Nothing Bad Is Going to Happen (No One Else Can Have You, #2) Nothing Bad Is Going to Happen discussion


385 views
And I thought this site was for book reviews...

Comments Showing 1-10 of 10 (10 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Matt (new)

Matt I was actually curious about the book, not about an essay the author wrote where she openly admits she was behaving crazily.


message 2: by Matt (new)

Matt Classic internet mob. Any question of whether their behavior is appropriate is rationalized away with finger-pointing, because it's those other people that need to change first.

What they don't want to understand is, at this point, they are basically bullies; bullies always have "reasons" why the target deserves it, and no one is allowed to question their behavior without the bullies rationalizing an attack on anyone who dares question them.


message 3: by Magadored (new) - added it

Magadored wants to extrude your face normals I agree that the review area is not an appropriate place to rag on Hale's crappy behavior. They should take it to the GR forums, Slate's comment section, or her personal email account -- places where it's relevant. Messing with the ratings is just petty and terribly pointless. I am with you up until that point.

However, can we stop labeling all collective dissent as "bullying?" It's a passive aggressive, self-indulgent, namby-pamby way of dealing with your issues akin to declaring everyone who doesn't like you a "hater." It's also pretty ironic that you think you're entitled to change people's minds with a bunch of vague declarations like "no one is allowed to question their behavior" just because you fly under a different flag, not that of a "bully." Aren't you questioning their behavior right now? Who's stopping you? What is this really about? It sounds like sour grapes.

If you have a specific point you'd like to make or an argument you'd like to counter then do so. Otherwise, shhhhh. You're just contributing to the noise.


message 4: by Matt (new)

Matt I am not labeling "dissent" as "bullying." If you actually paid attention to my comment, you might have noticed it was not their viewpoints, but their behavior I was criticizing. They are attempting to use what power they have to punish a person as much as they can for views/actions they consider wrong. There is no consideration for what may be an appropriate response, only an attempt to maximize harm. That's a classic bully, plain and simple.

So, just to spell things out, expressing a viewpoint is dissent; when it crosses over into punishing a person for not conforming to expected conduct, that's bullying.


message 5: by Magadored (new) - added it

Magadored wants to extrude your face normals "Punishing a person." You mean expressing their opinion in a way that is completely legitimate on GR? You do know that rating a book before it's released is allowed, yes? While I may not necessarily see the logic in it, the powers that be have spoken (Amazon,) so you can't shake your finger at that. GR is a forum; people are expressing their dissent within the framework provided -- as is their right as users of this site.

You seem bent on trying to illegitimize people's responses because you believe they should act differently, a sentiment that you dance around by using wishy-washy phrases like "appropriate response," "maximizing harm," and, your favorite: "bullying." Maximizing harm? They're talking about it. They don't like it. They refuse to support it. And they tell their friends, who come to similar conclusions! Oh, no! Take the recommendations of other people whose opinions are frequently in line with my own, whom I have come to trust, and share a personal relationship with as a result? I never. I am an internet mob of one.


message 6: by Matt (last edited Jan 12, 2015 05:42PM) (new)

Matt "You mean expressing their opinion in a way that is completely legitimate on GR?"
Funny how you define "legitimate" as "totally against review guidelines". Review guidelines state: "Mentioning the author in the context of a review is always acceptable, but reviews that are predominantly about an author’s behavior and not about the book will be deleted."

"You do know that rating a book before it's released is allowed, yes?"
Key part you apparently have trouble with: "rating a book".

"the powers that be have spoken (Amazon,) so you can't shake your finger at that."
I'm sorry... were you not the person was just (albeit without quite understanding the argument) defending the right to dissent? I can absolutely express my disagreement with Amazon's choice to not moderate GR. Is an opinion only correct if it's popular, or the one the owners chose?

"people are expressing their dissent within the framework provided"
No, they're not, and you pretending they are just displays either ignorance of what they are doing, or what the framework of GR offers. There are multiple options for expressing dissent on GR (this page is one, in case you conveniently forgot), but they are specifically choosing to downrate her book based on an article she wrote elsewhere, often without even an attempt to state their reasoning. That's not expressing dissent; it's a choice to punish.

"You seem bent on trying to illegitimize people's responses because you believe they should act differently"
As are you, by claiming there is something not legitimate about my opinion. As, also, are the people you're defending, who are attacking the author's book as not legitimately worth reading *due to her behavior*. You're crossing into hypocrisy here, as you're basically implying that there is no questioning their behavior, even though their entire justification for their actions is as a response to the author's behavior.

"Maximizing harm? They're talking about it. They don't like it. They refuse to support it. And they tell their friends, who come to similar conclusions!"
What? "Tell their friends"? Do you really just not understand what internet ratings are? They are not about friends of any sort, and they have become a very, very big deal for the success or failure of almost any business venture these days, and there is no pretending otherwise.

"I am an internet mob of one."
Right... the super independent-minded person defending prevailing opinion. You truly go against the flow. Sorry (in retrospect, maybe the sarcasm is a bit heavy, but I feel it underscores my point), but basic psychology says we are all influenced by what is popular, and what we are exposed to, whether we want to believe we are or not.

Recommended viewing on internent mob bullying.


message 7: by Kaora (last edited Jan 22, 2015 06:53AM) (new)

Kaora "the super independent-minded person"
Sounds like you're arguing here to show how much better you are than everyone else because you are going against popular opinion, and everyone else is copying.

"So, just to spell things out, expressing a viewpoint is dissent; when it crosses over into punishing a person for not conforming to expected conduct, that's bullying. "
This is a bit of a gray area. Is a review not a viewpoint? People are using their review to explain their viewpoint on her behavior. I don't know about you but I don't want to finance background checks and "little trips" to peoples' homes who don't like her books. Especially after the story of an author attacking a reviewer with a wine bottle. I also don't want to express my honest opinion on a book and then find myself in danger.

How about people read the story and decide for themselves, and if it goes on a will not read shelf that is their prerogative. And if they write in their review space their exact viewpoint on the matter, that is their prerogative too.

You don't have to read the review if you don't want to.


message 8: by Matt (last edited Jan 27, 2015 04:07PM) (new)

Matt Sounds like you're arguing here to show how much better you are than everyone else because you are going against popular opinion, and everyone else is copying.
Right, because obviously I was exempting myself from "we" when I said "we are all influenced by what is popular, and what we are exposed to, whether we want to believe we are or not." You're the one who tried to claim independent thinking, not me. I just have a different set of influences I'm drawing from.

"This is a bit of a gray area. Is a review not a viewpoint?"
If it's a review, which most of those are not.

"People are using their review to explain their viewpoint on her behavior."
Which kinda goes against the terms of service, as well as the underlying premise of what a "review" is, if they are even doing that, which most aren't.

" I don't know about you but I don't want to finance background checks and "little trips" to peoples' homes who don't like her books."
Then don't buy her books.

However, did you even read her article? She never advocates behaving that way, so if that was really their concern, then they wouldn't be posting these reviews. No, this is about punishing what she did, not preventing future acts.

"Especially after the story of an author attacking a reviewer with a wine bottle. "
Irrelevant. She didn't do that; she didn't support it; she didn't advocate it.

"How about people read the story and decide for themselves"
How about that? How about people simply pass on the article without downrating all of the author's books as punishment.

" if it goes on a will not read shelf that is their prerogative"
I seem to recall my point was regarding reviews. Did I mention shelves somewhere?

"And if they write in their review space their exact viewpoint on the matter, that is their prerogative too."
That doesn't make it an actual review, though, which was my original point. It actually goes against the terms of service, whether Goodreads enforces that or not.

"You don't have to read the review if you don't want to."
And you don't have to add a review if you don't want to read the book. You're just offering a cop-out now. The point is, downrating without an actual review is not about offering an opinion, but punishing the author. If I go to a page that is supposed to be about reviews, but instead is just downrating the author as punishment for an irrelevant essay, it's very reasonable to feel that it defeats the purpose of the site.


message 9: by Ray (new)

Ray Day Matt, thank you, thank you, thank you for starting this thread! I couldn't agree more with every point you said (and said well, might I add.) Goodreads should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an UNRELEASED book to get this many negative reviews without reviewing why, and then in this case, removing those reviews (or blocking those reviewers from Hale's page) because their reviews have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "Nothing Bad is Going to Happen."

You're right: this is mob mentality, and it is revolting. Thank you for speaking out. I hope Ms. Hale sees this. And shame on any of these rightly named bullies for doing this.


message 10: by Cran Berry (last edited Jul 29, 2015 02:05PM) (new) - added it

Cran Berry I don't think it's necessarily bullying in most cases. Goodreads allows users to express opinions on books as well as prospective interest on upcoming books. And in the case of this book, lack of interest. So it's supposed to be okay if someone gives the book a one star rating without having read it in an attempt to express levels of anticipation about a book, whether it's the sequel to one they hated or about a topic they find unsavory.

In the case of readers giving the book one star reviews because of the authors actions... well that's just human nature. If you hear about the ceo of a clothing company being racist, you're not going to care if you love the clothes, a lot of people simply will not buy the brand in an attempt to make a statement. This may not be the same instance, but the same principle apply. Try to understand where people are coming from. As most see it - the book and the author are one in the same. Kathleen Hale does not deserve their praise or their support so they will not give it to her. Because in the end when you support a book, you're supporting an author.

So slandering an author for something she did wrong is not always bullying. Ms. Hale is a public figure and should be treated as such. We slander celebrities on gossip sites and rarely call it bullying. As long as no one is harrasing her or sending her malicious emails, what people say on Goodreads is simply an opinion which they have a right to express.

Now I'm not condoning people who slander the author nor am I saying that Kathleen Hale isn't a psycho, but we should all keep an open mind and try to understand this from all sides.


back to top