Shannon's Reviews > The Raie'Chaelia

The Raie'Chaelia by Melissa Douthit
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
2016128
's review
Dec 06, 2011

did not like it
bookshelves: will-never-read, think-about, wish-i-could-give-less-than-1-star

I honestly wish I had never known that this series existed.
68 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Raie'Chaelia.
Sign In »

Comments (showing 1-50 of 64) (64 new)


message 1: by Shannon (last edited May 31, 2012 10:06PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Shannon Edited on 5/31/12

I wasn't going to bother, but I might as well supply as much info as possible so people can see exactly what I and my friends have gone through since October.

Everything first started on Lina’s review (screenshot here) but Lina deleted everything. Then it happened again on Lucy’s review of Enclave and Lucy did the same thing. There’s some more ugliness on the Be Nice thread, but again, it’s mostly gone. Some quotes are still there, and if you check Cuddlebuggery you can see some of the same names of the people in Kat's screenshot.

Unfortunately, this all happened before we were all taking screenshots of everything all the time. We don't have enough evidence to appease the people who agree with her because she was deleted (apparently that's not enough) and so all of her and her friends' hateful comments are gone.

In order to combat us "gaming the system," new accounts are created on here almost weekly - these will be brand spankin' new private profiles with random avatars, have almost no reviews and very few ratings (except for her books of course), they'll use shelf names that point out how the author was the "victim" of "trolls" leaving 1-star reviews, and they will most likely troll one or more of negative reviews of her books. That "friend" who tried to get proof out of us that Melissa posted about in her most recent blog? Yeah, her name was "Jade" and she was one those profiles and she was REMOVED. GR staff removes these people VERY quickly, sometimes even in less than 24 hours of one of us finding them. It just never ends. Tell me, if we're in the wrong, how come THEY are the ones being removed?

She also likes to go on other author's blogs and post about us. I keep everything contained to this site. So does Lucy. I know others have blogs and mention her antics, but neither Lucy nor I even have a blog. I'm not on Twitter. I keep my GR drama on GR. She claims she's glad she left and that we're awful people, yet she can't stop talking about this site or the people she can't stand. I would never even THINK about her if she didn't constantly post stuff about me or my friends. She and her "friends" spy on us. Just check the blog about Wendy and look at the comments. One of them is monitoring a status update here and picking it apart and commenting about many of the members' posts. What exactly is this accomplishing other than making them look obsessed with us?

Here, she talks to Rebecca Hamilton, an author who had a run-in with Kat and a few others on this site. How would Melissa know about this if she wasn't following Kat or one of the posters there? She's glad she left, yet won't stop checking in on all of us.

Only a couple of us added Trisha Wolfe's book to our "will never read" shelves, but you can see that Melissa was watching. She posts on Wolfe's blog here.

It's gone now (sigh) but she also posted on the PW article and linked to Lucy's review to show an instance of us "gaming" the review system. She posted there twice in the middle of this month and nobody responded. I'm guessing that's why she upped her ante and posted the same thing on the Amazon forums (um, if you're going to claim to know someone's mom, at least spell the author's NAME correctly), and then finally her own blog. This obsession with goodreads and a handful of reviewers is incredibly disturbing and it really needs to stop.

Here are some screenshots I took of some of the comments her sock puppets made. Notice how they talk about kicking Lucy's puppy and referring to me not by my name, but by my location, which is NOT creepy at all. No, not at all.

Sock Puppet 1
Sock Puppet 2
Sock Puppet 3

All of those people were deleted by GR staff for bullying and harassing other members. That is the only reason they joined and it's most likely not the last we'll see of them.

Seriously, I'm beyond sick of this. She really needs a new hobby.

Original comment posted on 12/6/11:

I deleted the content of my review and the comments that were here voluntarily. No one "got to me." I never received an email that my review was inappropriate, nor was I told to take it down by GR staff. Just so that's clear. A certain blog post suggests that GR "took care of the trolls." This is not the case. If you are blocked then of course you will think that the comments/reviews were deleted, unless of course you understand how blocking someone works.

My review was hilarious to me for a few hours, but I started to feel bad that everyone thought I had actually read this. Apparently I am very believable! Lol. (Although, I was really careful not to lie to people, like, Simeon - you asked how I got through this and I said, "I've read a lot of crappy books ..." I know, I'm a turd.)

I shouldn't let this author or this series get to me, but, I'm just petty enough to not let it go completely. "Fans" of these books are continuously leaving empty 5-star reviews, and it's sickening how they're all artificially inflating the average score, but I doubt that in the long run (and others have been saying this) any of these empty reviews will result in more books sold. I just have to believe that, I guess.

I really wish that this shit wouldn't get stirred up every few months. I really do.


Lissa "a certain blog post"?


Shannon Yep. Funny, it doesn't appear on here though. I wonder why ...


Lissa Well, I've got something to say about that. I'll post it in a comment, not my review.


message 5: by Steph (new) - added it

Steph Sinclair What blog post?


message 6: by Shannon (last edited Dec 06, 2011 10:50PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Shannon I've been keeping track of this:

4.02 · 65 ratings · 42 reviews

currently, and:

3.81 · 54 ratings · 42 reviews

just 4 hours ago. That's right. 11 more empty ratings in just 4 hours.

Seems legit.


message 7: by Steph (new) - added it

Steph Sinclair Oh yeah. That's totally legit. *eyeroll* That woman.

Well, at least the reviews that matter and all their comments are the first ones everyone will see. She can create all the sock puppets she wants.


Shannon It's just ... so laughably obvious. All the new ones have a book cover as their profile image. Really? At least change it up a bit!


message 9: by John (new) - rated it 1 star

John Egbert The funniest part is that she doesn't realize nobody gives a shit about ratings. Does anyone here look at a rating of a book and think "WOW it's 4.90 average I gotta buy this one!" WTF?


Shannon Yeah, if she really wanted to affect things she'd get them to write fake reviews too. Apparently that's too much to ask of your "friends."


message 11: by John (new) - rated it 1 star

John Egbert By friends, I'm guessing you mean sockpuppets. That's just sad.

But who really pays attention to positive reviews, unless they're from someone you know you can trust? I know I don't...


message 12: by Steph (new) - added it

Steph Sinclair Mello wrote: "By friends, I'm guessing you mean sockpuppets. That's just sad.

But who really pays attention to positive reviews, unless they're from someone you know you can trust? I know I don't..."


Exactly, I don't either. Honestly, I actually look for the negative reviews first to see if the Bol contains anything that wil piss me off. Lol.

SMH. Troll harder, Melissa.


message 13: by Lucy (new) - added it

Lucy The rating is just about ego. It's never influenced whether or not I purchase a book. My friend's reviews do, book jacket descriptions, and covers... I'd say that's a 0 on three fronts.


message 14: by Lissa (new) - rated it 1 star

Lissa I always check negative reviews first, because negative reviewers tend to be more honest and in-depth than positive reviewers who just say "OMG this book was so grate and the hot guy is SO HAWT!"


message 15: by Lucy (new) - added it

Lucy Lissa wrote: "I always check negative reviews first, because negative reviewers tend to be more honest and in-depth than positive reviewers who just say "OMG this book was so grate and the hot guy is SO HAWT!""

Ditto. I tried to explain to my boyfriend my preference to read the negative reviews before deciding on a book. He thought three star reviews would be the most balanced. They're just usually the most noncommital.


message 16: by Kaia (new)

Kaia I basically never check reviews. There's been quite a few things this year that I've tried because my friends on GR liked them, but otherwise I'm usually happily oblivious.


message 17: by rameau (new)

rameau The only time I check ratings is when requesting ARCs. I learned to do that after Tris & Izzie in hopes to avoid obviously painful titles. Of course it's far from bullet proof method considering only a handful people have an informed opinion.

When I'm considering a book, I read the blurb, look at my friends' reviews, and if there are none, I read both good and bad reviews. I don't look at the rating then either other than to note whether it's going to be complimentary or critical.

One star reviews are so much easier to write, because ripping things apart is not only more fun but like child's play compared to writing a positive review without sounding like a vapid fangirl. Or is that just me?


message 18: by Lissa (new) - rated it 1 star

Lissa It can be difficult to write a positive review without sounding like a fangirl, but I like to think I achieve that because I've found that the books I love the most, I have some kind of personal or emotional connection or identification with and I can acknowledge all the flaws that annoy other people yet not let them affect me in the same way. For a long time Divergent was my most popular review and that was four stars - I still had a lot of unanswered questions and most certainly wasn't a fangirl.


message 19: by rameau (new)

rameau Lissa wrote: "It can be difficult to write a positive review without sounding like a fangirl, but I like to think I achieve that because I've found that the books I love the most, I have some kind of personal or..."

That just shows you're a much better writer than I am.


message 20: by Nikoline (new)

Nikoline I agree. Your reviews ARE harsh at times, but that is exactly way I follow your reviews, because you're so honest, and I honestly don't get why you can be asked to take down a reviews for being so. It is, after all, your opinion and yours only. No one can tell you what to mean.


message 21: by Tabitha (new)

Tabitha I definitely enjoy reading negative reviews more than positive ones. It's easy to say you like something - but it takes some guts to dish out all the details of why you didn't like it. Plus I mostly only read the reviews of books I have already ready, or of books that I don't plan on reading. So they don't influence me. Neither do those ratings. Hell in general I hear the movies Gramma's Boy was a flop and I loved it. the masses aren't to be trusted!


 Mummy Cat Claire You guys seem to discover the issues. Doesn't this author have a track record of being a jerk...so then why go there? I missed your review and any other comments. I wish I could have read your review because I am curious why you disliked this book so much. Was it the content or the author, or both? Not being a jerk...I'm truly curious about this issue.


message 23: by Steph (new) - added it

Steph Sinclair Claire, Lissa gave a really good review on the book. It's still up here: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

And yes, the author is a jerk.


message 24: by Shannon (last edited Apr 05, 2012 10:42PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Shannon It's a glorious day, people. Melissa Douthit is leaving GoodReads! I never thought this day would come, honestly, but she and her sock puppets have been booted for various reasons. Accounts have been deleted and Melissa claims she's leaving voluntarily, although we all know that isn't the case, no matter what her blog says.

Hey, maybe now I won't get called an ugly fat motherfucking cunt for a while now. One can hope.


Vanessa *Bluest Ribbon* This is... I honestly have no words for it (and the comments... ohgosh).


message 26: by Lyndi W. (new)

Lyndi W. THT, I'd like to know what brand of perfume you wear that attracts all the crazy. I want me some-o-that!


Shannon Eau du Troll.

Apparently : \


message 28: by John (new) - rated it 1 star

John Egbert Lyndi wrote: "THT, I'd like to know what brand of perfume you wear that attracts all the crazy. I want me some-o-that!"

You know the saying: be careful what you wish for...


message 29: by Shannon (last edited May 31, 2012 03:33PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Shannon Yeah, what she said. I wouldn't wish for this even for (most of) my enemies, it's not fun at all. She ruined this site for a lot of people for a really long time.


message 30: by John (new) - rated it 1 star

John Egbert Remember when this site used to be REALLY fun and people would say things like "aw dude I wish I had a troll"?


Shannon Yeah, it was only last year -__-


message 32: by John (new) - rated it 1 star

John Egbert ...huh. It was.

What HAPPENED?


message 33: by John (new) - rated it 1 star

John Egbert Like the trollpocalypse?


Shannon I think it's just the overbearing prevalence of self-published authors who have no right to be published at all in the first place. If they didn't self-pub, their books wouldn't even exist and neither would any of this drama.


message 35: by Brian (new)

Brian Every time I read about things like this on GR I wonder if it really was a good idea to join the community and review books I read. Not because the other reviewers are bad, far from it (and quite the opposite from what I've seen).

No, it is because there exists that tiny minority of authors (mostly self-published) who just *point-blank* refuse to take any form of criticisms about their work, even constructive criticisms that could improve their future works.

Perhaps the reason they are self-published is because they've burnt all their bridges with regular publishing houses with bad behaviour?

Obviously its the rest of society that must be the problem, not these 'unique snowflake' authors... o_O


message 36: by Lissa (new) - rated it 1 star

Lissa You know what? I have the right to say something about this, but I've kept quiet because of the backlash I got when I dared to rate this book 1 star.

I'm sick of all of it. I wish I had never encountered this author.


Shannon Brian wrote: "Every time I read about things like this on GR I wonder if it really was a good idea to join the community and review books I read."

Please don't let a couple of bad eggs ruin this site for you. This kind of stuff has been stirred up a lot more lately, but it's not indicative of the majority of interactions that occur here. This is a great site with a lot of awesome members and I'd hate to see you leave because of people like this "author." And if you ever have problems, you can always just hit up one of us.


Shannon Lissa wrote: "I'm sick of all of it. I wish I had never encountered this author."

You and me both, sister.


Shannon I added a lot more info, for anyone who wants more background. It's pretty much all I have, though I'm sure there's more.


message 40: by Lyndi W. (last edited May 31, 2012 10:12PM) (new)

Lyndi W. I don't have enough crazy in my life. I'd gladly take some of yours to ease the burden. I may regret it later, but right now I'm totally for having an obsessive stalker reading my reviews.

At least I'd know I had a captive audience for my nonsense.

Edit: I should make it clear that I'm not making light of your situation. U no I luv u.


message 41: by Brian (last edited May 31, 2012 10:45PM) (new)

Brian The Holy Terror wrote: Please don't let a couple of bad eggs ruin this site for you..."

Oh, I'm not discouraged by the idea of being targetted for giving bad reviews, etc. I've got far thicker skin than that (I need it in my day-to-day job as a traffic cop anyway)...

I just find it somewhat amusing that these 'unique snowflake' authors get so bent out of shape over bad book reviews here, and I wonder if they have the intestinal fortitude to react to various "bad" real world scenarios the same way face-to-face...


message 42: by Steph (last edited Jun 01, 2012 10:55AM) (new) - added it

Steph Sinclair The Holy Terror wrote: "I added a lot more info, for anyone who wants more background. It's pretty much all I have, though I'm sure there's more."

She or her goon squad also trolled our blog a few times before this incident. Once on Buzz Worthy News and the other on the article "Umm... No! 5 GoodReads Myths Debunked". And don't forget her Carrier of the Mark review, which was in response to mine. I'm not sure why she feels compelled to review the books we negatively rate, like, an anti review. Ugh. That woman.

Edit: She also claims we (GoodReads reviewers) started wars with Leigh Fallon, Maggie Steifvater and Kiera Cass. Yeah, right. >_>


message 43: by Lyndi W. (new)

Lyndi W. We all know you spend every waking hour actively trying to stop people from buying these books. I dunno why they haven't banned you from the whole internet because you're such a menace! These poor authors are suffering. Because of you.

*mops up the spilled sarcasm*


message 44: by Angela (new)

Angela Has anyone actually read the comments on Amazon where she goes in all guns blazing trying to evoke sympathy for the terrible treatment she has received and they all basically rip apart her arguments and tell her to leave? All she does is repeat herself, and it's infuriating.


message 45: by Angela (new)

Angela She's the reason why I created such a shelf.


message 46: by Jim (new) - added it

Jim Angela wrote: "Has anyone actually read the comments on Amazon where she goes in all guns blazing trying to evoke sympathy for the terrible treatment she has received and they all basically rip apart her argument..."

I have read those comments, Angela, after seeing THT's link to them. They were amazing!

I wish I could quote the responses by forum participants to her comments. But I have a slightly different approach in mind...


message 47: by Steph (new) - added it

Steph Sinclair I haven't seen it. Link?


message 48: by Jim (new) - added it

Jim Stephanie wrote: "I haven't seen it. Link?"

You will appreciate the discussion, Stephanie. THT linked this one in an earlier message on this thread. There is another one that I will hunt up shortly.


Jessie  (Ageless Pages Reviews) The lack of self-awareness is astonishing.


message 50: by Jim (new) - added it

Jim Here is the other thread on Amazon - from last week, after the current mess ensued:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/romance/r...

I think THT posted both of these elsewhere. If you actually read through them (they are long discussions), you get a very good, 'second-opinion' sense of how this is coming across.


« previous 1
back to top