If you are on book twitter, you most likely heard about the last dust up/scandal/whatever you want to call it, between an author and readers. An author posted a tweet calling readers who give 4 stars or who round down to four stars (from a 4.5) on Goodreads, assholes who no one likes as well as fucking nerds. The author in question eventually deleted the tweets but not after blocking who politely suggest she apologized,. Her book had and still is receiving good reviews from various places, and prior to its release day had an endorsement from Roxane Gay (Gay's review was written prior, far prior, to the drama). Predictably, readers on Goodreads were rightly upset at this abuse. Depending on the reviewer, the book was either shelves as a do not read, or one starred. This prompted the author's fans to come to her defense, though the sale of the book seem quite strong. (The author in question can write).
I have thoughts.
While I do not have a nope shelf on Goodreads nor do I one star books unless I have at least tired to read them, Goodreads allows the user to star books for whatever reason. And if you can give a book five stars because you are eager to read it, you can also it give it one star because you are not going to read it. Authors and their fans only complain about one of these things, guess which? Unless you police all ratings that are given by people who have not read the book, you should not be doing anything. Sorry. (BTW, my not rating is simply because I do not want to give an asshole air time).
And it should go without saying death threats are not okay.
But the defense of this author in particular is also telling for a variety of reasons.
The first defense that popped up was by the author who claimed weed made them do it. The author also tweeted reviews by a reviewer who knew the author. (I am not blaming the reviewer. The reviewer was clear and open about knowing the author in the review, so that's fine. Why is an author retweeting what could be a biased review like it is proof of greatness is something I wondered).
Right. Sure.
The second defense, the one used by fans is that she was being funny. It was a joke that went wrong.
There is something wrong with that. One, most people, when a joke on twitter goes wrong (as it often does) will apoglize. The author didn't. Worse, author's tweet included the reviewers names. Making it quite easy to find them on GR. Neither reviewer seemed to think the author's tweet was funny. Further, people commented on tweet, pointing out it wasn't funny and that perhaps she should stop. These people were blocked and in some cases, insulted.
The third defense is that it is the author's style which you won't understand, the defense goes, unless you read the book. The reviewer who give it 4.5 stories didn't see the joke. And she read the book.
The fourth defense is that the reviewer should be honored to be called an asshole by a famous writer because . . .Actually I'm not really sure why. But this is so stupid. It's okay if you are famous to treat people like shit because it is an honor that they notice the little guy? Isn't this justification for abuse?
The fifth defense is that calling people names and posting a reviewer's name on twitter, really isn't that bad and so people should not response to it all and give the author pass. The problem with this statement is that it justifies rudeness, and the older I get, the more I wonder why people cannot simply treat others with respect - like not cursing someone for leaving a 4 star review. 4 stars out of 5.
The sixth defense is that the author suffers from depression and other mental illness as well as had a tough life. The author is also regularly targeted on twitter by people who use hate speech. And now we are back to using mental illness to justify bad behavior. As someone who suffers from major depressive episodes, I call crap on this defense. And yes, we are do things we are ashamed of, all of use have done so in a public or semi public place at one point. And guess what? In many cases, (at least unless you are rich, white, or male) we take the dragging or punishment as well as say sorry.
But there is something more important. The author in question has been on Goodreads since 2012, almost a decade. Unless the author was living under a rock, the author had to be aware of the various cases of authors dragging reviewers in social media. Most, if not all, of the reviewers on Goodreads do not get paid for their reviewers. In many cases, the books the person reviews or rates is one they paid for. Yet, authors feel it necessary, time and again, to go after people on GR because the reader didn't love the book enough. This includes authors attacking reviewers (here), an author stalking a reviewer (here), and authors leaving comments on reviews about how the reader is stupid, uneducated or a liar (one example is here,). All these example occurred after the author joined GR and before publication her book. (In case you think it has stopped check out here.
And it isn't just Goodreads. Any author can post about anything negative said about their books on a social media site and fans will swarm. Remember 2019, and Sarah Dessen tweeting the name of a woman who in 2017 had said she had not wanted the freshman read to be Dessen books. Fans and authors piled on this women, even suggesting she be fire. For simply saying she did not think a book was one that should be used for a freshman read program. (And the people who piled on included authors who were also professors and who make similar judgements the whole damn time) [here]
It also isn't just unpaid reviewer or students who get attacked. Colsun Whitehead was spit upon by Richard Ford who was angry about Whitehead's review (here).
The author involved in the last drama should have least known some of this. At the very least when people started point it out to her, she should have stopped and not doubled down.
Look, I am not an immensely popular blogger or reviewer. (If you reading this or following me, thank you!). But even I have had authors feel it necessary to tell me that my review is wrong. I'm not talking about thank yous or an author offering clarification about something. I once reviewed a book from a major publisher about a French family who resisted the Nazis. I got the ARC via Netgalley. I kicked the do not contact button on the submit form. I gave the book three stars, due to two things. One, less serious to my mind, was the inclusion of several pages about the Von Stauffenberg attempt on Hitler. It was unclear why this was included in a book considering that the author did not link to the family. It felt like filler. The more serious issue was citing David Irving (the Holocaust denier). True, it was a general fact about Hitler that had appeared in other sources, but why use the discredited Irving at all. I ended the review with a recommendation that those interested in France during WWII read the book as well as acknowledging the fact that I would buy a copy for my mother. The author, who later that week appeared on a show on Comedy Central, felt it necessary to join the Booklikes (RIP) just to tell me how I was a liar and my criticism was unfair. It was unfair to penalize him for using Irving because reasons, and not much was written about the plot. (It was half a chapter). It freaked me out. I hadn't tagged him, I had clicked the do not connect with box. (And no, after his comment, I did not buy a copy of his book).
It isn't just the popular reviewers, it is the less ones who have to put up with this shit. But every time an author does this shit, people defend them.
Look, I don't understand the one star reviewing of something you don't intend to read just like I don't under the five star reviewing of a book you want to read. I don't. But you know what, the more authors and their defenders pull shit like this and punch down, the more I am okay with people doing it. And quite frankly, if that is what you want to do on GR, you do you. GR allows both types of ratings.
Publishing a book or being bloody brilliant doesn't give a person the right to be a jerk. The book community, in particular those brave enough to post thoughts online is, for the most part, extremely supportive. Many readers will call out those who tag or send negative reviews to authors. Two of the most vocal people who support readers will also be the first to condemn a reader for tagging an author in a negative review or emailing a negative review to an author. Most readers are fine with an author make a remark about dumb or insulting review, provided the reviewer's name is kept out of it.
When an author attacks a reviewer or reader by publicly naming them on a social media account and whether by intent or not, signaling to fans to come to the author's defense, the only way readers can response with any punch is by shelving or rating the book(s).
Maybe just maybe authors should just not attack reviewers at all. At least, keep names out of it.
And quite frankly, this recent author should have known how readers would see the remarks. Yet, the author posted anyway. Upset at 4.5 review.
The more authors want a readers support, but only support of a certain type, the less people actually are comfortable talking about books on social media websites. Is that what author's want?
(And BTW, it is perfectly fine to not finish a book and rate/review it. It is perfectly fine to hate or love a book that others feel the opposite about. It is perfectly fine to hate or love a book for the most inane of reasons. It is also perfectly fine to not finish a 24 page book if you chose. Also we are readers, not your editors.).
Comments
Post a Comment