The Sword and Laser discussion
Goodreads changes to the review policy
date
newest »
newest »
Wastrel wrote: "Problem: some authors have been abusive toward Goodreads members.Goodreads solution: ban members from complaining about abusive authors. [OK, so technically they let you complain secretly, to Good..."
Awesome post. It really calls out a lot of the issues in an easy to digest way. :)
Jason wrote: "I know one of the popular authors to bash regarding politics right now is Card and I understand why the bashing is taking place, but since he does not portray homosexual characters (at least none that I have read and can remember off the top of my head), then that is not relevant to the review of the book."Oh, but he does:
And then there's the startling reveal at the end of the novella, in which we discover — spoiler alert — that Hamlet's father was gay, and that this made him a terrible king. And his ghost was actually a demonic liar that misled Hamlet as to his cause of death. Claudius didn't kill Hamlet's dad after all — instead, it was Horatio, who was taking revenge on Hamlet's dad for molesting him as a little boy. Hamlet's dad also molested Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, and turned all four of them gay in the process. (Oh, and in the end, Hamlet goes to Hell for all the harm he's caused, where his gay dad will molest him for the rest of eternity.)
Would you say his politics could be relevant to a review of that book?
Michele wrote: "That's your own personally banned books list, but you're posting it in a public forum"Goodreads is only partly a forum. It's also a place for people to catologue books. Shelves are a cataloging feature, and forbidding people to use shelves for certain purposes diminishes the site's utility.
I suppose it's the "asshat" that I find unnecessary. It implies a lot of anger towards the author/s. I understand that anger, but I personally don't find it helpful in choosing a book.
You are not everyone. There are people here who do find it helpful. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have such shelves? Does it in any way affect your usage of the site?
If Goodreads is implementing these changes to curtail hateful speech and trolling, it is their right and responsibility to do so. The perception is, however, that this is being done to avoid embarrassing authors who may pull their titles from the service and thus cost Goodreads and Amazon revenue. If they remove all negative reviews, people will quickly stop using the service when they realize it is no longer a resource but has become a publicity shill. Since the industry has largely abandoned journalism in favor of free crowd-sourced reviews, it cannot then turn around and complain that people have opinions that they don't agree with.
Michele wrote: "It's redundant.It has nothing to do with the books themselves.
That's your own personally banned books list, but you're posting it in a public forum paid for by a company that has chosen not to..."
I get your point. I think you're right, in terms of insulting language and wanting the focus to be on the writing.
However, so far, the way that this has been enforced and implemented is not really following those guidelines alone. If they set up a better system in terms of which ones get flagged (shelves using profanity, or certain boundaries of discourse in a discussion or review) then I think it'd be less arbitrary. Right now, it could be a potentially benign shelf name to be deleted. 'Due to author' is not mean. It's not belittling. And yet it was deleted. Because Goodreads implies an intent from some subtext. That is worrisome. And yes, it can be just taken in stride with a free service and they can make whatever rules they want. But notification should be part of that process. And better guidelines so it's not just interpretation.
Additionally, perhaps they could add a different way to allow discussions on a book. A lot of people use reviews before they've read the book to say how they've found it, that they are excited, etc. It starts the conversation. I'd think that most conversations are better than no buzz around a book.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Jacy wrote: "I also take issue with rating books you haven't read."How much do you have to read before it becomes acceptable to rate a book? If I'm reading a history book and it has major factual..."
I was specifically talking about rating books one's marked as "Want to Read". If you "want to read a book", then you obviously haven't read enough to say it's 5 star quality. That is fixing the rating system.
If you read one chapter and hated the book...then by all means, please tell me that "This book lost me in the first chapter. It was full of historical inaccuracies and I just couldn't get past it-rating 1 star." I can clearly understand why you stopped reading, your issues with the book and why you rated it the way you did. Reversely if you love an author and their new book is coming out, please don't tell me the book is a 5 if you haven't taken the time to actually read it.
There are authors that I have read almost everything they've written, I absolutely love their stories and generally can't wait to get my hands on their next book, but I rate things that I've actually read. When you rate something before you've read it, I FEEL, that you are judging a book by it's author. Isn't that the very thing the new policy is trying to eliminate?
I personally don't give 1 star reviews. If I finish a book, then it will get a 2 because I found something to keep me reading. If I don't finish the book, I don't rate it or review it because it isn't worth anymore of my time.
I haven't been a Goodreads member as long as most on this thread and I don't use it in a very complex way so I may be underqualified to chime in to this thread but ...First, the policy should be all about signal-to-noise ratio. If GR reviews become like youtube comments, I will stop reading them. As it is, I like skimming the reviews before deciding to read a book so I am generally in favor of some amount of moderation of reviews.
Second, we shouldn't all just say "it's Amazon's company, they can do what they want with it." The real money value in Goodreads is the collection of potential book-consumers gathered together. Amazon bought GR for the way it has gathered together all of us -- we are the product that GR's former owners sold to Amazon. That means that the preferences of GR members do matter.
To me, the biggest ethical problem with GR's actions was deleting people's postings. They've admitted they were wrong to do that and promised not to do it in the future: "In retrospect, we absolutely should have given users notice that our policies were changing before taking action on the items that were flagged. To the 21 members who were impacted: we'd like to sincerely apologize for jumping the gun on this. It was a mistake on our part, and it should not have happened. Anyone else with reviews or shelves created prior to September 21, 2013 that will be deleted under the revised policy will be sent a notification first and given time to decide what to do."
Finally, I just hope that GR doesn't delete negative reviews under the guise of the new policy. The site's rating system is already trashed by an over-prevalence of positive reviews. Any further tilt towards having only happy news on the site would be a loss.
Sean wrote: "The perception is, however, that this is being done to avoid embarrassing authors who may pull their titles from the service and thus cost Goodreads and Amazon revenue."Authors can't pull books from Goodreads -- once its in the database, it's in the database for good. They could, I suppose, unpublish on Amazon but they'd only be hurting themselves.
Alan wrote: "I haven't been a Goodreads member as long as most on this thread and I don't use it in a very complex way so I may be underqualified to chime in to this thread but ...First, the policy should be ..."
I have yet to use bad reviews of a book as an up-down on whether to read the book. I have read some terribly written reviews that convinced me to put a book on my to-read list.
Authors can't..."It isn't just authors who add books. Any one can add a book, so I believe and as you say once it is there it is there. So even authors who have left their book will stay if it is on one single shelf.
My thoughts - GR should have given prior warning (which it seems they will now) but bitching about an author is not best done in a review. There are other ways and means if you really feel you need to do this. I also think freedom of speech has to go both ways or neither. There have been some badly behaved authors, but there have been some snarky readers as well.
That is just my tuppence worth.
@Sean OHara & A.L. I was speaking specifically of sales, not database listings, and that it was a perception held by the public and not the authors themselves. As the market currently stands, an author would be foolish not to offer books on Amazon, but markets change. No one can say what the market will look like in five years.
The point was that people believe that Amazon was bending to the wills of publishers at the expense of reader's liberties. Whether or not that is true is debatable, but I think we can all agree that the policy implementation was a huge fail on the part of Goodreads management.
I thin people seem to be making a mountain out of molehill from this. As I understand it, it was those reviews that did nothing other than insult the author that were pulled. I don't think a review would be pulled for merely mentioning the author so long as it was a constructive review of the readers experience with the book.So perhaps a review could go as follows: "I was reading 'blah' when it came to light that the author did/said/was blah. As this opposes my beliefs, I found it difficult to continue with the story, as I kept looking for signs of blah. Perhaps you would enjoy this book if you do not have the same feelings about blah as I do, but for me, I couldn't get past blah. Some interesting ideas in the book, spoilt for me by recent blah."
Even though it says more about the author than the book, I don't think the above would be considered a problem.
I get the feelings the reviews taken down are more along the lines of "blah is a blah blahing blah and anyone who reads his books is supporting blah and is a blah blah."
I don't think the latter review is of use to anyone. It's pointless at best and damaging at worst.
I also doubt very much that goodreads will be interfering with threads that discuss authors - that is a very different thing to a book review. And it's still better for people to not just throw a heap of insults about like confetti at a wedding. Thankfully most of the people I've come across here don't seem to do that.
Ruth wrote: "I thin people seem to be making a mountain out of molehill from this. As I understand it, it was those reviews that did nothing other than insult the author that were pulled. I don't think a review..."Having never read a review that imho did so, I'm now curious. What were those reviews and how do I know I'm violating the rules without examples of same to go by?
Ruth, from personal experience...I'm going to have to disagree with you. I was shocked when I was on facebook and received an update for a book I read in 2010. I gave said book a 2 star review...my actual review is as follows:"It was a good start to an adverture. I found that it was very difficult to get started, but once you made it through Part One the story picked up and became entertaining. The characters were full of depth and it took most of Part One to get to know them. You will only get a "to be continued" as this is the first book of a trilogy.
Other than the slow beginning, it's important to understand that this story is full of ethical questions...if you have the knowledge to create a new world, should you?, who should populate it?, etc. It also has a very strong environmental aspect to it. It appears that the author was making some reference to his own political beliefs through out the book. It would make for an interesting discussion in an ethics or politcal science class."
As my review wasn't deleted or edited, I was confused as to why it was updated as new. I went to check it out and found that all my comments, made while reading, had a new published date of Sept. 7, 2013. I haven't been on that book's page or looked at my review since I wrote it in May 2010. Since I certainly wasn't messing with my shelves and/or reviews, who was and why. I didn't say anything about the author in my comments, if fact, I have given some of his other works 3 star reviews, because I liked the series. As I assign star differently than most people, my assignments are as follows:
5-must read by everyone
4-loved it, will re-read it
3-liked it, probably will re-read
2-okay, read it, but probably won't re-read
1-book was horrible(I have yet to give this)
Since I haven't bashed the author in anyway, why was my stuff looked at, I've never been sent a message saying anything I've posted has been flagged, or any warning of any kind. *I should also note that nothing has been removed, and that only the dates were changed*
The real problem is no one is giving answers to what is allowed and what is against the new policy. Where is GR going with this and where will it end.
EDIT: Upon re-reading my comments, I do mention the author by name twice, both times referring to his enormous amount of detail and character building taking up most of the beginning chapters of his book (around 10 chapters).
Comment sections seem to be the hot topic this week.Popular science
http://www.popsci.com/science/article... via Scalzi's blog
And YouTube
http://gizmodo.com/youtube-comments-w...
I just went back to look at it and now all my original dates are back. On my profile feed the dates were changed, on my actual review the dates are correct from March to May 2010. I'm really at a lost here!
Yes, the implementation was bad. I think everyone agrees that there should have been advance notification of the new policies and there should be a warning sent to give people time to make changes before something is deleted.***
@ Sean O'Hara- You asked for my opinion about the name of your bookshelf, didn't you? I gave it and you reply that I'm not everyone. Um...duh?
I haven't looked at your shelves, I rarely look at anyone's shelves so I don't have a vested interest in how anyone labels them, or if they are deleted. But you asked me so I answered for myself. If I did go to your shelves and see that label, I would find your opinions on those books to be suspect due to obvious angry bias against the author/s.
***
This is about removing author/reviewer hate rants isn't it? Why should the book itself be removed from the database? Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see that anyone was being banned from using the site, authors or reviewers, so why are there comments about the books being removed?
Ruth wrote: "I thin people seem to be making a mountain out of molehill from this. As I understand it, it was those reviews that did nothing other than insult the author that were pulled."Absolutely not true. One poster in the Feedback forum says she had a shelf called "Hormel" for authors who've spammed her. It was deleted. When asked why, a GR rep said:
We don’t comment publicly on individual cases, but in general, what we do is look at a shelf and see how it is used in context. In any case where we have decided to remove that shelf, we are confident that the shelf was being used in a way to review author behavior.
So if they decide you're using a shelf to keep track of authors you don't like, no matter how innocuously named it is, they will delete it.
This policy IS being used to delete anything remotely close to being "harmful to Authors' psyche". Case in point: The book "The House of Power" (Atherton #1). The DEFAULT TOP POST is a 4 star review posted by someone WHO DIDN'T WRITE THE REVIEW!!!!!
See here: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
How is this even remotely acceptable under any of the guidelines from either GRamazon or anyone who has posted concerning the new policy? For anyone to support the current policy, you should be outraged that an author can cut and paste and get to keep an outlandish excuse for a PERSONAL review, regardless of the fact that the review is credited!
I don't mind authors reviewing books. However the site is called goodREADS for a reason, you should be reviewing books that you have READ, not copied and pasted a review from a different person who read the book. If you are going to use someone's review, then briefly mention/link it and then write your own thoughts.
It's just my opinion, but I know of others that feel the same way!
EDIT - This is posted on GoodReads "About Us" Page
http://www.goodreads.com/about/us
"Who We Are:
Goodreads is the world’s largest site for readers and book recommendations. Our mission is to help people find and share books they love. Goodreads launched in January 2007."
No where in that statement is the word "Author" used. Makes me wonder if a new statement is in order...
It is hard. I just read the reviews on a bell curve. Throw out the best and the worst in my mind. I think it should be up to us to filter what reviews are good and which ones are bad. We should be responsible for ourselves. I still think the freedom of expression out weighs the people who abuse it.I did read an article recently from an author about the bullies on Goodreads.
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2013/...
Are people too thin skinned?
I guess in the end the only thing I have a problem with is them deleting stuff and telling us after the fact.
Sorry I am late to the thread. There is a lot of really good stuff in there.
Neil wrote: "I did read an article recently from an author about the bullies on Goodreads.
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2013/...
Are people too thin skinned?"
That guy sure as hell is. Writing a bad review, no matter how harsh, and posting it to Goodreads is not bullying. Bullying is an active attempt to intimidate somebody. Nobody forces authors to read bad reviews -- they choose to do so. They have to make an effort to come here, look up their books and then find the bad reviews. They could quite easily never know what their critics are saying about them through the simple expedient of not looking themselves up on Goodreads, or simply filtering for only four and five star reviews.
You want to see real bullying, look up the site he links to, Stop the Goodreads Bullies. This is a group that tracksdown the real names of GR reviewers and then uses that to post their personal information -- phone numbers, workplace, even the names of their children -- online. People targeted by the group have received threatening phone calls. The idea that a bad review is in the same league as that is ridiculous.
What really annoys me is the guy's line about the reviews not being constructive. If he wants constructive criticism, he needs to join a writers workshop. Ordinary readers are under no obligation to tell him what he's doing wrong -- he needs to figure that out before publishing.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Neil wrote: "I did read an article recently from an author about the bullies on Goodreads.
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2013/...
Are people too thin skinned?"
That guy sure as hell is. Writi..."
I felt the same way when I read it.
is it being thin skinned to want to interact with your audience without having to endure abusive, obscene, and violent messages? The internet has given people the percived freedom to be truely horrible people while demanding the anonymity to do so.If goodreads offered readers like me the abilty flag reviewers with things like abusive ignorant hate monger. So that I can automatically hide their content it would be useful. I'd also hide reviews that were just 5* best book ever.
But why not go a step further? Why not tie their reviews directly into online and real life social profile? That way their employer can Google them and see what they post online and if they feel the employee's comments could negatively effect the business fire them accordingly.
Alex wrote: "is it being thin skinned to want to interact with your audience without having to endure abusive, obscene, and violent messages?"How are they having to "endure" it? Are reviewers PMing authors with their latest vitriolic reviews? Posting them on the author's profile page? No. Reviews go on a book's review page. The author never has to see them if he doesn't want. It's his choice, and if he decides to seek them out, he needs be able to deal with what he finds instead of whining about the reviewer being a meanie.
But why not go a step further? Why not tie their reviews directly into online and real life social profile? That way their employer can Google them and see what they post online and if they feel the employee's comments could negatively effect the business fire them accordingly.
So authors shouldn't be held accountable for the things they say -- it's wrong to mention that Orson Scott Card is a raging homophobe in a review -- but reviewers should? Fantastic logic, dude.
Alex wrote: "is it being thin skinned to want to interact with your audience without having to endure abusive, obscene, and violent messages? The internet has given people the percived freedom to be truely hor..."Are you fucking serious? I can not even begin to say how many problems there are with what you are proposing. You want people fired for giving bad reviews that have absolutely no relation to their jobs whatsoever? If I were your employer I'd be tempted to fire you just for making such a suggestion.
Authors as public figures are already accountable for what they say and do. If a publisher or retailer doesn't like what they say then they are under no obligation to do business with them. If amazon found osc attitude damaging they would pull his books from their site. You already said you won't read his books because you hate him personally so how is posting homophopoic asshat on something you haven't read a review? You are just launching a personal attack on him via review site.
kevinb I was sarcastic and extending the argument to ludicrous proportions but I hate to burst your bubble but you are already accountable for all your actions. If you post on Facebook that you got baked on the weekend, or that you think all Muslims should die, or you video yourself kicking puppies and put it on YouTube then your boss can dissmis you now for that if they find out.
Alex wrote: "You already said you won't read his books because you hate him personally so how is posting homophopoic asshat on something you haven't read a review? You are just launching a personal attack on him via review site."Telling the truth about someone is a personal attack? All the music critics who mention that Chris Brown is a woman beating asshat are making an unwarranted attack? Movie critics who discuss Roman Polanski being a kiddie raper are making personal attacks? These are legitimate things to bring up, and many of us want to hear about it since it will affect our reading decisions. Why do you want to prevent us from doing so?
Just out of curiosity, why is anyone surprised that this is happening? Amazon owns Goodreads.Be outraged all you like, but the days of Goodreads being impartial are extinct.
Alex wrote: "kevinb I was sarcastic and extending the argument to ludicrous proportions but I hate to burst your bubble but you are already accountable for all your actions. If you post on Facebook that you got baked on the weekend, or that you think all Muslims should die, or you video yourself kicking puppies and put it on YouTube then your boss can dissmis you now for that if they find out. "Firstly, I claim Poe's Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe'...
Actually, around here they can't. The few who did (and cited the online activity as the reason for the dismissal), got their asses kicked in court. You can't fire people here for things not related to the job. As it should be.
Now, of course if you're the type of dumbass who posts videos of himself doing something illegal on Youtube, and you get your ass thrown in jail for it, your boss is of course free to fire you for not being able to fulfill your end of the employment contract (meaning, actually showing up.)
Also, equating animal abuse, or being a violent racist with giving books bad reviews, even rudely worded ones, is a bit rich, no?
I actually had a chat with my direct supervisor about getting baked on the weekends once. It was fun.
Michele wrote: "It's redundant.It has nothing to do with the books themselves.
That's your own personally banned books list, but you're posting it in a public forum paid for by a company that has chosen not to..."
Nicely said.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Telling the truth about someone is a personal attack?... These are legitimate things to bring up, and many of us want to hear about it since it will affect our reading decisions. Why do you want to prevent us from doing so? "I think you're overexaggerating the point here. It's not a question of preventing people from stating their opinion. The point is that a Book Review is NOT an appropriate forum for that opinion. If Goodreads offered an "Author Review", then I think you'd have a legitimate case to post such content there. But in a book review...no. (Unless the book is indivisible from that opinion...but I think that GR specifically worded their policy to allow for such a case.)
I would ask everyone to consider the opposite situation as well. What if a beloved icon wrote a terrible book, full of bad grammar, spelling mistakes and having no particular point. Would it be all right to review that book as 5-Stars on the basis of your love for the person, despite knowing that you simply couldn't stomach reading the book itself?
I agree with many on here who don't see this policy change as negative at all. I'd like to see more policies to help prevent reviews from being written by anyone who hasn't actually read some portion of a book. For example, maybe they could lock books from being reviewed until a few weeks prior to the books publication.
It's disingenuous, however, to act as though this is about reviews - it isn't. GR are deleting shelves, not just reviews. It's one thing to say that you mustn't include "author killed a lot of people" in your Mein Kampf review, it's quite another, I think, to say that you can't shelve it on the same shelf as books by Stalin and Pol Pot because GR will deduce that your shelf may be used to judge author behaviour.
There's certainly a legitimate case for demanding that reviews are about the book - although it's a difficult case to make, given the impossibility of objectively and impartially policing that policy across the site, and given that they are only hunting down those who have criticised authors, not those who praise them, or otherwise have not-on-topic reviews.
But GR are banning discussions of author behaviour in reviews, in group discussions, in shelf names, and even in member's private thoughts so far as any shelving patterns on GR can be diciphered as notes-to-self about an author even when encoded in a non-obvious way.
That's got nothing to do with wanting reviews to be on topic. It's got nothing to do with preventing offensive or threatening language, since it's the content they're censoring, not just the language ("author opposes gay marriage" is just as banned as "author is homophobic asshat" or "author should be thrown in snake pit").
These, potentially defensible, ideas of preventing abuse or keeping reviews on topic are transparent smokescreens for what they are really interested in. That appears to be a) making authors happy, and b) making it harder to hold them to account for failing to keep authors in line by prohibiting public discussions of author behaviour (and GR's refusal to do anything about it).
Cliff wrote: "The point is that a Book Review is NOT an appropriate forum for that opinion."This is an unsupported assertion. I consider any information that's relevant to me deciding whether to buy a book should be allowed in a review. Why am I wrong?
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Some of us think knowing that an author is racist or homophobic is useful. "Sure, I suppose that is fair, but I don't think that should be in the review of the book. I don't think people should be crossmixing their reviews of an author to the review of a book. The book should stand on its own. Do you have to rate
Mein Kampf poorly because Hitler was the author or the The Communist Manifesto because you don't agree with the author's points of views? No, you rate them based upon their specific place in history or context.
Not that this hasn't been said already, but the "specific place in history or context" also happens to involve the author's beliefs. Books don't exactly get written independent of those. I doubt Marx & Engels would have been able to crank out the ol' Manifesto had they been rabid monarchists.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Cliff wrote: "The point is that a Book Review is NOT an appropriate forum for that opinion."This is an unsupported assertion. I consider any information that's relevant to me deciding whether to ..."
Because you aren't reviewing the book. You are reviewing the author. I suppose that is fine and maybe author reviews could be an interesting thing, but book reviews IMO have to be silo'd. Review the story and content of the book itself.
I don't think the fact that an author may have gone to a KKK rally should be in the review of a book that has none of those issues in it.
Matthew wrote: "Sure, I suppose that is fair, but I don't think that should be in the review of the book. I don't think people should be crossmixing their ... "Oh c'mon. You can't just disconnect a book from its author like that. Especially not political non-fiction. That's taking half the context away. The author is half of the history and context.
Books aren't written in a vacuum by indentityless constructs, so should not be reviewed as such either.
That's just deluding yourself.
Surely there is a difference between abusive libel and pointing out the relationship between an author's political views and the author's work. As Hesper said, Karl Marx's political theories are the entire reason he wrote the Manifesto, and any in-depth review of that work is most likely going to at least mention Marx's views. Similarly, I've read some very convincing interpretations of how OSC's personal politics did creep into Ender's Game in the form of subtle (repressed) homoeroticism. These, to my way of thinking, are completely valid ways of talking about an author's personal politics with respect to their work, and could appropriately feature in a book review.
From what I've gleaned, this whole thing is based on an over-reaction from someone at goodreads to the latest author/reviewer tiff. There was a little more than the usual histrionics this time around, and I think the goodreads folks have responded with, unfortunately, a bit of an over-reaction of their own.Deleting reviews without any sort of warning, and deleting bookshelves based upon some sort of assessment that the shelves being put into it are in-and-of-themselves a kind of personal attack? That seems a little arbitrary, and unmanageable. Several folks have said that their shelves and content have been deleted for no apparent reason. (I haven't seen much evidence of that, but that's been the claim.)
From I can tell, it all boils down to what "focus on the author" means. At one end, some folks are suggesting that it means that any review that talks about the author at all in anything more than an abstract way is in violation of the policy. The other side of that argument would be that a review that was about the author and barely mentioned the book (if at all) would be in violation of the policy--but I imagine only if it were negative that it would be actually deleted. I suspect a review that praised Stephen King's musical choices would probably not get deleted.
The problem is that the goodreads folks have been more than a little ambiguous in their own explanations. The example of a bookshelf title "author-is-a-jerk" is pretty amazingly mild. Lots of authors are jerks, and being called a jerk would only bother someone who was, frankly, overly sensitive. Only a real jerk would mind being called a jerk. It's the opposite of calling someone an asshole. A real asshole doesn't mind being called an asshole at all. They'll just be, like, "And?"
Personally, I'm just going to hang back a bit and see how this thing plays out. If the goodreads policy goes into something overly strict and/or arbitrary I'll start doing other stuff with my time than contributing reviews and author bios.... I have one that I've been pecking at, but I'm going to hold off on putting it up until I see what the deal is going to be.
I think it's pretty obvious that some people are highly influenced by an author's personal views while others aren't, and thus won't find common ground on these issues.I personally hope those of you who do consider an author's personal beliefs intrinsic to their works are actively researching the political and moral viewpoints of every author of every book before you read it. It's easy to jump all over OSC because he is very vocal about his views and we can jump on that bandwagon without having to do any real work, but how many other artists out there are quietly supporting issues we find repugnant with our dollars? If you are a true proponent, then we should be seeing some other names popping up in these discussions.
And I don't believe searching the personal bookshelves here on Goodreads to be researching authors. That's just lazy. I doubt any of you do that.
But maybe you read someone's review and like what they are saying and then look at their shelves, and think, "Hey that other author is an asshat too. I won't read him/her either." That's also lazy.
Bottom line - Goodreads is taking a stance. The shelves and reviews are to be about books as separate from the authors. You will have to do your research and advocating somewhere other than in your reviews and book shelving.
It is still allowed within the group discussions, that's where your real audience is going to be anyway, where you can have a real influence and discussion. The reviews and shelves are random whether anyone will see them.
Here at Sword and Laser especially, I think we are open to listening to opinions, and amazing well behaved in our heated discussions.
Matthew wrote: "Sure, I suppose that is fair, but I don't think that should be in the review of the book. I don't think people should be crossmixing their reviews of an author to the review of a book. The book should stand on its own."Let's go for a concrete example here. Forrest Carter was a Cherokee author who wrote novels about Indians in the Old West, along with a memoir of his childhood on a reservation during the Great Depression. His identity as a Cherokee was used as a selling point for his books -- unlike all those Westerns written by white folk, here were books by an authentic Indian who understood all about native cultures.
The only problem -- "Forrest Carter" was a lie. Not only wasn't he a Cherokee, he was in fact the leader in the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, are you telling me that it would be improper to review The Outlaw Josey Wales by saying, "The author claimed to be a Native American presenting an authentic portrayal of American Indians, but he was actually a white supremacist who once tried to murder Nat "King" Cole and ran against George Wallace because he was too liberal"? People picked up Carter's novels based upon his supposed identity, so why is it wrong to discourage them from doing the same because of his true identity?
Michele wrote: "I personally hope those of you who do consider an author's personal beliefs intrinsic to their works are actively researching the political and moral viewpoints of every author of every book before you read it."
Which is precisely why GR reviewers should be able to mention these issues.
Geez, I have to be "actively researching the political and moral viewpoints of every author of every book before [I] read it." I knew I shouldn't have taken that literary criticism class back in school. I'll never get anything done now.
KevinB wrote: "You can't just disconnect a book from its author like that. Especially not political non-fiction. That's taking half the context away. The author is half of the history and context."One could argue that writing is an art form. And as with any art form, how the art is received is colored by the experiences of the viewer. If you go into a book with no pre-conceived notions about it, you may get something completely different out of the book than someone else.
Let's look at OSC, again. I read Ender's Game as a young teenager long before knowing anything about OSC the person. Did I come away from that book with any animus towards homosexuality? None that I was aware of. Meanwhile, we have some people who have read or re-read the book with the intent of finding anti-gay aspects. And to no surprise...they find what they are looking for.
Sean O'Hara wrote: "Now, are you telling me that it would be improper to review The Outlaw Josey Wales by saying, "The author claimed to be a Native American presenting an authentic portrayal of American Indians, but he was actually a white supremacist who once tried to murder Nat "King" Cole and ran against George Wallace because he was too liberal"?"
IMHO, it would be improper to mention some of those items. Are his crimes or political aspirations in any way referenced in the book? If not, then don't include it. Now, if you want to take the author to task for not being Native American and a White Supremacist, and portraying Native Americans in a negative light, then I think you'd be within your rights.
Remember that GR's policy relates to reviews that are PREDOMINANTLY about the author and not the book. So, if you wish to point out the author's views or crimes, then tie them to the book or events in the book. If you find that you cannot do so, then take the safe route and leave it out of your review.
Cliff wrote: "IMHO, it would be improper to mention some of those items. Are his crimes or political aspirations in any way referenced in the book? If not, then don't include it."Whether they're referenced or not, the facts of the author's identity affect how people approach a book, and in extreme cases such as Carter or Orson Scott Card, these facts can make it impossible for a reader to enjoy a book. You may not feel that way, but why should that stop people who disagree from putting it in their own reviews? Does it hurt you in any way to scroll through a review page and see someone giving a bad review based upon the author's behavior?
Authors sell books based on their identity all the time. If a reader wants to comment on the author's identity while reviewing, I don't see why that's out of bounds. But, I haven't read any of the reviews by the 21 people who had them deleted. If someone is just spreading around truckloads of verbal abuse, then I'm fine with GR giving them a warning and then deleting the reviews from its servers.Anyway, if it was really just 21 users, then I doubt there was a whole lot of really "gray area" stuff affected.
Louise wrote: "I think, from what I can gather, what got deleted were reviews commenting on author behaviour rather than background. From reading the other thread, I think its where reviewers have been harassed b..."It does have a bit of a chilling effect for people who rate 1-3 for very good reasons.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
The Outlaw Josey Wales (other topics)Mein Kampf (other topics)
The Communist Manifesto (other topics)
It has nothing to do with the books themselves.
That's your own personally banned books list, but you're posting it in a public forum paid for by a company that has chosen not to support that kind of negativity. It may be true, it may be your opinion, but if Goodreads decides they don't want to be associated with your personal views against an author/authors, I would say that's their right. That would be their money supporting something they disagree with, which I believe you have similar feelings about.
I suppose it's the "asshat" that I find unnecessary. It implies a lot of anger towards the author/s. I understand that anger, but I personally don't find it helpful in choosing a book. I can't take seriously any opinions about a book's quality that are so obviously biased by a reviewer's personal issues with an author.
Maybe there is a better forum for venting ire, one that will be more supportive than Goodreads is becoming, and then we can leave the anger there and use Goodreads to focus on other things.
I'm NOT saying I think anyone needs to leave. I hope you all stay, since your posts are well written, you make good observations, and I enjoy all the multiple viewpoints we have here in S&L.
Either you must abide by whatever the rules are and adjust your language accordingly, or find an alternative. YOU have to choose whether or not you can keep your shelves and reviews focused on the books themselves while you use this service.
Goodreads/Amazon wants the focus on what is written, not who does the writing. Since that is my preference also, I have no problems with the changes. I have no reviews spewing out hate, I have no shelves labeled "dickless shitheads," I'm not here to forward any causes.
It's terrible that others have used Goodreads for their trolling and brought about such measures, but now they are reacting. We'll have to see just how far they go with their new policies.