The Sword and Laser discussion
Are you a 'Goodreads Bully'?
message 51:
by
Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth
(new)
Jul 22, 2012 07:48AM
Yes. I think the trouble is that 'force and intimidation' are terms which are sometimes too grown up to describe the way some adults behave. Honestly, at an office I worked at, one group of people in their 20's and 30's decided to play 'hilarious' pranks on one particular person, things such as putting drawing pins on his chair and itching powder down the collar of his shirt. They also called him names. He took all this gamely with a smile, but I could tell it was upsetting him (shamefully, I did little to stop it). He eventually left the company, as did I a while later. I really don't think you can call that kind of behaviour anything other than bullying. It was like a playground in that office sometimes.
reply
|
flag
I have never understood how the physical acts of bullies get equated to non physical acts of forum posts. To me at least, getting pushed into my locker at school back in the day is a much differnt act then me reading comments on a screen. I know the words create an emotional reaction but to me it doesn't seem to be the same as when the person is right there in front of you and able to add the physical element to the confrontation.
Sean wrote: "Well, the asshat's been outed. And he's still denying that he posted personal info."
Different guy, innit?
The main STGRB person is a woman, from what I understand. This guy is just another random crazy.
Different guy, innit?
The main STGRB person is a woman, from what I understand. This guy is just another random crazy.
Huh? Carroll Bryant? He's a Goodreads friend of mine from the Horror forum. I don't know if he is still a GR friend. I haven't checked. He invited me to his forum. I left after a little bit because it's mostly full of youngsters. I'm not an old bitty, but I don't usually hang out with youngsters even when I was a youngster. I have 300+ friends and only converse with less than 5. As you can see, I usually don't turn down people who seem normal. LOL. Sean wrote: "Well, the asshat's been outed. And he's still denying that he posted personal info."
And who's the other guy? Looks like some techie.
I think it all comes down to respect and good manners. Readers are entitled to dislike books without any specific reason or for a reason that no else agrees with.
Authors should respect the opinion of the readers but they're allowed to rebut if they want to, cause that might even be a way of improving.
This being said, both sides should keep the comments clean and respectful, avoiding personal blows and insults, focusing only in the work being reviewed.
André
Aloha wrote: "And who's the other guy? Looks like some techie."If you're talking about the author page you are redirected to through that 2nd link; I'm pretty sure he has nothing to do with this situation.
The 2nd link used to direct to Carroll Bryant's blog post here on GR, but GR has deleted his author profile (and thus his blog) about an hour ago. Ever since he was deleted the 2nd link redirects to this Wang Zenghlian person.
I'm not sure if he actually is/was connected to the STGRB site but either way, this whole situation with Bryant is getting so incredibly ugly. More drama. Yuck.
This author was the one that first posted personal information about the reviewer on her blog exactly like how STGRB posted personal info. about other reviewers. She has since made her blog private requiring a password. She has a computer science degree, so I'm wondering whether she has something to do with the STGRB site.http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/...
Ala wrote: "Sean wrote: "Well, the asshat's been outed. And he's still denying that he posted personal info."
Different guy, innit?
The main STGRB person is a woman, from what I understand. This guy is just ..."
She was also the one that opened several sock puppet accounts designed to harrass reviewers.
I don't write negative reviews very often, but I generally try to pick up books I'd want to read.But when I do I try to be both honest and respectful. There's no need to be rude and there's no need to be an ass. Its not personal so I don't make it personal.
If you're relying on that to make your reviews, you're really not very good at writing them.
That said I have noticed a trend on Amazon of voting down negative reviews of indie authors and the number of indie authors on Good Reads with overwhelmingly high review ratings is a little suspicious.
Carroll Bryant's blog has been removed, but apparently, there were some creepy conversation from Mr. Bryant himself on his blog. Here is a conversation about that:http://www.goodreads.com/user_status/...
Ala wrote: "Sean wrote: "Well, the asshat's been outed. And he's still denying that he posted personal info."Different guy, innit?
The main STGRB person is a woman, from what I understand. This guy is just ..."
There's another skeevy author harassing reviewers and threatening to post personal details because they didn't play nice with him?
How many assholes do we have around here?
Oh, joy, Will Shetterly is weighing in on the matter and concludes that it's the site organizer who's being bullied here, not the people who've had their personal information released on the web. The best part is this:Pseudonymity and anonymity matter. Anyone who is concerned about their privacy should have their privacy respected. Bradley Manning is one of my heroes, and I despise the people who outed him.
Keep in mind that back during Racefail, Shetterly outed an anonymous blogger for having the temerity to disagree with him.
Procrastinador wrote: "I think it all comes down to respect and good manners. Readers are entitled to dislike books without any specific reason or for a reason that no else agrees with.
Authors should respect the opin..."
Like!
Reading the discussion regarding Carroll Bryant, there also seems to be an expectation and demand of a good review or that it be written, especially if the reviewer had agreed to it. Unless you're paying somebody and have a written contract, throwing a tantrum over somebody not writing a review for you FOR FREE is ridiculous. Or feeling that if you gave somebody your book that they owe you something. When an author offers me a book with a request to write a review, I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place. I don't want to refuse the book and hurt the author's feeling, but I don't really want to spend my time reading a book I know nothing about, and being obligated to write a review. I have too many books I'd like to catch up on. Sometimes I even buy a book just to support an author without having to commit to reviewing a book.Mel wrote: "Procrastinador wrote: "I think it all comes down to respect and good manners.
Readers are entitled to dislike books without any specific reason or for a reason that no else agrees with.
Authors ..."
I think most indie authors are decent people just trying to put their work out. It's these few crazies that are spoiling the relationship between authors and reviewers.
And please, if you're really appreciative of my great review of your book, a simple thank you will do. I don't need you to offer me your penis, as much as you think it's a magnificent specimen.
Aloha wrote: "Reading the discussion regarding Carroll Bryant, there also seems to be an expectation and demand of a good review or that it be written, especially if the reviewer had agreed to it. Unless you're..."There is a difference between when an author offers a reviewer a free copy, and when the reviewer approaches the author for a free copy so they can review it, and then later refuses to do the review. My understanding is that most people complain about the latter.
Wasn't Carroll Bryant the bloke who's been talking for the past year about a group of people who have been trying to harass him off of GoodReads? I have no idea how true that account is, but I do know that people will do some odd things if they think they're being persecuted.
Doc
I haven't follow Carroll Bryant. Actually, I don't follow anybody's activities unless it's a really good friend who is also interested in what I'm doing. I do like to do research if there's a topic that I'm curious about, and this is a very interesting topic. I have spoken to a close friend who have read the conversation in Bryant's blog via a GR friend's update, and who is an impartial observer. He said that Mr. Bryant actually posted that he called the police on the posters.I wouldn't call myself a reviewer, but my active postings have led authors to ask me to review their books. So, I've never ask for a free copy. I would be the first in line to grab a free copy if it's announced, though. I do have one author that I feel I owe a review to, though, over a year late. But he's very nice about it and haven't mentioned it.
For what it's worth there are a lot of people who post in the genre forums that they'll "review everything!" and ask for free copies directly. Given how valuable reviews are to independent authors, there seems little reason to say no. But the jaded, cynical part of me (tempered in the fires of a high school classroom) sometimes wonder if their goal is to review or to simply have their reading itch scratched. I love my wife but her addition to printed material is just slightly cheaper than, say, a heroin addiction. Could we call it a "Heroine" addiction?
Thing is, it's the reviewers with the power around GoodReads. This is a site for readers more than writers, so writers here are coming, hats in hand, hoping to catch a little attention among the masses. It's like turning up to a Sci Fi convention, not as a fan, but as someone trying to promote a new show. You're vastly outnumbered by the fans talking about BSG, ST:TNG, B5, LotR Etc.
I wonder if that power imbalance feeds to some of the paranoia? A dedicated group of reviewers can bring a writer down pretty hard with the right kind of 1 star reviews and enough "useful" clicks on them. That's power when you consider how desperate new independent writers are.
And there's no recourse for the writers, there's no threat of mutually assured destruction. Harassment can be reported to the Goodreads admins, but that's a trough call for them. Is it just a bad book that got a legitimately bad review? Or did the reviewers really set out to destroy someone because they ~could~ and it was ~fun~? My personal experience with bullies is that it is as much about the fact that they enjoy the act of bullying as them wanting something from their victims. It's nice to get the nerd's lunch money, but meh, it's just plain fun to beat it out of him. (Observation, not endorsement. I actually, oddly, liked having my own lunch money to, ya know, buy lunch).
Whenever there's a broad imbalance of power you end up with paranoia as a common trait.
That's true about the imbalance of power. Reviewers are basically people with an opinion and their own personal perceptions. There could be something about the book that irritates the reviewer. But a reviewer is entitled to his/her opinion. There are some reviewers who have a huge following and reviewing friends, and can influence how a book is perceived. However, I don't think the answer is to go on an offensive against the stronger power. If you want something from somebody, forcing it, especially if the person is bigger than you, never works. If these complaining authors expect positive reviews of their work or even somebody to agree to read and review their work, they're going about it the wrong way.Rob wrote: "For what it's worth there are a lot of people who post in the genre forums that they'll "review everything!" and ask for free copies directly. Given how valuable reviews are to independent authors..."
Rob wrote: " A dedicated group of reviewers can bring a writer down pretty hard with the right kind of 1 star reviews and enough "useful" clicks on them. That's power when you consider how desperate new independent writers are."But here's another question: how likely is that to happen to a good book by an author who behaves reasonably?
Nobody is owed reviews. Even more essentially, nobody is owed a career as a writer. Based on what I've read on both Bryant's case, the Selection case, and STGRB, the problem is that some of these would-be authors are simply not very good writers, and are unwilling to hear that painful news.
John Scalzi received a poor review from a popular reviewer. You don't hear of him stalking that reviewer, and whining and complaining. Not yet, anyway. LOL.http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Rob wrote: "I wonder if that power imbalance feeds to some of the paranoia? A dedicated group of reviewers can bring a writer down pretty hard with the right kind of 1 star reviews and enough "useful" clicks on them. That's power when you consider how desperate new independent writers are. "Yeah. So? Reviewers aren't publicists. If you want someone who'll kiss your ass and tell you it tastes like sugar, get Ben Lyons.
Doc wrote: "There is a difference between when an author offers a reviewer a free copy, and when the reviewer approaches the author for a free copy so they can review it, and then later refuses to do the review. My understanding is that most people complain about the latter."
If the book turns out to be unreadable crap, why should they force themselves to finish and review it? Or should they review the parts they read and then have the author go frothy with claims that the review is illegitimate if the reader didn't finish the book?
Note that when a professional publisher sends out ARCs, they don't put reviewers on a shitlist for not reading the book -- they accept that no one's going to read every copy they send out.
Wasn't Carroll Bryant the bloke who's been talking for the past year about a group of people who have been trying to harass him off of GoodReads? I have no idea how true that account is, but I do know that people will do some odd things if they think they're being persecuted."
No, this is the Carroll Bryant who apparently retaliated against a 17 year old girl who didn't review his book by making up a story about taking her to Mexico for an abortion.
Sean wrote: " 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."An interesting test case for this debate. I think where I'd be on this is:
- sure you can call a book homophobic trash, but give that that is quite a challenge it might be good to add at last one example from the book to prove your contention
- you might just be able to get away with calling OSC a 'bigoted man' again if you can back this up from the book (rather than just a vague personal accusation)
- 'their money might end up in the hands of a hate group'. I think this one is probably out of bounds. What does it matter what the guy spends his money on when you are talking about teh book? I think you are referring to the Mormon church here (of which I am neither a member nor a supporter) but to refer to them as a hate group tends to say as much about the reviewer as the book. Also there's a principle here, if I sell my book and happen to smoke a bit of weed occasionally (which I don't) am I supporting some interenational drug cartel (maybe) and also some terrorist outfit (perhaps...)
So, slam the book if you want but substantiate it, slam the author if you really think you must and it relates directly to the book, but I think commenting on what he spends his money on is probably out of order.
A
I'd like to point out, in case I didn't do it well enough, that I'm not ~defending~ the actions of any bullies. My point was that I understood the fear some people have of not bad reviews (we all get them) but groups of users who set out to just be jerks because they can. And you're right no one is owed anything, least of a review, good or bad. And you're right when a professional publisher ships out ARC's they don't get upset when there isn't a review posted soon. Maybe that's no different then those who ask for free books with the promise of a review who really just want free books to read.
There's no defense for being a jerk or a bully on either side.
Edit to add: I'm not doing a good job at articulating this I fear.
The thing about paranoia and power imbalance goes like this:
Bad reviews happen to everyone including people who write good stuff. Mostly it happens to people who write bad stuff.
But it's also possible, regardless of the quality of work, for a group with a grudge to leave false negative reviews, rate each other up so they're on the front and then go off chuckling at the damage they did. Now a well known writer can bounce back from that; they've got fans who will leave good reviews as well, vote up down, etc. But someone starting out, without a fan base, is more or less screwed, unless some people take a chance, read their work, and leave an honest review.
So it's not that I think anyone is ~owed~ good reviews, or that they should be ~protected~ from honest bad reviews. It's the fear, rightly or not, that someone will decide they don't like a writer on a personal level and then bring them down because they can.
Procrastinador wrote: "I think it all comes down to respect and good manners. "Unfortunately many people don't see it that way. :(
The saddest part though is that so many of these internet bullies are people who have been bullied in real life and are using the internet as an anonymous outlet for their own personal anger and pain. Instead of healing and moving on they hurt others because it makes them feel better.
Andrew wrote: "- you might just be able to get away with calling OSC a 'bigoted man' again if you can back this up from the book (rather than just a vague personal accusation)"Why would I have to back it up from the book? Card's been proud of and vocal about his bigotry for several years now.
"- 'their money might end up in the hands of a hate group'. I think this one is probably out of bounds. What does it matter what the guy spends his money on when you are talking about teh book? I think you are referring to the Mormon church here (of which I am neither a member nor a supporter) but to refer to them as a hate group tends to say as much about the reviewer as the book."
I mean his support for groups that want to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights in this country.
Also there's a principle here, if I sell my book and happen to smoke a bit of weed occasionally (which I don't) am I supporting some interenational drug cartel (maybe) and also some terrorist outfit (perhaps...)
So, slam the book if you want but substantiate it, slam the author if you really think you must and it relates directly to the book, but I think commenting on what he spends his money on is probably out of order.
This is how markets work -- you find out that a business is giving financial support to something you disagree with, you stop doing business with them and encourage others to do the same. It's called a boycott. Telling people on Goodreads they shouldn't read Card is no different than telling them not to eat at Chick-fil-A.
Looks like he removed today's rant. He must have spoken to his lawyer.
What was said in his blog was posted here in the most recent conversations:http://www.goodreads.com/user_status/...
That dude is six different kinds of crazy.
And apparently new to the Internet.
And apparently new to the Internet.
This was Bryant's ultimatum today:They keep saying that I am the bully. Well, now we are going to find out. I pulling my posts againt them and about them first. And I will give these "innocent victims" two days to pull ALL of thier posts about me. This includes Twitter, facebook discussions, and other websites that can be seen by anyone on the web. After all, if THEY really are not the bullies, then clearly, if I take down my posts, they will take down all of theirs, right? And they will stop talking about it in a public setting, right?
If any of you do not follow my lead, then everyone will see who the real bullies are. Two days, people, two days. If I go back to all of these blogs and websites and see shit still posted with my name in it, I am going back to posting with yours in it. So Autumn, you better take down your facebook discussions on Book Junkies. And Cup and a Latte, take down your shit. All of you, take it down. I have taken mine down. If you really are "The Poor Helpless Victims" here, and not "The Bullies" then you will take it down.
This also includes all comments pertaining to me from the website "AbsoluteWrite".
I AM TAKING MINE DOWN ... NOW TAKE DOWN YOURS. (You have two days)
Sooooo...he launches this retributive list, expecting adulation or at least some kudos for his firm, manly bravery...the internet, in general and in detail, hands this guy his own butt, deep-fried...and he thinks he can make it 'didn't happen' with a hand wave?
Here is a blog that recounts the whole drama of a promising author destroying what he built:http://therexfiles.blogspot.com/2012/...
He's clearly found the same fountain of internet failure as Paul Christoforo and Charles Carreon. It's spreading... like an epidemic...My god, Neal Stephenson saw it coming! This is clearly the work of ancient Sumerian brain hacking.
OMG! Bryant was using a picture of a male model for his profile photo, hence drawing in smitten teen girls. I remember when a girl asked whether his eyes are really that blue, and he said that they were.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobalong...
Self-published authors have a right to be pissed at authors like Mr. Bryant because it affects how bloggers review self-published authors. Note what The Rex Files said about that.
Obviously, there were deeper issues than Mr. Bryant's original complaint of bloggers reneging on book reviews, but here are some great advice on author/blogger relationship:http://mybookgoggles.blogspot.com/201...
"Why would I have to back it up from the book? Card's been proud of and vocal about his bigotry for several years now."Because the point of a book review is to review the damn book. Too many people do what youre proposing and what the linked scalzi review above did - snark about issues or the author. I dont give a crap about your opinion of the author, etc.
Review
The
Damn
Book.
However, people get likes for semiintelligent snark, so they do it more.
I think the saddest thing about all this is that the author who comes down so hard on a negative review, just doesn't understand the nature of good writing. The best writing is supposed to evoke emotional responses, positive and negative. This means a well written piece will always get both types of reviews. So, having all one or the other, in my mind, is a problem. If a book had all good reviews (if there are a substantial number of them) I'd probably not read the book because it would tell me the book is written to the lowest common denominator. I think all bad reviews, if they were well thought out, might make me more curious, particularly if the book was having some success. All this negative publicity reflects on the writer's ability to write far more than that negative review ever could. I would avoid his books like the plague at this point. It doesn't help that his posts (what I saw of them quoted here, so maybe they aren't his?) contain typos.
Those are his typos, David. I saw the blog before he took it down. I don't think it has anything to do with his writing in general, but his state of mind. He's obviously like a cornered animal. Even the last teen, Ira, to support him, has left him. Geesh, what a drama. I remembered when the mod for Horror Aficionados asked him whether that was his profile picture, and he said that it was. I was talking to a friend who was there, and he confirmed that, so my memory was correct.http://www.goodreads.com/comment/inde...
Sean wrote: "If the book turns out to be unreadable crap, why should they force themselves to finish and review it? Or should they review the parts they read and then have the author go frothy with claims that the review is illegitimate if the reader didn't finish the book?"In the scenario we're talking about, there are more options if the book turns out to be unreadable crap. Since the reviewer in this hypothetical case got the book directly from the author, they can contact the author personally and tell the author that they a) cannot continue reading the book b) cannot in good faith offer up a review, due to the poor quality of the writing. The reviewer can privately offer up constructive criticism about what they have read so far, which will hopefully allow the author to improve his craft and make later works review-worthy.
While I have seen a few people complain about bad review, which to me indicates they're not learning anything from the experience, most of the complaints that I have seen have been about sending review copies out and then not knowing what the status of the review is. While there are some bad eggs in any basket, most of these authors just want some idea of when they will see the review.
There isn't a need for an adversarial relationship between writers and reviewers. Both groups have the same end goal: making good writing available to the reading audience. Writers can't improve their skills without constructive feedback, even if that feedback says that *this* particular work is very, very bad.
There shouldn't be a need for either side to resort to personal attacks.
Sean wrote: "No, this is the Carroll Bryant who apparently retaliated against a 17 year old girl who didn't review his book by making up a story about taking her to Mexico for an abortion. "
I have no knowledge of this, so I can't really comment one way or the other.
Doc
Rick wrote: ""Why would I have to back it up from the book? Card's been proud of and vocal about his bigotry for several years now."Because the point of a book review is to review the damn book. Too many peop..."
I gotta agree with Rick here. If you want to editorialize the author based on facts (not conjecture), then feel free to do so, but please make it clear that you are writing an editorial. A review should be about the book, not about the author, or the publisher, or some rumor. You don't have to agree with everything an author says and does in order to enjoy their work. If you don't want to give the author money because of their beliefs, then encourage folks to check the book out from a library.
Doc
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...
