No One Else Can Have You
discussion
does anyone want to read this book now?
date
newest »
newest »
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I'm assuming you didn't read the link I posted in message 41She did focus on Blythe. That doesn't mean her focus was deserved.
Forgive my colloquial english/slanguage slip. When I said "...for a reason"....that doesn't necessarily mean "justified" or "she deserved it" in my neck of the woods. For example, my car was broken into once. The police said that my car was targeted "for a reason".....(my airbag had a high resale value.) They didn't mean that I deserved it or that the break in was justifiable. They meant that the thief had a specific reason for targeting my car over all of the others that were parked near it.
TinaNicole you might be right Mochaspresso i understand what you are saying but mentally unstaible people dont need a reoson to target you and Blythe was still a complit stranger to her even if she started with her because they interacted next time it can be someone she doesnt know complitly who just hapened to dislike her book and thats why some readers are wary
Mochaspresso wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I'm assuming you didn't read the link I posted in message 41She did focus on Blythe. That doesn't mean her focus was deserved.
The only actual interaction was Blythe conferring a suggestion on Twitter when the author asked for ideas. "Sleep paralysis?" Is not a reason to stalk someone and chase her from her reviewing hobby.
Forgive my colloquial engl..."
Figgy wrote: "Mark wrote: "Check out website stopthegrbullies.com, Blythe is on a page called Badly Behaving Goodreaders and her online attack of a 14 year old who wrote a good review of a book Blythe did not li..."That website has screen shots of Blythe cyberbulling the 14 year old..cursing her out, calling her names and telling her to "fuck off' repeatedly....in the comment thread of the 14 year old's review. The 14 year old remained polite & respectful throughout, she just deleted Blythe's comments without replying. So Blythe re-posted them. Bullying a young girl is never OK particularly considering the rash of suicides among young people as a result of online bullying. So you aren't being asked to trust the website's opinion of Blythe, you can read what happened for yourself. Just because you've seen fans of books attack reviewers before doesn't mean that's what happened in this situation. That's akin to saying you've seen plenty of people convicted of crimes so everyone who has been arrested must be guilty-therefore you don't need to read the evidence in a specific case to decide that the person arrested must also be guilty.
Kathleen Hale had 24 other one star reviews at the time of her interactions with Blythe. She didn't contact any of those people. So simple logic dictates that this situation was more involved than just a one star review. You know about what Kathleen Hale did because she admitted to it publicly. Blythe Harris has not confessed to her part in this debacle. But if you Google her name, you will find references to her cyberbullying history and numerous nasty conflicts with people that extend beyond this situation with Kathleen Hale or STGRB. That's enough for me to suspect that this situation with Kathleen Hale isn't as black & white as many are claiming-Poor, innocent reviewer stalked by evil, crazy author.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this issue but there are things that are factual, not subjective & thus not up for debate:
1. Kathleen Hale's actions were not illegal. Nothing she did meets the general statutes for stalking in any state. That doesn't mean her behavior was appropriate but she committed no crimes.
2. Good Read members are indeed entitled to "rate" a book however they see fit. However they are NOT entitled to REVIEW a book based only on author behavior. Reviewer Guidelines: "Mentioning the author in the context of a review is always acceptable, but reviews that are predominantly about an author’s behavior & not about the book will be deleted."
So, if you're going entirely by the article, what exactly does Kathleen Hale state Blythe did to her? I mean, besides her allegedly bullying a 14yr old over another book that has nothing at all to do with Kathleen Hale.
Quotes from Hale's article would be fine.
Eta: could you also show where Blythe Harris attacked the author in her review of Hale's book?
Blaire wrote: "Figgy wrote: "Mark wrote: "Check out website stopthegrbullies.com, Blythe is on a page called Badly Behaving Goodreaders and her online attack of a 14 year old who wrote a good review of a book Bly..."You do realize that she justified her actions and basically stated that she was the victim, right? Do you know what that can lead to? It leads to other authors doing the same thing. It leads to people not feeling safe to review books honestly. Another author ATTACKED A WOMAN WITH A WINE BOTTLE after she left a 1 star review.
This thing about reviewers not being able to say "I will never read this book because of an author's actions" is saying that we will not stand for being followed home just because we didn't like a book. It is ridiculous that it is even an argument.
Let's put this in other terms, shall we?
A person doesn't tip a waitress so the waitress follows them home, calls them under the guise of being someone else and smears their name on the internet. That's fine right? I mean, you don't legally have to leave a tip and and talking smack isn't illegal. Is it right? No. IT IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.
You are part of the problem by saying that there is nothing wrong with what she did.
Brittain wrote: "Blaire wrote: "Figgy wrote: "Mark wrote: "Check out website stopthegrbullies.com, Blythe is on a page called Badly Behaving Goodreaders and her online attack of a 14 year old who wrote a good revie..."It seems like she's trying to say that Hales article is full of facts so people can't argue Blythes case b/c there are no facts to support that she isn't guilty of more than a negative review. And that you can't find fault with Hales actions b/c logic demands that Blythe must've deserved it b/c what crazy person would do something crazy for no reason.
Though it also seems she's collected her 'facts' solely from Hales article and STGRB so there you go.
People seem to be insisting that Blythe must have done more to Hale. But, I ask you, why wouldn't Hale had broadcast worse actions? Doing so would have made Hale look less crazy, so why wouldn't she have shared that info???
Also, you say there's nothing wrong with what she did? Turning up at someone's house, catfishing them(because that WAS what Hale was doing, not what Blythe was doing), making them feel uncomfortable in their home and place of work when there are ALL MANNER of assaults happening on women who dare honestly review books they didn't like, or, you know, play video games and sand up for strong females at the same time? Nothing wrong with that???
Restraining orders were CREATED for people who do things like that!
People seem to be insisting that Blythe must have done more to Hale. But, I ask you, why wouldn't Hale had broadcast worse actions? Doing so would have made Hale look less crazy, so why wouldn't she have shared that info???
Also, you say there's nothing wrong with what she did? Turning up at someone's house, catfishing them(because that WAS what Hale was doing, not what Blythe was doing), making them feel uncomfortable in their home and place of work when there are ALL MANNER of assaults happening on women who dare honestly review books they didn't like, or, you know, play video games and sand up for strong females at the same time? Nothing wrong with that???
Restraining orders were CREATED for people who do things like that!
message 61:
by
Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink*
(last edited Nov 16, 2014 09:23PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Figgy wrote: "People seem to be insisting that Blythe must have done more to Hale. But, I ask you, why wouldn't Hale had broadcast worse actions? Doing so would have made Hale look less crazy, so why wouldn't s..."
My family has this saying..."If you get your story out first, people are more willing to believe you." This was first uttered when my cousin told everybody that she "found" my brother in New Orleans, on Bourbon Street, shirtless and double fisting hand grenades. This was not true, but everybody believed her and she got a good laugh out of it.
That's exactly what Hale did. She says that Blythe was a cyberbully and all sorts of nonsense and since her story was out first, people defend her. So she, like my cousin, has slandered somebody just to defend her own actions. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
"Why, cousin, were you on Bourbon street underaged in the middle of the night when you go to school in Texas?"
For the record and yes I was there and saw it myself, the 14 year old girl was NOT a 14 year old girl. 'She' was a troll pretending to be a student. The alleged 14 year old provoked Blythe and also made a shadow account to harass Blythe and Blythe's friends.There's still screenshots if anyone knows where to look. I'm not posting them because I don't want anyone harassing Blythe any more than she's already been.
There is no proof the user was 14 year old girl and investigators deny the claim. Stop using hearsay as fact.
Britian said "You are part of the problem by saying that there is nothing wrong with what she did."Figgy said "Also, you say there's nothing wrong with what she did?"
I NEVER said there was nothing wrong with what she did. What I SAID was that Hale did nothing illegal. Her actions don’t meet the requirements for stalking in any state. But just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it right.(puppy mills for example)Hale's actions were over the line, obsessive & unethical but not criminal. It’s not okay to falsely accuse someone of committing a crime. Don’t use Hale’s bad behavior to justify your own. Like those who’ve posted Hale’s home address & photos on Twitter.(https://twitter.com/jimchines/status/...)
I did NOT call Hale a victim. But in my experience, conflicts are rarely ever as black & white as presented by those involved or bystanders. We don’t have all the facts when only one side of the story has been told. People are cherry picking parts of Hales article to believe & have distilled it down to “Author stalks reviewer over one star review.” Hale has been widely condemned while Blythe has been labeled a victim who did nothing more than use a pseudonym.
According to Hale, she felt cyberbullied by Blythe Harris & began to suspect Blythe was not who she claimed to be. People are demanding proof as if Hales article was a request for jury members in her case against Blythe as a cyberbully. What if Hale had written about being abused by a man she dated & her suspicions that he was not who he claimed to be & her subsequent inappropriate & over the top behaviors to determine the truth & confront him? Would you be demanding police reports & photos to prove she was abused? Since the only “proof” of Hales misdeeds are her own confession & Blythe isn’t talking, all we are left with is a trail of screenshots from social media sites.
I reserve the right to look at all aspects with a critical eye, to ask questions & to point out any known factually incorrect statements without being accused of “being part of the problem.” I won't be guilted into attending a lynch mob for either side. Feel free to disagree with me but at least read my entire comment & don’t misquote me.
If Harris did nothing to Hale except leave a one star review, why would Harris choose to target Blythe out of 24 other one star reviewers? Hale became suspicious that Blythe was not who she claimed to be on numerous social media sites--a 27 year old 10th grade English teacher, married mother of two, using a profile picture taken on her recent trip to Greece. Blythe repeatedly asserts that she is using her real name online. http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/neo...
Blythe tweets “I’m the only person I know who uses my real name & occupation online.” In another GR review, Harris states that she is “NOT using a pseudonym” and that her profile “isn’t meant to be anonymous.” Blythe sometimes referenced her teaching job when reviewing YA books as it naturally gave her a certain insight into the minds of young people. The fact that she taught 10th grade English & AP Composition also lent credibility to her opinions on writing quality. https://www.blogger.com/profile/09017...
Blythe Harris used Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Cuddlebuggery, Book Vibe, Qaster, triber, YA Books Central & her own blog among others to share anecodotes, stories & photos of her life as a married mother of two living in an upscale home featuring an indoor swimming pool. (“Going to take a dip in my indoor pool” is one of her Facebook updates (http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/neo...) (http://findingblissinbooks.blogspot.c...)
http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/neo...)
She describes her vacations with accompanying photos to Aruba & Greece. http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/neo...
A book club sets up a blogger interview with Hale & she chooses Blythe for the author. After gaining Blythe’s address from the book club, she uses census & other data to determine no one named Blythe Harris lives at the address. Blythe repeatedly cancels video chats with Hale claiming she’s having family issues & is also leaving for Europe. Hale begins to wonder if Blythe Harris even exists. After a background check, Harris verifies that in spite of her repeated assertions, Blythe is not using her real name. She is in fact, someone we’ll call “Judy” & is a 47 year old working at an insurance company. She is not a married mother of two small children nor does she live in the opulent house shown in the many photos.
Hale went to Blythe’s home NOT to confront her over a one star review but to ask why she had created a very detailed fake online persona. She left without even knocking on the door. Hale then called her at work NOT to confront her over a one star review..but to verify that Blythe Harris didn’t really exist. At first, she pretended to be a fact checker for an article & asked to verify the spelling of her name. On the second call, she asked her if she was Blythe Harris. “Judy” denied it saying she’d never even heard of a book blog. Hale tells her that someone is using her address to receive books. Judy denies receiving books & Hale points her towards the social media accounts. Judy acts shocked saying that the photos aren’t hers & actually belong to her friend Carla. Hale checks Judy’s Facebook page, finds Carla & discovers that Blythe had indeed used many of her photos. Blythe Harris had also used many aspects of Carla’s life, to include her vacations & claimed them as her own. No need to take Hale’s word for this-just reverse Google Image search the profile & other photos & you will find the real social media accounts to whom they belong. And yes, it's illegal to “misappropriate the name or likeness of another person without permission” under the Invasion of Privacy laws.
"Judy" then tells Hale she wants to “call the police about “this Blythe Harris person” and begins crying. They hang up with Judy promising to Facebook message Hale if she finds out the identity of Blythe Harris. So if you believe "Judy", Hale never even spoke to Blythe Harris. But an hour after the phone call, Blythe Harris closed her accounts or made them private and blocked Hale. As did “Judy.”
Blythe Harris has made no comment. This is odd considering how vocal she's been in the past about this very issue. In 2012, Blythe claimed to Cuddlebuggery that she was being been stalked by an author who created a fake account under Blythe’s name, created sock puppet accounts to harass Blythe & posted personal details about her in a review posted by one of the authors sock puppets. http://cuddlebuggery.com/blog/2012/06... (scroll down seven books to see the article)
The only proof Blythe provided to Cuddlebuggery of being stalked by this author was a screenshot of a book review from a 14 year old. At the end of the review, the girl says she is offended by all the curse words in another person’s review because the reviewer is a high-school teacher. http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/neo...
Blythe didn’t provide Cuddlebuggery with a screenshot of the profane, abusive posts that she and her friends left on the girls review to which the girl never responded but instead deleted. Blythe & her friends reposted the comments. http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/neo...
In spite of Nemos claims,there were no "investigators" who validated that the girl was a sock puppet. Cuddlebuggery reported Blythe’s accusation & then stated (in screen shot above) “However, we should note that before judging the author or removing her books from your TBR list, that we have been unable to validate, confirm or locate any evidence that the author is, in fact, involved.” Blythe also claimed that another author had “attacked” her but gave no proof.
Many have expressed support for Blythe which makes it all the more curious that she hasn't stepped up to comment. Is she living in fear even though Hale never revealed her name or location? Or is she ashamed that she made up a very detailed online persona with accompanying stories & photos stolen from a life belonging to someone else? (Age, occupation, marital status, home, trips & children) Catfishing isn’t just about romantic hoaxes. The urban dictionary & Internet slang.com site define it as “A person who creates a detailed false identity online to pretend to be someone they are not.”
Cyberbullying is illegal: "The use of information & communication technologies to post text or images with the intention of hurting, embarrassing or making another person the object of ridicule. This includes mocking, demeaning & "putting down" the victim. If Hale believed she was being cyberbullied, she should have reported it to the police. Instead, she wrongly chose to investigage & "unmask" Blythe on her own...but not to beat her up, curse her out or confront her for a one star review.
Blythe was well within her rights to give a negative review of Hales book. But some of her other behaviors on Amazon, GoodReads & Twitter appear to be obsessive & over the line themselves:
-She commented on all positive reviews of Hale’s book to tell them that they were wrong.
-She tweeted that it was time to “call out” Kathleen Hale.
-Blythe live tweeted Hale's tweets & mocked them.
It would appear that both people involved in this scenario have issues. As Miles Klee said “Two people significantly invested in their online reputations, with a common history of allowing the Internet to fuel their worst instincts, became entangled in a petty dispute that took on more sinister dimensions.” Hale was indeed monitoring Blythe’s online actions. And Blythe was doing the same to Hale at least to some degree. http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/neo... In fact, Blythe initiated the first contact with the author by tweeting that she had some good ideas for her next book. None of this excuses Hale’s actions but I’ve seen enough to believe that there are grey areas on both sides.
My Thoughts:
1.Authors should never engage with reviewers about their reviews in any manner, for any reason. Reviews aren’t written for authors.
2.Reviewers should express their opinion of books without fear of backlash.
3.Authors should expect criticism of their books but never be cyberbullied.
4. Don’t confuse Free Speech with a right to attack and harass others online.
6. Be civil. A good rule of thumb is “Would I want what I just said to be published in the newspaper with my real name attached?” You are never really anonymous online. Behave accordingly.
7. If you are repeatedlyexpressing your negative opinion of an author, reviewer or commenter online, trying to convince others to join you in that opinion, using name calling, sarcasm, mockery, profanity, accusations & baiting... then it's time for you to step away from the computer. Go hang out with real people and talk about something besides other people.
8.If you can't stop yourself from engaging in constant conflict or obsessive behaviors online then seek professional help.
Oh, FFS. You claim to have facts but you provide no evidence to support any of your claims other than Hale's own allegations from the article. ETA: and a bunch of links to random screenshots that have absolutely nothing to do with Hale and are out of context don't support your story. And no, your own version of these events DONT count as context. Go back to page one of the comments here and read the link I posted earlier. I'm not bothering to repost all the screenshots (actual proof) yet again. ESP since I doubt you care anyway.
JFTR, you also failed to provide any proof that Blythe Harris isn't who she says she is. Along with the many other claims you made. Except that a stalker who has a pretty good reason to attempt to discredit and humiliate her said so.
Also, even if Blythe Harris lied about every aspect of who she is online, what does that have to do with Kathleen Hale?
ETA: I should've looked at your profile sooner. It seems you're another one who just joined and has done nothing but comment on reviews and discussions about Kathleen Hale. I've had enough of those.
Blaire wrote: "Britian said "You are part of the problem by saying that there is nothing wrong with what she did."Figgy said "Also, you say there's nothing wrong with what she did?"
I NEVER said there was nothi..."
Since you are "trying to convince others of your opinion" perhaps you should take your own advice and step away from the computer. Highly unusual to be obsessing about a month old news story.
There are no grey areas in the episode. Hale was completely wrong in my opinion and Blythe was merely talking about books and authors with her friends.
message 66:
by
Brittain *Needs a Nap and a Drink*
(last edited Nov 20, 2014 03:40PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
TL;DR - It isn't technically illegal so I'm going to side with the author since she got her story out first.So my question is this: Is it illegal to have a fake profile for yourself online? No. It isn't. It isn't any of hale's business as to why Blythe didn't want to put her information online.
If we are going on the "not illegal" route, none of what Blythe did was illegal either. It is perfectly fine to express your opinions and say that a book is crap (which it completely sounds like it is). It is also not illegal to tell your friends not to read it and to mock someone. If that was the case then Jon Stewart would be out of a job.
What I am saying is not against Blythe. It is against hale for making a community feel like they are not safe. What if she had the intention of hurting someone like the guy that hit a girl with a wine bottle? What if she changed her mind at the last moment? what if she has become a person that other authors go "well she did it and got an article about it so I'm going to do it to."?
This has been oodles of PR for hale and she has profited from being an obsessive freak.
Done with this conversation. Not ever going to read hale and I will certainly tell my friends not to either. If she wants to come after someone in Alabama, Godspeed.
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita said"I should've looked at your profile sooner. It seems you're another one who just joined and has done nothing but comment on reviews and discussions about Kathleen Hale. I've had enough of those."
_________
Then please feel free to ignore my comments as I've ignored all of yours including the ones directed at me until this one. To quote your own recent post: "This may come as a shock to you, but it is ridiculously easy to ignore people/things you don't like on the Internet. You should try it."
Predicable as hell,terrible characters, horrible Crime solving skills, creative death, motive/culprit-dull, the worst diction and writing style i have ever read!P.s why is everyone talking about the author, what did she do?
wow i didnt think this topick would be that popular months later when i created it i personaly moved on especially since ive seen Kathleen Hale esque behaviur since there was no one apearing at the doorstep thank god but it got close
I've read it. It wasn't that great, kinda' predictable, though I did like the grotesqueness of the crime, it was a unexpected surprise.
Not going to lie. I really enjoyed this book. It is very much a LOVE IT or HATE IT kind of thing. Seeing what Blaire wrote is giving me a lot to think about when it comes to the author's actions. Cyberbullying is very real, and I think Hale is definitely unhinged, and acted accordingly to her madness. Was it right to go there in real life? No. But I don't think that reviewer was all sunshine and rainbows.I just wish people would stop giving 1's to this book without having read it. Just DON'T read it and move on.
It's still our right to one star a book, even if we don't read it. Ratings are for readers not authors' egos.
All the negative publicity she has gotten because of this kind of makes me want to read it more.I originally wasn't going to read this book, but because all of this, I am now going to read it
I didn't know anything about the author or the controversy until I logged the book as finished on Goodreads and saw all the negative reviews. I think if I had known about the author or the controversy I wouldn't have read the book or my reading experience would have been negatively affected. Ironically I was hesitant to rate or comment my praise of the book for fear of enticing negative attention.
Summary of my opinion: Stalking bad, book enjoyable.
I could imagine certain people stopping by and posting links to what the author did in the comments... but I don’t think this would be done in a negative way.I don’t imagine they would blame you for not hating on the book - it’s your right to feel however you want about a story. But they might comment to either warn future potential readers who might not like it so much, or just to let you know in case you would rather not spend your money on someone who does this to their readers.
Personally, in your situation I would simply say in my review “I am aware of what Hale has done, but I found out after reading, so it did not temper my feelings of the story” or something... essentially what you said here, and write the review you want to write. That should head off any of those responses you’re concerned about.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
No, she wasn't. Unless you consider writing a negative review interacting.