The Sword and Laser discussion
Are you a 'Goodreads Bully'?
What a piece of crap. I've only seen authors spamming readers, and readers being polite. There are some who devote themselves to reading and reviewing indie authors. If anything, I've only witnessed bullying by authors who can't take an honest and reasonable review. If you can't take an honest review, you have no business putting your work out for public review. You're not mature enough. Personally, I've had authors being pushy about asking me to write a review. Then when I did one a favorable review, being totally professional, he started PMing me with sexual hints.
Internet tough guys are so cute. Maybe I should review some crappy popular novels so they come after me -- it would amuse me.
This kind of accusations at readers actually hurt indie authors. I've heard from reviewers saying that they might stop reviewing indie authors since they may not have the maturity to put up with whatever is said about a book.
Haven't been to that site in a week or so. When I went there last, there was a buttload of Anti-Bullying links and whatnot on the sidebar.
Now, apparently, they've been asked to remove them all by those organizations.
I find that hilarious.
Now, apparently, they've been asked to remove them all by those organizations.
I find that hilarious.
I'm not going to name the books here because I don't want to give any more publicity to these bad behaving authors. Even negative publicity is better than anonymous death. There was an incident a while back with a romance novel that received a negative review. The author and her publicity agent started a discussion on her blog personally attacking the reviewer. She then beseeched her followers to "like" the book to bury the negative review. The reviewer's friends started to counter by posting negative reviews, or "liking" the negative reviews. Then an additional drama when another indie author, of YA books, posted the reviewer's real name, location and family information on her blog. That YA author also started several sock puppet accounts harrassing reviewers of unfavorable reviews.
There are always going to be a group of people that enjoy hiding behind anonymity and posting large walls of text as to why they and only they are correct. They are not looking for a discussion or input, they want a fight. The way to deal with the problem is not to try to turn their same reprehensible behavior onto them, it is to not engage them…. Most of us know not to feed the trolls, however it seems they may have just learned how to feed themselves.
I don't really understand all this hate. A good book author should appreciate a reviewer's honesty about his or her opinion about their work. It's an opportunity to learn about what makes your book good or bad in their eyes and they can take such a critique in mind to improve their writing. If I was an author, I would appreciate the the person read my book to begin with, even if it came out to disappointment in their part. No writer is perfect. There will always be people that don't like your work and that goes pretty much with anything in the creative industry. The author should just shrug and carry on and if a lot of people say the same thing I would rethink how I would write my next story and how to improve the experience. An author bullying a reviewer? Come on. No one likes a cry baby.
Kudos to Scalzi. His response was perfect.
I forgot to mention that the romance author mentioned had Goodreads remove most of the negative reviews that was to counter her asking her fans to bury the former negative review. So the claim that Goodreads was unresponsive was also a load of crap.
I sometimes miss the good old days when there were not that much communication between the author and the readers.
Rasnac wrote: "I sometimes miss the good old days when there were not that much communication between the author and the readers."That's easy -- just don't read the reviews ;)
Generally speaking I like a well done negative review over a positive review to tell me if I'll enjoy a book. If I think they've been overly critical or nit-picky I'll be more inclined to read the book due to the details they've given vs a super positive but not detailed review. By the same token, a negative review that doesn't give me legitimate details I'll always discount immediately and look for something that givens me an informed opinion. If all the low star ratings are poorly done I'll discount the completely. I'm wondering if anyone else does the same? To me it seems if others do this then perhaps all of this spitfulness coming from either direction is pointless.
That was a great blog by Scalzi, totally agree with him. Bullying the bully doesn't solve anything, if anything it will only make the problem bigger. As for the bullying described, I've seen it happen both ways. I've seen reviewers cross the line and I've seen authors behave in a completely offensive and unprofessional way. Whenever I come across something like that I prefer to stay out of it. I may look in to the situation so I can form my own opinion, but I have no interest at all in joining in on any internet fight.
I roll my eyes when I hear the word bullying applied to the actions of anyone over eighteen.
Kate wrote: "I roll my eyes when I hear the word bullying applied to the actions of anyone over eighteen."Why? Bullying is aggressive behavior used to intimidate or coerce someone who isn't in a place to defend themselves. Are you saying this can't be applied to adults or are you suggesting another word?
I actually am bothered by "bad" reviews. I don't mind negative reviews, but "bad" reviews, who many times get top billing on the review page, are ignorant, a waste of my time, and lengthy. Unfortunately, due to the nature of reviews, I end up reading through most of them before I realize that the reviewer has some sort of axe to grind with either the author, the genre, or the subject of the book. If I read one more person say things like "I didn't like the main character because she was stupid" with no further explanation, or "nobody wants to read graphic (sex, violence, etc)" or spends 3-4 paragraphs talking about some other artistic work in some other genre, and then DOESN'T tie it to the book in question I'm going to scream. Everyone is definitely entitled to their opinion to be sure. Try to make it a thoughtful one if you're displaying it to the public.Bullying does happen to adults all the time through all walks of life. Ignoring adult bullies or pretending like they don't exist is many times tacit permission for their behavior.
In the adult legal world, bullying traverses under the title of coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
That said, goodreads does need to do a better job at policing their reviews. If the synopsis of the book isn't present, or is a little broad regarding the book, I will many times look at the reader reviews to determine whether the book is worth my time. You can easily discount the reviews from people who don't read the genre or who likely didn't understand the book if they are brief. But those multi-paragraph reviews in which the person talks about some topic other than the book are ridiculous, and I've seen a lot of name-calling and character attacking in reviews that is petty and immature. Perhaps they should limit the number of characters in the review section so that it will be easier for them and the rest of us to discard the less than well-written reviews.
Mel wrote: "Generally speaking I like a well done negative review over a positive review to tell me if I'll enjoy a book. If I think they've been overly critical or nit-picky I'll be more inclined to read the ..."I agree with Mel. I too often go straight to the negative reviews to see if I would enjoy a story or not. It's just easier to tell if this is a book that you would read if you knew the negative points. A book that has just positive reviews is just suspicious. No writer is perfect and not every person would enjoy any book or a writing style like that. That being said, a good negative review will often list out if it will be worth your time and money to read it. It doesn't mean that the book is bad at all, but at least you've been warned about a book's weak points. They just very well might be weak points you enjoy. They're called Guilty Pleasures. ^_^
I posted a comment on the STGRB site. No idea whether they'll print it, but for what it's worth here:To the editors:
It might interest you to know that the Huffington Post has since disassociated itself from your blog posting there…and with good reason. Until the Huffpo brouhaha and some recent blogging about this site, I was unaware of your existence. I now feel up-to-date on the “bullying” controversy and I’ve got to paraphrase Inigo Montoya: you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
As you theoretically acknowledge, it certainly doesn’t mean ‘getting a bad review’. Shakespeare got bad reviews. They are the common heritage of anyone willing to put their work out into the public eye. However, it also doesn’t mean snarky reviews which imply a book should never have been written, which question the author’s skills, sanity, character, or hygiene. These too are the natural consequence of a public existence. Reviewers, like everyone, are looking for the causes behind what works and what doesn’t, and they want to be heard, and that will sometimes lead them to off-topic comments in their quest for an audience.
And here is the key: clever readers, intelligent readers, the ones you hope will love your work, will know how much credence to give to reviews which cross the line. When you launched this site, you were effectively telling readers that you don’t trust their abilities to discern worthwhile, on-topic criticism from empty rhetoric. What bullying most definitely is, is creating an environment hostile to ideas and perspectives by abusing your perceived power over others. And that’s what this site has been engaging in. It’s what the talk in the comments above, by anonymous authors, amounts to in their calls for secret authors groups where they can exchange blacklists of forbidden reviewers. It’s a product of fear.
You’ll notice that I am not anonymous. I am an author and goodreads reviewer. It would be entirely possible for someone on this site or off of it to use this occasion to launch some off-topic, personal criticisms. But I trust readers to be able to judge the merits of any such comments and come to their own conclusions.
I am not afraid, though it occurs to me that you have made others legitimately so. Because you are a bully.
They won't post it. They only allow posts by themselves or their puppet "anon" accounts.
Ala wrote: "They won't post it. They only allow posts by themselves or their puppet "anon" accounts."The ones affirming that the site has never posted personal info about its targets are especially hilarious. They were there when I first saw the site on Thursday, but once the HuffPo article went up, they miraculously disappeared.
Yeah, that's just levels of idiocy I can't even comprehend.
Especially since, y'know, this is the internet and nothing ever really disappears.
Gossamer Obsessions has screenshots from last week. I'm pretty sure a lot of others do as well.
Especially since, y'know, this is the internet and nothing ever really disappears.
Gossamer Obsessions has screenshots from last week. I'm pretty sure a lot of others do as well.
I wouldn't be suprised if one of the site's contributor was that YA author that I mentioned. That was exactly what she did to that reviewer, and she showed no remorse. As I said, all they do is hurt other indie authors who are mature enough to deal with reactions to their work, without going on a stalking spree.
It occurs to me that this issue is more broadly about the nature of public discourse. Is it more important to be respectful of the author and their work, or is it more important to clearly state your honest andunabridged opinion? I tend to err on the former, but my one rule regardless is to ask myself whether or not I would repeat my review to author's face. I think everyone should ask themselves (author or reader) before they write anything on goodreads, or anywhere else how they themselves would respond to such behavior if it were directed at them. It's not a matter of being able to take criticism or not. It's the spirit that the criticism is delivered in.
Examine your objective or goal. Is it to encourage better work out of the author, to communicate a different perspective that may have been missed, inspire better behavior out of the reader, or are you just venting your feelings because someone didn't live up to your expectations? If you're just venting, that's fine, but realize that venting is another word for dumping. Then ask yourself how appropriate it is to dump on total strangers.
This is a line that is crossed often on the internet, and I have to say that it doesn't improve the quality of information online at all. It's closely related to the whole "citizen journalist" issue in which unprofessional opinions with no regard for quality of information are spread far and wide regardless of their validity.
Nobody likes a Troll, on goodreads or anywhere else. Although I don't know how useful the website would be, I do think the point is well made, that thoughtful and sensitive criticism should be a requirement for reviews.
Leslie wrote: "Although I don't know how useful the website would be, I do think the point is well made, that thoughtful and sensitive criticism should be a requirement for reviews. "
I'm unsure what website you're referring to, the Stop the GR Bullies site or Scalzi's blog. I agree that in a perfect world, reviews would be thoughtful and sensitively critical (and honest, because I think it IS possible to give an honest unabridged opinion in a respectful way) but unfortunately I don't see that message anywhere on the Stop the GR Bullies website.
Instead I only see a revenge campaign on those they have deemed 'the enemy' and I personally feel like their website does more harm than good.
Leslie wrote: " ....thoughtful and sensitive criticism should be a requirement for reviews."I can't agree. I differ from many of my colleagues in cultural studies in that I don't think the internet should be a free-fire zone, but you're taking here about limiting people's rights to read and discuss what they've read, even in a manner which reveals them to be boors. After all, how are they to ever learn how not to be boors without their chance to make mistakes and then reap the *appropriate* consequences, i.e. people disregard their opinions...not stalk them at restaurants.
It is everyone's right to be a thickheaded goob.
I read the original review that started the storm. It was directed at the book, not the author, and was thoughtful and critical, not vitriolic. The author turned it into a big revenge campaign.
Personally, I'm most truthful when I'm writing a review for an author that doesn't really care about my review. Basically, authors who are dead or are too famous to care. When I'm critiquing an author who I know is looking forward to my review, I usually push toward the positive rather than the negative. If I can't give a positive review for an indie author, I don't post one. Call it avoidance, or whatever, but I don't have the heart to tear a book down when the writer barely started getting his/her foot wet.
Aloha wrote: "If I can't give a positive review for an indie author, I don't post one."Personally, I'm more likely to read a book if it has a handful of negative reviews attached to it... at least, if there are positive reviews to balance them out. It means that the book was reviewed by real people who may or may not have liked it.
Sure, one or two may be trolls, and any that explicitly state they didn't finish the book are automatically discounted, but at least it looks like a real book. Of course, I normally check what else the reviewer has reviewed as well to see if our tastes align. It's when I find a book with only 5 reviews and all of them are 4 or 5 stars that I get leery about picking it up...
If the author is serious about being an author, they should want to hear what you think, even if it's negative.
But back to the topic, while I did find the case of the 1-star review for a book that wasn't out yet hilarious, I agree that this 'Stop the GR Bullies' nonsense is, in fact, nonsense. As they say on the internet, haters gonna hate.
Edit: Also, was I the only one hoping that the obnoxiously capitalized letters at the start of each paragraph would spell something, à la the governator's supposed hidden message to lawmakers? Alas, that didn't seem to be the case...
Sure, people have the right to be boorish, and obviously author revenge should not be tolerated either. But as I stated earlier, dumping on strangers isn't appropriate, nor is it a right. If you want to be a jerk in the privacy of your own home or amongst your friends, I can't say a word. But in a publicly used forum, it's not ok. I do think there's a limit. People aren't allowed to say whatever they feel no matter what. Racist, derogatory, profane, and harassing statements wouldn't be tolerated by goodreads or most people on this site for that matter. So, we are already limited. Good fences make good neighbors. Youtube has a method of scoring comments that I think works well. Viewers can give insulting comments, or comments that miss the point of the content a thumbs down. If they get enough thumbs down, the comment is hidden unless the viewer decides they want to read it. In this way, the reviewer gets the benefit of the critique they are leveling at the content provider, and I and anyone else after gets to avoid pointless negativity.
Here is an example of a negative, that I actually worthwhile. Not only was it entertaining, but it painted a picture of the book without giving plot points away. It's clear the reviewer put some thought into his review and it wasn't his "emotional diarrhea" scathing as it was: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Am I Goodreads bully? Heavens no.I am a Goodreads Barbarian.
And I shall tread the books of indie authors beneath my sandalled feet!
Leslie wrote: "It occurs to me that this issue is more broadly about the nature of public discourse. Is it more important to be respectful of the author and their work, or is it more important to clearly state your honest and unabridged opinion? I tend to err on the former, but my one rule regardless is to ask myself whether or not I would repeat my review to author's face."Frankly, that kind of thinking actually makes any given reviewer's opinions less useful. I'm much more likely to take a negative review into consideration if the reviewer gives honest opinions across the board. If someone gives most books 4-5 star reviews then posts a 1 or 2 star review, that strikes me as something I need to pay attention to. The only time I take an author's feelings into consideration is when I've had contact with him/her before reading the book. If I really don't like it, I try to be diplomatic or find something positive about it. However, I can't be expected to like everything.
I just love it when I write negative reviews of very popular books. People get really angry and defensive. They post ludicrous statements in response. Does anyone really think Cormac McCarthy is going to be hurt by my negative review of The Road or that Philip Pullman is going to cry over my review of The Golden Compass? I don't think so. I also don't think my reviews were bullying. If I don't like something, I try to state why I don't like it. If someone hates a book I love, why should I take it personally?
I don''t agree with just letting anybody censor people's postings. What ends up happening is that you have self-appointed dictators trying to make everybody conform to what the idea of propriety is. I would rather have the moderators use their judgment as to how they would like to run the forum. If they want to attract people who are free in their speech, which I find mostly runs to active, interesting, and humorous dialogues, then they might want to allow for more freedom of speech. I find forums that are too rigorous in their guidelines end up with few posters.Leslie wrote: "Sure, people have the right to be boorish, and obviously author revenge should not be tolerated either. But as I stated earlier, dumping on strangers isn't appropriate, nor is it a right. If you..."
Patricia wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Although I don't know how useful the website would be, I do think the point is well made, that thoughtful and sensitive criticism should be a requirement for reviews. "
I was writing about "Stop the GR bullies" It might be better to form a separate website for book reviews if they are that unhappy with the way GR runs its site.
Technically, the postings wouldn't be censored as anyone would have access to them. They would simply be filtered. It's a little one-sided to be able to "like" something, but not "dislike" it. The Passive Voice website also mentioned the ability for the negative poster to organize their negative reviews: "Those bullies mentioned in that blog organize, and many times they will “like” the really horrid reviews to the top of a book’s page, so it’s the first one an unsuspecting reader sees."
So, manipulating the system is already occurring. Giving people the ability to vote on reviews will level the playing field.
Sandi wrote:"The only time I take an author's feelings into consideration is when I've had contact with him/her before reading the book. If I really don't like it, I try to be diplomatic or find something positive about it. However, I can't be expected to like everything."I think that's boundary like all others. I'm not going to change my opinion simply because I am speaking to the person whom I have a negative opinion of. Being diplomatic is not about changing your opinion, it's about basic respect of a human being. Also, the problem was not about negative reviews, it was about bullying reviews which were clarified on The Passive Voice website.
Sandi wrote:"Does anyone really think Cormac McCarthy is going to be hurt by my negative review of The Road or that Philip Pullman is going to cry over my review of The Golden Compass? I don't think so. "
Honestly, you don't know what Cormac McCarthy or Phillip Pullman think of your reviews unless they've contacted you and told you. They could pull up the goodreads sight every day and read every new review. That's not the point either.
It doesn't matter how famous or popular someone is, every person deserves basic respect. I quote Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person, no matter how small".
When you're on a forum, that is shared by the public, there is also a shared responsibility implicit within the confines of the forum. Goodreads could very easily turn into a dogpile full of embittered battles between authors and readers that no one would want to come to if people were not held and did not hold each other and themselves accountable for what they wrote. It's the same social contract that we live with in real life. I don't mind giving negative reviews or positive ones where they are warranted. I have to wonder why a person would be excited about giving negative reviews of any book. In my mind that means that you spent your time involved in something you ultimately didn't like, which can be an opportunity to learn, but why relish that? Obviously I enjoy debate, so I understand the desire to be in the fray, but actually enjoying defensiveness or ludicrous statements seems like stepping over dime to pick up a penny. That is, foregoing an opportunity to enlighten or be enlightened to score some hit points. Maybe that's too assumptive of me.
Life is FULL of struggle, it's inherent in life. Do we really need to pick fights on a book club website, really?
Michal wrote: "Am I Goodreads bully? Heavens no.I am a Goodreads Barbarian.
And I shall tread the books of indie authors beneath my sandalled feet!"
Michal, tell us, what is best on GoodReads?
"To crush the authors, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"
I add to the voices of people who like negative reviews. When checking out a book, I like to know the views of the people who loved it, those who thought it was okay, and those who hated it. I find reading the views of each gives me a good idea of how I will feel about a book. If a book has only positive reviews, and I read and dislike it, I am likely to feel a little angry and mislead. On the other hand, if I go into the book with an informed opinion of what might annoy, I'm more likely to be able to overlook it and enjoy the book anyway. If the negative review is just something along the lines of "OMG this book sucked, I don't get how anyone could like it. Losers" and gives me no reasons for the dislike, I'm likely to discount the opinion altogether and assume the book must be good since no one had anything constructive to say about the negative side. Sometimes negative reviews point out things that, while not making the book bad, are likely to annoy me just as they annoyed the reviewer, and I might then avoid the book deciding it isn't for me, thus making me less likely to make a negative rant about it in the future.As for the nature of reviews, emotional rants can be really fun to write, and also to read. I've read some very amusing rants which would certainly offend the author, but they do tend to include reasons for their views, and are not really an attack, so much as the person joyously letting off steam via a media that guarantees someone will agree, if only because of numbers. I don't think a person has to consider the author. The author has put his/her work into the public forum, knowing full well it will be judged, and they have to develop a thick skin if they want to read reviews (I get that this would be hard - should I ever have a book on the market, I will be sorely tempted to know what people think, and if I read scathing reviews, it will break my heart, but this will not really be the reviewer's fault, but mine.) Even if someone says something like 'the author must be a total creep to have written x, y or z' the review is not talking about the person, just the name on the cover of a book they didn't enjoy. It's not meant to be personal; it's meant for the amusement of others; most people would be much more respectful if they met the author face to face, because then the author would be a person, and not just a faceless entity (or picture on the back cover).
Leslie wrote: "Sure, people have the right to be boorish, and obviously author revenge should not be tolerated either. But as I stated earlier, dumping on strangers isn't appropriate, nor is it a right. If you want to be a jerk in the privacy of your own home or amongst your friends, I can't say a word. But in a publicly used forum, it's not ok. I do think there's a limit. People aren't allowed to say whatever they feel no matter what."Am I allowed to review an Orson Scott Card book by calling it homophobic trash written by a bigoted man and saying people should refrain from buying his books because their money might end up in the hands of a hate group? 'Cause I think that's a perfectly legitimate position to take when reviewing OSC.
And, of course, sometimes I've read books, or even the premises of books, which *have* caused me to question the character, sobriety, or sanity of the author. That's grist for the reviewer's mill too.
P. Aaron wrote: "Michal wrote: "Am I Goodreads bully? Heavens no.I am a Goodreads Barbarian.
And I shall tread the books of indie authors beneath my sandalled feet!"
Michal, tell us, what is best on GoodReads?..."
Nah, it's cos Goodreads books make the softest toilet paper ;)
I've read a lot of negative reviews where the reviewer is snarking off about something or other, often in an entertaining fashion, and I've stopped and gone "Wait, that actually sounds great!". On the other hand I've read gushing reviews that've made me go "Ergh, that sounds horrible". Reviews are reviews are reviews, it doesn't really matter what they're about or how many stars they are or anything, really, except that they're the reviewer's honest opinion.
JoJo wrote: "Kate wrote: "I roll my eyes when I hear the word bullying applied to the actions of anyone over eighteen."Why? Bullying is aggressive behavior used to intimidate or coerce someone who isn't in a ..."
It's not that I don't think adults can commit acts of dictionary definition bullying against each other, it's that the sort of groups who describe it as bullying rather than, intimidation, harassment, threatening behaviour, etc., tend not to be reacting to perceived real threats so much a to 'you hurt my precious feelings.'
It's just an observation. Your experience may differ.
LOL! This is hilarious.Sky wrote: "Edit: Also, was I the only one hoping that the obnoxiously capitalized letters at the start of each paragraph would spell something, à la the governator's supposed hidden message to lawmakers? Alas, that didn't seem to be the case... "
Stopthegrbulllies and that romance author who called out to her fans to help her sound more like whiny little kids yelling, "Mommy, he's picking on me!", and then resorting to underhanded revenge tactics. Those authors could have done what adults do, ignore the bad reviews or use it to improve on their work, and move forward. Kate wrote: "JoJo wrote: "Kate wrote: "I roll my eyes when I hear the word bullying applied to the actions of anyone over eighteen."
Why? Bullying is aggressive behavior used to intimidate or coerce someone wh..."
Kate wrote: "It's not that I don't think adults can commit acts of dictionary definition bullying against each other, it's that the sort of groups who describe it as bullying rather than, intimidation, harassment, threatening behaviour, etc., tend not to be reacting to perceived real threats so much a to 'you hurt my precious feelings.'"I can't really understand you point of view here. What does it matter what words people use to describe the behaviour? Bullying is a perfectly valid word. Aren't people who are being harassed and intimidated also trying to protect their 'precious feelings' when they take action against such behaviour? I also dislike the way you sound disdainful towards those who would protect their feelings. Even in cases where physical harm occurs, it is often the emotional impact that causes greater damage.
The issue mentioned on this thread is more related to whether or not bad reviews can be viewed as a form of bullying, which in my view, they cannot. Suggesting however, that an adult is silly for complaining about being bullied in order to protect their feelings is like suggesting it is fine for adults to engage in cruel, childish behaviour at the expense of others because the victims should be old enough not to get hurt by it. I've seen too much bullying in the work place to accept that point of view.
The issue mentioned on this thread is more related to whether or not bad reviews can be viewed as a form of bullying, which in my view, they cannotMy read of the discussion is a little different. It's not the bad review that is the act of "bullying" (or harassment or intimidation), it's when a group gathers together for express purpose of using negative reviews, review voting, and other built in systems to attack a writer. It can just as easily happen when an author turns his (or her) friends loose on a negative reviewer to do the same.
There is power in numbers and for a starting author it does not take much to destroy their Goodreads (or Amazon) review page. A few scathing reviews that are voted up by the reviewer's friends can both bring down an average but also make sure that the worst reviews are at the top of the display.
What I remember of bullies in school (which granted were not adults), there was a real pleasure for them simply in showing that they ~could~ bully. I think that it's quite ~possible~ that there are those who use GoodReads and other review sites as a way to find someone to pick on, because they can, and see if they can get a reaction out of them. But even if the author ignores the bait, there can still be damage done.
In school yard terms, if someone takes my bag and dumps my books into the mud, he and his toadies are trying to goad me into a fight, one where I'll lose horribly (being out numbered and outgunned). But while I might not have my nose broken, I still have had my books dumped in the mud. And that alone will give them some pleasure.
I don't know to what extent it happens on Goodreads. I try to keep a low profile on the review front, because I don't know how common it is and I'd rather not learn the hard way.
Specifically to Ruth's question about the use of terms: I think the case that Kate is making (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that when someone uses force and intimidation either for pleasure or to gain something most "grownups" call it "using force and intimidation" whereas most children call it "bullying". I believe that this is a shift over the last 10 years. Calling an adult a "bully" was not something I saw several years ago, but more recently I've seen more of it.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
11/22/63 (other topics)Alice in Wonderland (other topics)
A Canticle for Leibowitz (other topics)
The Road (other topics)
The Golden Compass (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Philip Pullman (other topics)C.S. Lewis (other topics)
Yukio Mishima (other topics)
Lewis Carroll (other topics)
Walter M. Miller Jr. (other topics)
More...
Nice how they only use pictures of the posts they complain about so you can't search them...