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.
Mark Noce says
I def agree with this, although I've seen the opposite as well…i.e. authors who cannot take any criticism of their books. Honesty is important, but these instances sound like they're just people with an ax to grind (shrug).
Anonymous says
If in order to get your point across you need to be anything less than human, anything less than professional, and treat any one any less than you would want your child, or mother or even your dog treated – you are the lowest of the low.
These "bloggers" spout off about their feelings being hurt and how they need to be apologized too, never once to they stop and think about the CAREER – not hobby SOMEONES EFFING CAREER they ruined because they made a snap judgement about a person they didn't know, about a book they had never read. Poor Lauren Howard – my heart breaks for this girl.
Thank you Nathan, for being strong enough to post what I have wanted to say for a long time.
Magdalena Munro says
Ahh…remember the days when a bad review in the Sunday NYT Magazine could kill a book? While I (often) shiver at the wild wild west atmosphere out there in electronic land, I hold onto hope that a few nasty people won't ruin the life of a book. Thank you for mentioning human kindness and dignity which often does go by the wayside behind our keyboards. I remember I was featured in a Huffington Post blog in 2009 during their series on unemployment. My blog was about the irony of "the recruiter not finding work" and it was an earnest account of how I was struggling to find a job. The picture I chose to post was of me and my son. I remember one person (anonymous…of course) that said how "dumb my son and I looked" in his comment. I remembered then and today how we can choose to let these people (often projecting their own misery) hurt us or see if for what it is and move on. Thanks for the post Nathan!
Elizabeth Yu-Gesualdi says
I recently received a one star rating for my novel Broken Road. No review, just the one star rating. I was saddened by it and to be honest, I had gotten spoiled by all the 5 star ratings and great reviews that the book had been receiving. I knew it was coming, but was still taken aback by it. Then all of a sudden, I received a private message from a young girl informing me that she and her friends were "having fun by going around screwing with authors by giving them lousy ratings." I wanted to scream! Instead, I did nothing. Well, by that I mean I didn't respond to her message. I was afraid that if I did, she would add a horrible review to go with the lousy rating. I did contact GR and informed them of the situation. They responded immediately and said that they would look into the situation and take care of it. Well, it's been 3 weeks and her 1 star rating is still there to taunt me on a daily basis! When I click on her name, I see that her account is still active and she is having a wonderful time ripping authors and novels apart in the many groups that she is a member of. Ugh. So frustrating!
Anonymous says
I think what it all boils down to is YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for our own actions.
Regardless of what the other person is saying, it is up to you to either behave like an intelligent rational human being or to throw yourself into fray and mud sling with everyone else.
The best thing to always remember is when you sling mud around, you will always end up with some on yourself.
Muzz05 says
While I agree that that website went to far, this article is about the Goodreads bullies. They go too far every day, they don't care if the things that they say send a person into a tailspin, they don't care if authors lose sales and can't pay their bills, I have no sympathy for them at all. I'm sick to death of hearing that authors have had to pull their books off of Goodreads because their ratings have tanked due to troll revue tactics. So they have no sales. If you think bad reviews don't hurt sales, you are sadly mistaken. Even if I don't read the review, if I see a book with a bunch of 1 & 2 star reviews, I'm not even reading the blurb, much less buying it. Amazon allows you to report these types of reviews and I hope Goodreads starts that now because, although I will post revues there at an authors request, I no longer use Goodreads and don't plan on starting because I get too angry over this nonsense from supposed adults!
daniel t. radke says
In response to Laura W.-
Good points, and I agree with most of them, except the ones you're sorta glossing over.
Could Blythe Harris have been less sarcastic? Less biting in her review? Yes. To me, that's the point.
I don't think people shouldn't have the right to be an asshole and as scathing as they want to be. And I don't think we should ban one star reviews. If I got a calm, polite one star review and it contained very valid points as to why he/she didn't like it, great! I'll use the information to better myself as a writer.
But if someone gave me the Blythe Harris treatment? Multiple pages of sarcasm and nasty gifs and scorched page? So they can, what, get more followers and everyone can have a nice laugh at the author's expense? I'd probably curl up in a ball and sob for a week.
And I love all the comments on Twitter from Blythe and her buddies. They're all aghast at how Nathan singled her review out. How it's somehow not technically bullying because the author him/herself wasn't attacked directly. She was still being incredibly mean. And I'm talking popular-blonde-hot-chick-in-every-high-school-movie-ever mean.
If you look past Nathan making an equivalent of Blythe's review and people saying the author should kill themselves, you'll see he's just saying, "Can't we all be a little nicer?"
And it seems the response from Blythe and other book bloggers has been a deafening "No."
wendy says
Also, when reading the responses to Twitter posts made by celebrities, or responses to almost anyone uploading videos on YouTube, I'm gob-smacked by the horrific nature of some of those responses. I'd hate to be a celebrity and have to put myself out there only to encounter this kind of insanity. And vile, non-nonsensical hateful posts are insanity – not to be taken seriously. Although that's easy for me to say, I admit, as I've not been on the receiving end for the most part. But I suspect it's a warped juvenile mind that is responsible, so these responders are more to be pitied for the tortuous state they must be in psychologically than given any credence or the power to upset. It sounds like the terrible reviews on Good Reads are, like the aforementioned YouTube and Twitter posts, extreme and ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by anyone. In real life would we allow an immature teenager with a perpetually bad attitude and warped understanding of life to define who we are? I'm not saying these derogatory and vile posts encountered on the internet are by adolescents, but I do believe they are made by those who have the maturity level of children – troubled children without empathy but plenty of anger and a warped sense of self and how the world really works.
When a human being is acting in any kind of negative way, especially as in the above, this is a signal that something is wrong with that person – and, therefore, they are in a very unhappy place with themselves and their lives. We can't allow the judgement or actions of such people to influence our own thinking or define who we are as such negative actions and words only define their source – not those they are attacking. However, given that the negative people are wounded, themselves, attacking them in retaliation is like attacking someone who is already hurt/sick and not functioning properly. I'd like to suggest either ignoring such diatribe or showing kindness along with some words of wisdom, because more than anything the truth can set us free, especially minds that are clouded with anger, fear and despair. All these illusory states of mind do more harm to the human psyche than anything else and are our real enemies – not each other.
Melody Valadez says
Wow. How could people do this? Don't people realize this is a *book review* site, not an *author review* site? It's for people who love books and can still respect and honor the ones they don't like. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Nathan.
Anonymous says
Anonymous above said, "You will be next, Nathan." Those words couldn't have been more true. Guess whose book they've already started attacking with derogatory shelving:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8691969-jacob-wonderbar-and-the-cosmic-space-kapow?from_search=true
Melody Clark says
Thank you, Nathan. And amen.
Anonymous says
Goodreads is a good premise, but the execution leaves much to be desired. To say the site is flawed is being generous. The gang mentality has taken something that could be a great community and given it a terrible reputation. So much so, that as an author, I'm posting this as anonymous to avoid backlash for my honest opinion. Authors in the corner with your mouths shut where you belong and take your beating!
Christine London says
I wonder if Amazon, now that they own Good Reads, will rein this in–as they do on Amazon.
Josin L. McQuein says
Nathan,
You've removed the links, but the image at the top of the page still identifies the reviewer. You might want to crop her name out.
Rick Carufel says
Hi Nathan,
I notice the trolls have found your blog. You will now experience first hand these criminals in action. They have your number now and will persecute you endlessly. These are a gang of serial stalker trolls who will make every effort to stalk, bully, harass, defame, libel and terrorize you from here on out, welcome to the group.
Anonymous says
Rick Carufel is a convicted cocaine dealer and has repeatedly attacked reviewers. This is the sort of person that STGRB likes to hang out with.
Your comments section has been over-taken by STGRB supporters who, obviously, have found this article because they sniff out anything that shows them in a semi-positive light. Google is an amazing tool to use before writing an article like this.
Anonymous says
"you'll see he's just saying, "Can't we all be a little nicer?"
And it seems the response from Blythe and other book bloggers has been a deafening "No.""
THIS
Anonymous says
Wow. In the big and important scheme of things, Goodreads is an awesome site for both readers and authors. It is truly sad you are inciting fear and giving such poor advice to young budding authors. I have been a member and reviewer since 2008, and I can't tell you how many new authors I learned about from that site and went on to endorse.
I think its biggest problem isn't a bully culture (which is miniscule in actuality), but the cloud of fear that new and naive authors such as yourself are irresponsibly spreading with articles like yours — poorly researched and full of hearsay conjecture.
With a little research, you would learn that most of the screen shots on that site you support are used to tell a very edited version of a story, and they rarely tell the full version. They are yellow journalists, pure and simple. They are an angry group founded by a person who was kicked off of GR for a multitude of violations.
Yes, there have been some author/reader fights on Goodreads. And Goodreads does step in when notified to delete, ban and/or close comments as needed.
Authors and reviewers both behave horribly at times. I hate that you make this all about the reviewers. Shame on you for spreading that perception.
I am not justifying any of the attacks, regardless of where it happens or who started it (including in your own blog comments, as you can tell it is not just a Goodreads thing). There are always two sides to a story, and you didn't get either side right.
If you want to stop anything, how about stopping naïve bloggers and authors from spreading rumors that cause undo fear? Seriously, if you want to help young authors, tell them not to respond to their negative reviews. PERIOD. It will only make things worse. Remind them that negative reviews are not a personal attack, but are simply part of the cycle of life as a published writer. Remind them that they are the professionals in the equation of author and reader. And most of all, remind them that no matter how much the wish they could control what is posted on the internet, it’s just a pipe dream. Spreading rumors will not make it a reality. Ignoring it is their option.
Anonymous says
@KateBond
How would your husband respond if 60 people banned together to claim he was a pedophile that has been molesting his own children?
This isn't just reviews. Yes, things like this are posted IN reviews, but there are also whole ongoing discussions defaming the character of writers. Even writers who don't respond to negative reviews.
You can bet even "professionals" take a stand against this. To the point of lawsuits. The difference between high-paid professionals and starving artists is that high paid professionals can sue the asses off these people, where starving artists can do nothing but grin and bear it.
A negative review is a negative review. I agree with you there. Slander is not the same thing as a negative review. Making excuses to make it sound like that is the case comes across as callous and willfully ignorant.
Kathryn Lang says
I have no problem with bad reviews that explain WHY it is a bad review (didn't connect with the characters, didn't like the tone, didn't like the voice of the author) because it gives readers an understanding.
I DO take issue with rude and unconstructive reviews just for the sake of doing it.
Anonymous says
How ironic.
https://nbrans.wpengine.com/2011/06/rejection-its-not-personal.html
Lu Lu says
https://thetorturednovelist.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/what-happened-to-me-on-goodreads-myauthornightmares/
I've seen this all before.
Anonymous says
Are a handful of reviewers on Goodreads toxic and nasty? Absolutely. Does it matter at all? Nope.
I've fallen victim to the cycle of nastiness that 3-part anonymous poster pretty accurately described. But this is all just a drop in the bucket. Mainstream readers, by and large, have never even heard of Goodreads.
Anne Mackin says
Good for you, Nathan Bransford, for taking on this issue. And what a shame your thoughtful blog entry stirred up both a lot of defensiveness on the part of some reviewers as well as some sad nonsense.
Here's an example of misuse of the Goodreads review system. Someone gives your book a one-star rating without saying a word about it. It's not even clear that the person read it. No reviewing involved there; just nastiness. Goodreads should take action.
Anonymous says
Why shouldn't you be able to post a one-star rating without saying anything? Maybe the person didn't want to go all out and really trash the book, so they left a simple rating. Again, the rating and the review isn't for the author. It's for the reviewer and the other readers.
Anonymous says
I have to register my disgust at the utter lack of research and thought that went into this post.
First of all, as many others have stated, there is a very clear line between writing a review that is critical of the content of a novel and threatening an author. The reviews you decided to call out read the novel, found the content misogynistic, and stated as such. Reviewers at Goodreads aren't obligated to act as cheerleaders for all authors. In fact many reviewers, I would include those targeted in your post in this group, feel they have a responsibility to their readership to give their honest opinion. That is a sign of integrity, not bullying. Maybe you personally find the use of gifs inappropriately snarky, but different reviewers use different styles and Michiko Kakutani has been crueler in the past. Plus, when it comes to serious issues such as misogyny or racism, anger is most definitely justified.
Anonymous says
Good lord, 1 star reviews without comments is 'abuse'??
Why dot we just tell GR to remove all rating less than five stars, and require authors to approve or decline all posts anywhere on the Internet?
/snark
Anonymous says
The vitriolic reviews and black-banning of authors is not something I care for, but a big fat NO to telling them to do otherwise. NO to suggesting anyone should tone it down and consider the author's feelings. The internet is full of misinformation, fake reviewers telling me a book is fantastic. No way should anyone tone down their emotional responses and thoughts about a product they bought, because the producer or seller's feelings might get hurt.
Terin Tashi Miller says
Wow. Just goes to show what power readers have–or think the have–over authors these days.
It is true, and always has been,that people will buy books and other products recommended to them, by either a trusted adviser–like, in the past, professional paid bookreviewers–or close or even distant acquaintance, as in the case now of social media.
But it is equally true that writers, especially published, should not get in fights with critics–which book reviewers of any stripe ultimately amount to.
The old adage was that you should never get in a public fight with "someone who buys their ink by the barrel."
There is also a theory that "there is no such thing as bad publicity…as long as they spell your name right."
Writers–and other artists–have been fighting critics since roughly the first symbol was devised for a language or idea. Hopefully, readers develop a sense for whose recommendations or derision is valid, and whose is just some kind of "I should have been the one the publisher chose, not this crap slinger!"
All this to say actually thank you, Nathan, for your defense of writers as human beings with feelings and pride and purpose that is often fragile. We write because we believe we have something to say. And we hope someone will want to read it.
If they don't, it doesn't mean they're right and we're wrong. It just means either they have some valid points buried under their vitriol, or they don't. And either way, like being beaten at something, hopefully it will make a writer try harder or be better with the next book.
Because even a reader's site should not be all praise and flowers for every work that someone sees fit to publish.
By the same token, just because someone saw fit to publish someone, it doesn't mean that someone needs to be treated as some sort of half-human, half literary god, ESPECIALLY by readers.
In this day of even famous authors writing their own reviews under a pseudonym, on Amazon, or great writers being skipped over by agents and publishers because they're working at something that doesn't necessarily have "million seller" written all over its face, or we learn that the publishers, which no longer have much of their own publicity department, pay people to write positive reviews or pay book sellers for better display, I think it good to know there are groups out there trying to keep everyone civil.
Though I admit, I long for a good, old-fashioned literary rivalry, like between Faulkner and Hemingway…:)
And to think, I JUST joined Goodreads as an author at the urging of some friends…:(
Jill Sorenson says
I didn't read the reviews for September Girls, but I remember agreeing w/ the author when he tweeted: I am not responsible for your interpretation. Some readers at the time thought he should take responsibility for the problematic content, IIRC. When a glowing review came out at Booksmugglers, I wondered if he could also take credit for this more positive point of view. It is my feeling that authors shouldn't get involved in reviews or interpretations, but I'm still uncertain about our responsibility to readers. If I write an offensive stereotype, am I responsible for any harm caused? I'd like to take credit for the good responses and brush off the bad.
Maybe there is a book you loathe, Nathan. Find some scathing, gif-laden reviews for that book and see if you feel that they are unfair. Or check out some gushing reviews for that same book. Ugh, right?
I think it's fine to disagree with a review or question the reviewing style (of books you didn't write). But would you be this critical of the review/style if you hated (or didn't read) the book? If yes, okay. If not, something to think about.
Anonymous says
Rather than believing every comment from those who are saying STGRB is such a bad site, why don't you actually go and look at the site Nathan? You used to be an agent-act like one and not someone who has no clue how to do research.
Nathan Bransford says
Jill-
I have never in my life trashed an author in a review. I would rather read a fair critique of a book I loved than an over the top one star review of a book I also didn't care for.
Laura Benson says
Wow! I'm just gobsmacked at some of the responses here. I LOVE Nathan and he always writes thought-provoking posts.
Obviously this is a hot topic.
Anonymous says
I enjoy your blog Nathan! The example review screencap cited in this article is not an example of "bullying" in my opinion, however, so it does not serve to bolster the article's argument. It's not even personal in nature or vitriolic in the least bit; it's just a personal opinion had by the reviewer, which happens to be a negative one. And I find the supplementary meme to be humorous rather than harmful!
Goodreads is a social networking site in the end – and like other social networking sites, it can draw out honest opinions from users, which has its pluses and minuses as might be expected. You get the good and the bad, sometimes the ridiculous, and sometimes, unfortunately, the vicious. I agree hate speech or "trolling" is always unwanted feedback and can be discouraging or even terrifying for authors or anyone else to receive, but behind the veil of the Internet it may not be written with express intent to personally injure the author. More likely such feedback is written for fellow readers like themselves, and is conceived with the assumption that the actual author will likely never read those harsh words. Irresponsible as this may seem on the part of the reviewer, not everyone is aware of the power of their words and no discourse is always civil, so we cannot enforce that Internet discussions always remain at an enlightened level. It's all part of the charms of the Internet! I think if an author is particularly sensitive about such commentary, he or she should consider avoiding Internet hotbeds for literary criticism. 🙂
Anonymous says
Some new shelves for Nathan's book:
"authors-behaving-badly"
"total-asshole-author"
"dog-and-pony-show"
"abusive-attention-whores"
Don't worry, Nathan, most of us don't feel this way. And we all know this would happen to you.
The few posting these things and shelving this way are loud and banded together and will campaign against your book as though they are PETA and you are opening testing carcinogenics on puppies.
I shouldn't say that, because really, the bullies may start saying Nathan is killing puppies and that my post here is proof of that.
I will never be able to follow their logic. Good luck to you, Nathan. You are already beginning to witness these attacks first hand, and it's only the tip of the iceberg. It's much worse than you surmised in your initial post, I'm afraid.
You will be shocked when you see how far they take it.
Anonymous says
Please, before continuing criticising users of goodreads for leaving 1-star ratings, their meaning:
1-star: did not like it
2-star: it was ok
3-star: liked it
4-star: really liked it
5-star: it was amazing
(Note the star ratings on goodreads differs to those on Amazon).
1. These ratings are completely subjective, emotional responses. They do not specify quality of product or even appropriateness to genre. A negative rating could be a response to a personal trigger (eg racism) just as a 5-star response can be a fan-squee.
2. There is only a single choice for a "negative" response – 1-star.
3. The goodreads system does not require users to leave a review, nor a rating. Many members do not feel competent to leave a review (they aren't writers after all!) or fear the blow-back from authors if they do (I wonder why?).
4. Any rating system that fails to acknowledge a negative response fails before it begins.
The goodreads "how it works" page may give you a better understanding of goodreads expectations for it's members. Surely it would behoove all users of the site (authors, readers, and reviewers) to comprehend the system before casting judgements?
Anonymous says
Keep in mind that for a site that is for "Readers" Authors are encouraged to join. They have created the option of Author profiles, something that says "This site is for authors, too." They have created options for authors to advertise through them, once members, also something that says "This site is for authors, too."
Goodreads is a joke. Any idea how many books on that site have reviews and ratings and aren't even books yet? Some might not ever even be books! Some are just there for the comedy of proving that 90% of the reviews on that site are fake.
More reliable than Amazon, some say? they are either trolls or easily disillusioned. Goodreads has more fake ratings than any other review site on this planet.
Aitch748 says
"I will never be able to follow their logic."
Hate has its own logic and interprets everything in the worst way possible. Although I am amazed that the troll gang is operating so openly.
Before today, I'm guessing, the trolls weren't putting Nathan's books on shelves with names like "total-asshole-author" or "fuck-this-book-for-being-illiterate" — but now, they are, and we're watching them do it almost in real time, in the space of just a few hours. Somehow I doubt all these people just happened to get curious about your books, read them all, and rated them at the same time.
Sorry this is happening to your books, Nathan, but the good news is that the trolls are proving your point even better than you did. 😉
Cole Carroll says
Simple solution: next time someone attacks you personally on any platform, tell them you'll pay for their airfare and lodging to come out and tell it straight to your face. That'll shut them up.
They're cowards. Cowards congregate on the internet because they usually have no friends or anyone that cares about them.
And that fact alone should allow you to sleep fine at night.
I read a story about a boxer who lost a fight and had a guy hounding him with personal attacks on twitter non-stop. The boxer found out where he lived and sat out front his house waiting for the guy to come out. The guy hid inside for hours until he finally broke down and came out crying to apologize.
I always try and think big picture. Would someone like Grisham, or King, or Nora Roberts give a damn about these losers on GoodReads? Hell no, they're too busy getting paid and actually writing.
There's a limit to these forms of social media and it's best not to engage in any thing related to trolls or anything else like that. Life's too short.
donnamusing says
I completely agree with you, Laura Benson! I give your comment five stars!
Rick Carufel says
Just as religions hides behind God to spread their filth of hatred, intolerance and oppression, so the stalker trolls hide behind reviews. The only why to stop these criminals is to post all their personal info online as they've do to me and others. I want them to log on and wonder it their history and address is spread all over the internet. I want them to wonder if the next knock on the door is some sociopath they've tried to destroy. All efforts thus far to stop them have failed. After thousands of complaints to Badreads the only people who have been banned are victims. The librarians and staff are stalker trolls too. In my opinion Badreads was designed from the very start to be a platform from which to terrorize indies so they are fearful of publishing any way but with traditional, parasitic, exploitative publishing. A criminal enterprise from inception.
Shelver 506 says
I've enjoyed your posts in the past and have found them informative and funny. However, I believe you are wrong here.
The various reviews you have mentioned do not attack the authors. They attack the books. Saying a book was poorly written, illogical, nonsensical, or just plain bad is a valid opinion. Making jokes that the work didn't live up to the hype, was predictable, or any other number of criticisms are still opinions and still valid. This has NOTHING TO DO with the author. The reviewers in question would say the same things if the author were a revered great or the new kid on the block.
Proper examples of attacks on the author include the following: racist, ageist, mysoginistic, and/or other slurs; telling the author that he/she is a waste of space/should stop writing forever; any threats against an author and/or his or her loved ones, etc. You know, things that actually fall under the denotative (and legal) definition of bullying.
If I went to see Norbit and hated it, I am within my rights to complain loudly over how mind-numbingly stupid it was. I could write a review and spew my vitriol and disdain for such a waste of celluloid. I may describe how much I loathed Mr. Murphy's direction, acting, and other contributions to the film. I may not, however, attack Mr. Murphy himself, because he is a person. But I may still complain about that ridiculous movie just as I may complain about a ridiculous book.
If you wish, you may read the rest of my thoughts here: https://www.shaelit.com/2013/07/a-book-is-not-a-baby
Also I am very disappointed in how poorly researched this piece is. Though you retracted links to STGRB, it doesn't negate the fact that you praised them in the first place without adequately researching what exactly you were promoting. The same goes with the Lauren Howard fiasco, which has been definitively debunked in several places and linked to in your comments section. Surely you know the old axiom about getting both sides of the story?
I am also appalled that you would link to specific reviews in this post. Such actions were not necessary to make your point, and though you've retracted the link, the image of Blythe's shelves (easily searchable) remains. Also, as you stated, the reviews you were willing to hold up to the potential lynch mob are easily searchable as well. I would have thought the ready vitriol that emerged after the James Dashner fiasco (and the Emily Giffin fiasco and so many others before them) would have prompted more circumspection.
I want you to look again at what you wrote in your penultimate paragraph about “the truth.” May I suggest an additional worldview? Book bloggers review for the joy of it. We aren't paid professionals. We spend far more than we "earn" in ARCs and swag. What we do is HARD, and we do it without thought of recompense, but it could all disappear in a moment, the result of ill-thought posts like this one resulting in our blogs and reviews being "unfairly slimed and harassed by a pack of online bullies." It certainly is NOT hyperbole to say that talented bloggers and reviewers are considering quitting the hobby that they love because of attack fatigue caused by authors and their mobs. Several of the bloggers who have talked to you in your comments have dealt with this struggle. One of the girls you drew into this mess has already announced her intention to quit.
"It's eminently possible to write a negative review without abusing the person who wrote the book." This is the one sentence you wrote that you whole-heartedly agree with, because 99.9% of bloggers do this every day without fail. Again, we do not attack an author personally. We criticize their work, and if our criticism isn't sunshine and roses, there's nothing wrong with that. If authors cannot or will not separate themselves from their work, then I suggest that they keep their work somewhere safe, such as a bottom drawer or a filing cabinet. There is certainly no place for it in the publishing world.
threears says
It's amazing how those of us who aren't authors seem to be so much better at this thinking and researching thing. As an author, one would think you'd be pretty familiar with the need to research before you open your "mouth". Yet, apparently that’s not so. Not only are you guilty of it, but the comments here are full of others willingly following your piping.
Here's why people don't want to leave the STGRB thing alone: that site has hurt readers and reader-author relationships, and continues to do so every day. That you would link to it shows just how little you respect readers, how little time you took to research what that site does, and an absolute lack of critical thinking skills. Don't get me wrong — this was never a good idea for you to post. But by showing support for that site, it changes this from yet another author whine about how readers are big meanies, to an anti-reader screed with a side of thoughtless stupidity. And you don’t even think that’s worthy of an apology and a full-on retraction. Well done, you. Of course people continue to bring it up.
Then you added some extra bells and whistles by regurgitating the Lauren Fiasco, and linking to a thoroughly discredited article. If you want to know what really happened, read this.
Here’s a thought: what if we turn your little sob story around? You're upset because you think those reviews might have hurt the author. The author, you say, was being attacked. Yet that wasn’t the intent of the reviews. They are all about flaws in the book, and how reading it made them feel. Each claim is backed up with quotes from the text. So – to use your words – make no mistake, your issue isn’t that the reviews literally threatened or attacked the author, but that he may feel bad upon reading them.
And yet, the fact that the reviewers were upset by the book is ok. Hmmmm. Does that mean the author is also a bully? After all, his book made people feel angry and frustrated and hurt, even if that wasn’t the intention. Some of those people even paid for that privilege – ha! He took their book money, just like a schoolyard thug. Passages read like an outright attack on women, feminists in particular. Yes, I think the author must be an abusive bully: he made readers feel bad, he attacked women, and he took their money while he was at it. What a jerk.
I mean, isn’t that what you think those reviews might do to him? Make him feel bad? All I’ve done is turn your poor excuse for “logic” around on you… and it looks pretty stupid, doesn’t it?
I don't know you. I've never heard or read your name before today. And now I'm not going to buy your books. Not because I’m a bully, although your pals at STGRB would argue otherwise. But because instead of writing, you want to be the internet nicety police. Because you clearly don't believe in research. Because critical thinking is, apparently, only for readers — and it makes them into "bullies". Whereas people like you, who don’t engage the rational part of their brains, can spread lies, and that's just fine.
Mira says
Wow, Nathan.
First, this is a really good post. Powerfully written. On behalf of authors, thank you for your eloquent defense and for taking this on. I think it was very brave and extremely important.
You know, in terms of this thread, I thought earlier it would be a good idea to cut it off – but I've changed my mind; I think you were wise to let it run, so people can get a sense of exactly what is happening.
As you point out, this is very real. What is happening at Goodreads, and sometimes elsewhere, is dangerous, out of control and frightening. It is very real.
My observations is it goes beyond bullying at Goodreads and moves into actual battering and harassment of the victims. People are verbally and psychologically abused and battered; they are pursued and harassed into their real lives. It's not just their careers that may be affected; I've read of instances where people's mental health and stability has been harmed. The batterers are extremely manipulative and destructive, and excel at blaming the victim.
Right now, people are feeling helpless. Eventually we will have laws that will protect people from this type of targeting. I believe this is already starting, and some would argue we already do have legal protection from harassment.
However, in the meantime, posts like these are incredibly important. They bring to light what is happening so authors who have not yet experienced this are aware of what is happening. Your blog is very visible, and the fact that you personally are being targeted will hopefully put some pressure on Goodreads. I hope so.
That said, I will boycott Goodreads when I publish; I will not put my books there. Goodreads benefits from author participation, and it is obligated to create a safe environment for them. It absolutely has not; it does not enforce its own policy about posting. I will not support a service that endangers participants. I will not participate.
Again – thank you for this post, Nathan.
Marianna Roberg says
I had one review pop up on Goodreads, that's now disappeared, for one of my books. It said, simply, "If I'd had a physical copy of this, I would have burned it." Honestly, what makes people think this kind of thing is okay? I would never dream of "reviewing" with something like that, even if I loathed the book. I don't like Twilight, and I've read those, but I wouldn't post something that harsh.
Anonymous says
@Nathan Bransford wrote:
"I have never in my life trashed an author in a review."
But trashing amateur reviewers in a hugely publicized blog is OK? Why? Because they hurt some wee feelings in their reviews about a book, so a retaliation post to name and shame is some how justified? Those reviewers were not even author bashing! They were your smoking gun proof? I appreciate that you deleted the names, but this is the internet. I didn't need to look far to learn who you trashed.
Dotti says
I've read that there is some skepticism about the author who pulled her book over the rape reference. The Salon story has some amendment at the end.
Someone commented how wrong it is to give a book 1 star with no comment. There was a discussion about this on one of my listservs. About how some people don't educate themselves on how to properly use Goodreads. Supposedly there are people who actually think 1 star is better. And then there are those who give it one star as a reminder to read it. Weird. As long as there are no Goodreads review guidelines in place, these types of things will happen.
But abusive reviews? Yep, they're there. And I'm truly amazed at how passionate some of these people can be. Like their life has been horrifically altered simply because they read a book they didn't like.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
Do you really think I was as harsh to those reviewers as they were with their reviews? I tried to treat people fairly while disagreeing very straightforwardly with their approach. If I had written my post as those reviews were written it would have looked very, very different.
GillyB says
Mr. Bransford, in your last comment, you said,
"If I had written my post as those reviews were written it would have looked very, very different."
But there's a huge difference between their reviews and your post. Their reviews were about a product, an entity without feelings, and yes, I understand that authors adore their work. They should. But NO ONE ELSE will feel as attached to that book as they will. No reader will go into a book thinking, "Well, I'm sure the author tried really, really hard, and spent years working on this, so I will love it regardless."
No critical reviewer should ever review with the author in mind. And those reviewers didn't. Whether you like it or not, people are allowed to review books and other creative works with as much vitriol as they like, provided their comments remain about the work itself– which those reviewers did. If they have "snarky" shelves and gifs, what does it MATTER?
So, no, you didn't use gifs or snark or sarcasm in your post, but you were personal in a way those reviewers were not. One of the women you singled out is receiving a tremendous amount of hate right now because of your post simply for writing what is an objective, if harsh, review.
Reviewers DON'T "think of the humanity" of authors before reviewing, because guess what? Most readers don't, either. You can't objectively review a piece of art or literature or a movie or TV show with the creator's feelings in your mind. You just can't. You cannot bully a book.
Nathan Bransford says
GillyB-
Is a review not a product? Why are books fair game for criticism and not reviews?
And again, did I criticize the reviews as harshly as the reviewers criticized the book?