You might think the title of this blog post goes without saying, but considering some of the wacky things happening in the writing community these days, you’d be mistaken. We’ve had an author confess to stalking and harassing someone who gave her novel a poor review, and we’ve had a blogger apologize for years of harassment and threats against writers whose work she didn’t like.
As a passionate reader, I have always maintained a “review” of books I’ve read. In ye olde pre-internet days, I kept a little notebook in which I recorded the books I’d read with a few lines about the book. When Goodreads emerged, I joined and began to track my reading habits there. I viewed it primarily as a tool for me as a reader. Of course, as I connected with people on GR, I also began to see my notes on books as useful to like-minded readers. All the same, in the age of the internet, where data is perpetually retained and easily accessed, I have always tried to be polite when I write reviews of books. I am neither a professional reviewer nor someone who relishes drama. Just as I would hate to read a review of my books that was nasty or personal, I would never want a writer to read one of my reviews and feel that I was being anything but professional, even if I disliked the book.
Despite my policy of being polite, I’ve still received a few nastygrams, typically from people who loved a book I didn’t, and who wished to inform me that I was a stupid poopypants. I don’t think those were the exact words, but something juvenile and unnecessary.
Not a few people have cautioned me of late that as a published writer I ought to be more careful about reviewing and rating books, so as not to attract haters. I’ve considered it, and someday, maybe I’ll need to make a more anonymous Goodreads account, but in the interim, I’ve made a different choice.
I’ve always had a Did Not Finish shelf on my Goodreads account, to identify books that I did not or could not read through to the ending. Rarely do I remark on those books and never do I rate them. This week, however, I added a new shelf: Not Every Book Is for Everybody. Let’s call it NEBIFE. We know in our hearts that this is true, but it seems to get lost within the book community sometimes. A book isn’t bad, just because we didn’t like it, and a reviewer isn’t stupid or evil or many far worse things, just because they didn’t like our favorite book. I come face-to-face with this when I realize that almost 17,000 people on Goodreads have given Nabokov’s Lolita a 1-star rating. 1 star? One? Are you kidding me? I consider Lolita to be one of the greatest English novels of the 20th Century. I love this book.
ONE STAR?!?!?! OMGAAAAAAH!!?!?!?
Yet Goodreads reveals that two people whose opinions I respect have rated Lolita as 1 star. Huh. I guess we’re gonna have to disagree on that one, but I’m not going to send them emails to tell them they’re stupid poopypants. Primarily, because I don’t think they are. Secondarily, because I accept that even a brilliant book will not be the right book for every reader.
I was looking for an apt comparison, and found it quite by accident. I occasionally pull a recipe off allrecipes.com, and it struck me that even when people dislike a recipe and give it a low rating, I have never seen anybody get nasty or personal in a recipe review. I’ve never seen a recipe submitter called a stupid bitch, or a recipe called corrosive garbage, or seen someone wish the original recipe writer be raped to death, all things I’ve seen in book reviews. Similarly, I’ve never seen a recipe submitter get hostile with someone who didn’t like a recipe. Why? Because on some level, as a society, we’ve done well at accepting that not everyone has the same tastes. After all, my mother hates Indian food. Hates it. We’re still on speaking terms, because why wouldn’t we be? I think it’s silly that she dislikes an entire culinary tradition on the basis of one ill-fated buffet visit, but I’m not going to cut her out of my life over it. Similarly, I’m not going to kill a friendship over Lolita. Or even a potential friendship.
In this week, where madness is swirling all around us, I’d like to ask everybody to embrace the concept of NEBIFE. If you get a negative review on a book you wrote, keep in mind that not everybody loves the same books. You can’t expect everybody to love your book. If you read a book you disliked, try framing your review from the perspective that not every book is for everybody, and that this book wasn’t for you.
Bryn Greenwood 
I just don’t understand why someone would trash someone else for a personal opinion about what they like or don’t like to read. Don’t these people have other things in their lives to worry about? How sad for them.
I wonder if they wake up in the morning with a big hate-on for the world at large. They need new hobbies beyond trolling the internet and being nasty.
I think the key word here is “hate-on.” Some people just love to be haters. Others have allowed the anonymity of the internet to bring out their worst character traits. And yes, they definitely need new hobbies.
Well I hated this article, if I could give it zero stars I would, and you are a stupid poopypants. Or wait maybe I’m the stupid poopypants. whatever.
Just kidding of course. As you said, I think a lot of people really get off on the anonymity of the internet allowing them to be bitchier than they are in real life. and yeah, loving to be haters, too. Both. People need to get a grip.
You should get a grip, poopypants. 😉
It’s one of the reasons I feel conflicted about Marc Zuckerberg’s campaign to have everybody go by their real names. On the one hand, it’s not safe for everyone. On the other, though, it would cut down on the kind of abuses anonymity produces.
I do think the anonymity allows some people to give free rein to their worst (or at least not best) impulses. I think there’s also a pack mentality that happens — you get a few people together who like to hate on the same things, and then it gets to be a contest of one-upmanship: “How many puking GIFs can I post?” In some cases, it can be a more deliberate campaign of intimidation and threats — GamerGate, anyone? I mean, there’s nothing at all rational about women getting death threats because of their opinions of video games, except to look at it as a deliberate attempt to silence what the haters see as dissent and to maintain some kind of perceived collective power/privilege.
I also have been wondering as of late what happens when somebody goes after the wrong target. And by “wrong” I mean, “unstable.” We’re living in an age where the boundaries between “real life” and “internet” are thin to non-existent.
And, yeah. Not every book is for everybody. It’s a really good reviewing principle.
There is decidedly danger out there, which is part of what surprises me when people say truly vicious things online. How sure are they that their victims can’t find them? It troubles me that online threats are treated as “less real” than in person threats. Isn’t threatening to kill someone pretty much the real deal, regardless of the medium?
I strongly suspect the extreme hostility on some level is about failure to prioritize, too. How can what one person says about something you love be important enough to cause a meltdown? Recognize that which is truly important and lose your shit over that.
Unfortunately I think asking some people to recognize what’s truly important is like asking them to stop being so crazy. These gamer guys, this is a deep level of pathology and insecurity/hatred/fear of rejection/from woman wrapped up into a ball of entitlement (“At least we have THIS!”) and privilege (“How dare they take this from us?”). Plus, you know, all these studies showing internet trolls having a high degree of sociopathy/sadism/narcissism. It’s such an easy outlet for unstable, angry people.
And yeah, “How sure are they that their victims can’t find them?” Exactly.
So you’re talking about the cray-cray author who stalked someone who gave her a bad review, right? (I see her name in the tags) Why that bitch isn’t in jail is beyond me. And she’s stalked before! But marrying into a family that’s big in both publishing and journalism protects you from consequences, I guess.
And I’m also talking about somebody who stalked and harassed writers she didn’t like. The crazy comes on both sides.
Crazy is everywhere. It comes from all directions and also the 4th dimension.
I had to look up who LT was talking about. In the article I read, the blogger was going after a lot of authors and being an all-around troll. I can sympathize in this case with the author on that one, like when I had to go to my manager years ago when I discovered I wasn’t only woman on our floor being harassed by the same person and none of us wanted to make a scene about it. We all just sat there and took it. So when I knew it was just me, I had to do something.
That said, the author shouldn’t have stooped to her level. That’s where she made a mistake. It could have been handled differently.
I believe that when you are showing the world you are off your rocker, no one else has to point it out. We can all see it and come to our own conclusion that you are nutballs and not worth listening to. The blogger is definitely a “needs to get a different hobby” type.
It’s hard to be the person who speaks out against harassment. On the internet, that’s particularly true, where your harasser may have an entire posse of haters (or sockpuppets) willing to pile on when you speak out.
(wasn’t just me, I meant to say ^^)
Well said, poopypants.
🙂
Yes! It took me well into adulthood to rid myself of the belief that I was compelled to FINISH reading a book once I started it. One day it finally dawned on my that life was way too short to be spent reading books I wasn’t enjoying.
I actually remember the book that finally taught me this lesson at the age of 32. After that moment, I was astounded to realize I didn’t owe an author anything. Since then, I have not-finished a great many books.
When I first joined Goodreads I wrote a review after reading a popular YA novel that was a ‘thing’ with teenaged girls and young women of a certain mindset (think ‘Gossip Girl’). I didn’t hate on it, but I was decidedly lukewarm. I also made a remark about how books that are popular today end up on tomorrow’s ‘free pile’ at the used-books store. (Which I still maintain is true, judging from the number of abandoned copies of ‘Twilight’ I see lying in library donation bins.) Unfortunately, the wrath of a dozen adolescent girls (and one boy, I think) came down on me/my review. Most of it was funny, in my opinion as someone who’s worked with middle and high school kids. But a couple of them were ugly, in like “stupid old bitch, you’re gonna die” ugly. California has a law against online stalking and threats, so I reported it to the police.
I have no idea what happened after that, but not long afterwards the comments were abruptly deleted and the accounts of the commenters were suspended. Later, I talked about this incident with an acquaintance who writes for an online news site, and he remarked that the internet has taken away the ability to discuss a subject in a civil and thoughtful manner. People post the first stupid thing that runs through their heads with no consequences, since they can be anonymous on the web. If you call them on their remarks, they don’t even have the courage to reply, or they troll you until you quit in disgust. But I haven’t written a review since then. I just use the stars, and if someone doesn’t like my giving their favorite author one star, Goodreads doesn’t give them any way of responding, except in a passive aggressive “To all of you jerks who gave this book one star….”
I think for many people, simply rating without reviewing is the safe option. I’m more likely to go the opposite route: write a review without giving a book a rating. It allows me to make my remarks, but it doesn’t tend to attract attention. As for people who make hateful and threatening remarks, I’m glad that at least some of them can be dealt with legally.