers begin personally attacking the writer. I would count threats in that category, obviously, as well as bullying comments about how "they can't write" or "they should consider a different career." That seems to be where you're saying the line should be drawn…yet you pair this post with a review that, while negative, doesn't even come close to that. Saying mean things about the BOOK isn't saying that the "author should be sodomized" or "abusing the person who wrote the book." Where in this example did the reviewer abuse the author? She basically said "this book was terrible," but that's her opinion, and it's about the book. Not the person. It can be hard not to take things personally, but from what the review says — and what the bullies you've talked about here say — I sincerely doubt she meant it that way.
Anonymous says
"They may or may not condone that behavior, Anon, but they sure condone a lot of bad behavior"
Not quite, Anonymous. Get your facts straight Anonymous:
https://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2013/08/31/corruption-on-goodreads-part-one/#comment-22345
Linda Parkins says
Well put, reviewer Jessa Russo.
I have a thought, too.
If I run a review blog with 10,000 readers that I make money off of through ads, etc, then I can say anything I want, because I'm not a professional.
But if I am an authors with 100 readers and my book is free so I make no money at all, then I can't say anything ever, because I'm a professional.
(I'm neither. I'm just making a point.)
BOTTOM LINE
1) Fake reviews should not be acceptable, positive or negative.
2) Reviews about the author and not the book should not be acceptable, positive or negative.
3) Free speech does not include the right to slander.
4) Saying it's not slander if it's true doesn't mean much if you are lying about what is true. (Sad I have to even say this.)
Amanda says
I do blame the author- I also realize that it's telling that someone who is violent (or at least wants people to think he is in order to silence them) then posts regularly on a site that claims to be anti-bullying.
Distancing oneself from such a website can only serve to make your opinion more credible.
Anonymous says
The reviewer (of course you had to use her name, STGRB!) actually shut down her blog and all of her social media accounts so that Carroll would stop posting libelous statements about her and associating her with another blogger he has beef with. I know this because, not only am I friends with her in real life, I also know for a fact that nobody came to arrest her or investigate her. She dropped off the face of the earth to try to get away from all of this silly drama. Show me proof that she has been investigated by the FBI or the cyber police or whomever else is in your conspiracy theories. I see her at school all of time and she is one of my best friends. She thinks it is hysterical that STGRB thinks that men in suits and ties came to her house and dragged her away.
Anonymous says
So if STGRB doesn't believe in doc dropping, then what is this:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_ghRmg8Af8Q/USyyRfX9uaI/AAAAAAAAACk/W628PlEu_5Q/s1600/holy_terror_personal.jpg
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zpHuVKDQLZ8/USyyb2wLTrI/AAAAAAAAACs/ynHgSOO8PlQ/s1600/lucy_personal.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1-V_hUyUzHE/USyysHoRUuI/AAAAAAAAAC0/mVDQ4AENk4k/s1600/ridley_personal.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HEkNaZVqMZQ/USyywMMxw8I/AAAAAAAAAC8/npqD-xa-Bmw/s1600/wendy_revealed1.jpg
Anonymous says
(A couple years back a friend of mine discovered that putting "Hayden Christiansen porn" in your blog post would send the hit count skyrocketing. I see now it doesn't hold a candle to "STGRB".)
Anonymous says
An example of the type of person that supports STGRB and contributes to their site in some degree
https://cbslies.blogspot.com/2013/02/off-deep-end.html
Laura W. says
…so I guess what I'm saying is that from the different (and to my POV, conflicting) examples you've given in this post, I don't actually understand where you're saying the line should be drawn.
(I just know that if someone compared a review that I wrote which was critical and negative but still addressed valid flaws in the book, to a review where someone threatened to rape the author, I would be hugely upset and offended and would be afraid to post a review on GoodReads ever again.)
I see where you're coming from to a certain point, but I don't quite understand where you're going with this, and I will have to respectfully disagree with you as you seem to imply that only bullies write one-star reviews. Unless that's not what you're saying? But then I don't quite know what you're saying since you lumped that one-star person in with the "I want to rape and kill this author" people.
Anonymous says
Maybe the post shouldn't have been how Reviewer A maligned Author B. Maybe the post should have been how easy it is for people to lose their humanity when they are anonymous. I bet that some of the most vitriolic reviewers have kids and spouses that they love, have pets that mean the world to them and they go to church on Sunday. I bet a lot of them would never even think of saying those awful things to an author's face. I suspect that those things could be true of the people on STGRB as well.
But with the anonymity of the internet, it's just easy. Easy to be mean. Easy to be hurt. Easy to take things too far.
That goes for both sides of the debate here.
While it's totally not cool to make personal threats against someone because you don't like their book. It's is not only uncool, it's dangerous and foolhardy to out someone's personal information — home address, where they work, where they pick up their kids — on the internet. Tacitly inviting someone else to take action you wouldn't take yourself doesn't mean you're not complicit if something happens. It's impossible to know what kind of mental stability is involved in the public on the other side of your keyboard. (While not directly related, let's not forget poor Pam van Hylckama Vlieg and how social media brought a very angry person directly to her.) How awful would it be if you never meant it to go that far, yet something you said on the internet really led to someone being physically hurt.
Authors, it's a job. Part of the job is putting up with unpleasant reviews, fake reviews and things not always going as one would like. For the rest of us, use common sense. I would like to think that we are all capable of sorting out the real reviews from the crazy ones. I discount the excessively enthusiastic reviews as well as the excessively negative ones.
And really, play nice. No one needs their hand put in a blender because their book wasn't your taste. Gah.
Anonymous says
The people who are whining the hardest about STGRB are probably the ones who have bullied and have totally lost the point of your post. Per usual for this group.
Observer says
Part 1
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I see a lot of defense saying the author brought it on themselves, that they shouldn't read the reviews, they shouldn't respond.
I agree with that idea, I do. But that idea is ignoring reality and not addressing the real problem.
The reality is that sometimes authors do ignore reviews. Then the reviewer tweets at them. Says what do you think. Or intentionally posts slander that if not defended against, could cause the author personal harm – such as calling an author a pedophile, that is a serious claim to make.
I have seen cases where the author is not aware of the bullies or their game. They see something that looks like a clear misunderstanding. They think, "Oh, what a simple misunderstanding. I will just clear it up."
So they respond, and then are told they are attacking the reviewer. This sounds like it couldn't possibly be how it goes down, but I'm a reviewer on goodreads for many years and I have SEEN THIS FIRST HAND. This is how it goes down. I didn't believe it until I saw it myself.
Observer says
Part 2
It looks something like this:
Bully: "I saw the author on Twitter say they hate black people."
(someone tweets this comment thread to the author)
The Author: There must be some confusion. What I said was that I saw someone HATING ON a black person. My next tweet was how I stepped in and put an end to it.
Bully: "You're a racist and you have no business being here."
The Author: Please look at what I actually said. I truly am not a racist. In fact, I am black myself.
Bully: "The Author is stealing pictures from other people to pretend to be black."
Skeptic: "That doesn't make sense. If they are racist, why would they pretend to be black? I saw their tweet. It wasn't racist."
Bully #2: The Author has a sock puppet account. Anyone who would stick up for the a racist authors would have to be racist themselves or a sock puppet of the author.
Skeptic: I've been a member of Goodreads for 6 years, before the author even published their book.
Bully #2: Guess you are a racist then.
Author: I really think this was just a mistake.
Bully #3: Author, you really should stay out of this. You're acting extremely unprofessional, and because of this I now won't read your book.
(note: they never heard of the book before now)
*Bully #3 shelves book: I would rather shove razor blades in my eyes than read this book.*
Bully #4: I see we have another author behaving badly on our hands!
*Bully #4 adds book to author behaving badly list*
*Bully's 1-3 vote for the new addition on the author's behaving badly list*
Bully #5 that hasn't seen that thread yet but sees the list change comments: What did that author do?
*Bully #4 links Bully #5 to the discussion thread.*
Bully #5: God, will these authors ever learn! Reviewers have the right to say anything they want! If they can't handle reviews, they shouldn't publish.
Bully #6: Amen!
*Bully #6 links to Amazon fora where they have started a discussion alerting other people to this authors who is "butt hurt."*
Author: I think there is some confusion. I'm not racist, and I'm not complaining about any reviews!
Bully #7: Look at this review I just posted on their book! Someone down-voted it. SMH. *links to review*
Bullies #1-6 vote for the review on amazon and goodreads. Bully #7 posts the link to the amazon fora thread, where more bullies also vote for the reviews.
The review reads:
DON'T READ THIS BOOK IS YOU HATE RACISM! IT PROMOTES KILLING BLACK PEOPLE. IT'S EVIL! THE AUTHOR HATES PRESIDENT OBAMA! I WOULD GIVE IT 0 STARS IF I COULD. AND THE EDITING IS HORRIBLE. AND THE AUTHOR MAKES RACIST COMMENTS ON TWITTER.
Author: Hang on a second, here!! This isn't fair! My book is about two monkeys falling in love! No black people get killed.
Author response 2: There aren't even any black people IN the novel!
Bully #8: You really should attack reviewers for their opinions.
Bully #9: So you didn't put black people in your book because you are racist against them. That proves our point.
Author: That's not what I said. The book is about monkeys. There aren't any white or asian people in the book either… It's an all animal cast. i don't think it's fair the book got rated without having even been read.
Bullies 1-9 leave 1 star reviews on goodreads with a comment that says "Author bullies reviewers over negative reviews"
A few other bullies leave reviews on Amazon also. The author goes from have 3 five star, 2 four stars, and 1 two star review (accumulated over a period of a year) to having 3 five star, 2 four star, and 15 one star reviews in the space of 48 hours. No new copies have sold. The new reviews are not verified purchases. The 15 one-star reviews have 68 votes each as "helpful". 70% of these reviews at some point mention the author's bad behavior.
Observer says
Part 3
The Author, seeing now that this isn't a misunderstanding after all, vents on facebook:
"I just don't understand how I got 14 one star reviews in 2 days when I haven't sold any more copies on Amazon."
Bully #11: Aww, look, the author is butt hurt over a couple negative reviews and trying to say they aren't genuine.
Author: Well, the reviews aren't verified…
Bully #12: That doesn't mean anything. They could have bought a copy in print or some where else.
Author: The book is enrolled in Kindle Select. It's not available anywhere else.
Bully #12: Just accept that people hate your book and the rest of us don't want to read it because of your behaviour.
Bully #13: Maybe they borrowed the book from a friend?
Author: The borrow feature is turned off, and I only sold 5 copies so far. It's a brand new book.
*More negative reviews*
*More claims of author being racist*
*More claims of not having thick skin*
*More claims of not being professional*
*More negative votes on their good reviews and positive votes on their negative reviews*
*More claims of author attacking reviewers*
*Several of the bullies blog about the events, with a twist.*
One of the blogs posts this screen shot in evidence that the author is racist:
"There aren't even any black people IN the novel!"
Author: That's not fair. You didn't show what I said before that. You are taking it out of context.
Bully #4: How can it be out of context if it's exactly what you said? You brought this on yourself by being butt hurt over negative reviews.
Author: This started because you though I said something racist, not about book reviews.
Bully #11: You just don't know when to stop!!!
Author realized bully #11 is right and backs out. For the next month, the bullies continue to slander the author and leave negative reviews. A new author "screws up" and is put on the chopping block in place of the bloody skeletal mush of the last author. The negative reviews taper off. The new author on the chopping block starts getting negative reviews from the same people, who swear they read the book and are giving an honest opinion.
And so the cycle continues, on and on, attacking and silencing one author at a time and claiming that all they are guilty of is "posting an honest review"
Nathan Bransford says
1) I think this discussion has been great and for the most part very very positive from both sides. THANK YOU for that. You guys are awesome.
2) Could we please halt the discussion of STGRB? Both sides have aired their arguments, and it was never my intention to wade into that space. I really didn't know about the controversy. But let's please not let that derail this discussion because it's tangential to this post.
3) Laura W. and anon @6:06, to pick out just two from many, make some terrific points.
Thanks again!
Anonymous says
Anonymous, that's PUBLIC information posted online by the bullies themselves. That's not at all what Lucy Davis did or the GR bullies who stalk the Amazon forums. Lucy and her ilk looked up phone numbers and addresses, among other private information, and published it or threatened to publish it with malicious intent. That's much more sinister.
Regina Richards says
Thanks for this post, Nathan. This is an issue that really needs to be addressed if Goodreads wants to maintain it's credibility. Review Bully could send both authors and readers elsewhere eventually if this isn't addressed.
Eric Coyote says
I use jiu-jitsu to fight bad reviews. I Tweet them and post them on my Facebook fan page, especially the really awful ones. The best way to deal with bullies is to make fun of their childish behavior. I've also found every time someone posts a bad review, my sales go up.
Kate Bond says
I guess…I mean, look. I am a book reviewer with a successful professional writer husband, so I have a great deal of empathy for writers and how a person who sits in a dark room telling stories about his imaginary friends for a living might react to negative feedback. I get it. I have never attacked an author personally, but when a book promotes misogynistic or racist themes, I react viscerally. Because if you promote misogynistic views, you are a misogynist. If you promote racist views, you are racist. Period. And i will say, "I don't know what this author was thinking. This book is harmful to young women because of x, y, and z, and it was irresponsible of the author to promote views like this." and that's not attacking the author.
My husband is a professional television writer. Every week io9–a PROFESSIONAL blog where writers are paid–reviews his show. Sometimes the reviews are funny. Sometimes they make absolutely no sense. Sometimes the reviewer says things like, "Apparently the writer's room thought it would be interesting if they…[insert whatever]," and then they go on to cite something the network forced the showrunners to add to the script. Do you know what no one on that writing staff does in response? Comment in any way publicly. Do you know what they don't do when they see tweets that read, "This episode was fucking garbage?" Respond publicly in any way. This is because they are PROFESSIONAL writers, and they know that when you create a product for public consumption, you need to be prepared for public feedback.
A friend of mine created a tv show called Do No Harm. It aired on NBC last season. It was the lowest rated tv drama in network television history. Two of my close friends were on the writing staff. It was hard for them when the negative reviews started coming in. It really, really was. But, again, none of them begrudged the public their right to an opinion.
As long as personal attacks are not launched at the creators of content (and none of the reviews you cited contained personal attacks–in fact, one was almost entirely comprised of quotes from the book), consumers will vent their frustrations about products they found to be lacking in quality (or, in the case of September Girls, misogynistic–and misogyny is an attack on women, who have historically been an oppressed people across nearly all cultures) and sing the praises of products they particularly enjoyed.
I am disheartened by posts like this poorly-researched drivel (seriously, just google that website. They actively attack and stalk authors and reviewers) because they are harmful to indie and small-press authors who rely on bloggers and goodreads to promote their books.
Anonymous says
Observer at 6:18 (and the next few), that was so funny! I can attest that this is pretty much exactly what happens. I can't believe how close it was too conversations I saw, down to details like the way they take part of a sentence you once said and cut and paste to put it out of context. Brilliantly done!
Anonymous says
Thank you, Nathan. You got it.
Aitch748 says
I agree — the three-part post by Observer at 6:18 PM makes the same point many of us have been trying to make about the troll gang on Goodreads. Nice job.
It's not enough not to comment on a review; an author also has to tread carefully when somebody insists on visiting him on his own blog and specifically asking him to comment on a review.
So the situation isn't as simple as authors being "speshul snowflakes" and having meltdowns when a reviewer says that their books aren't up to snuff; the situation is more like trolls going out of their way to be unfair and thus provoke a reaction from the author that can be taken out of context and used as evidence that the author himself is bad enough as a person that people should be boycotting his work.