date
newest »

Divers wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Lucy wrote: "Of course, Mel is the dominant personality in the many faces of eve"
Yeah, Lucy, Divers is my alter ego. Right. You should ask GR to check the IP addresses."
it's a..."
I think you need to shut the fuck up, learn how to capitalize properly, and stop being a misogynistic douchebag.
Yeah, Lucy, Divers is my alter ego. Right. You should ask GR to check the IP addresses."
it's a..."
I think you need to shut the fuck up, learn how to capitalize properly, and stop being a misogynistic douchebag.
Divers wrote: "Midnight_Kiss wrote: "Divers wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Lucy wrote: "Of course, Mel is the dominant personality in the many faces of eve"
Yeah, Lucy, Divers is my alter ego. Right. You should ask G..."
Do I give a damn, especially when I see you attacking someone like that? Answer: hell no.
Yeah, Lucy, Divers is my alter ego. Right. You should ask G..."
Do I give a damn, especially when I see you attacking someone like that? Answer: hell no.

Know this distinction. Critical reviews involve thoughtful analysis and synthesis of the work at hand. They support their statements -- both positive and negative -- with what's in front of them. They check their baggage at the door.
Negative reviews are not supported by text. Negative reviews don't tell readers anything substantial about the book, but rather, about the reviewer. It's self reflective, rather than text reflective."
http://www.stackedbooks.org/2012/01/o...

As far as why I would read something that I knew was going to annoy me - when someone comments on this, I never do know. And if it does make me angry, well, know thine enemy, right?
I was the one who pointed you to this thread, because I thought you could learn something by reading the comments here - I was wrong, and I've long since dealt with that.
Fitzpatrick isn't getting slammed for being honest. She's getting slammed for the implied threat against negative reviewers. She's getting slammed for couching her plea for people to 'be nice' in a story about a former reviewer who, like some little girl in a cautionary fairy tale, couldn't get anyone to blurb her book because she had been soooo meaaaaan. If that's the case with the publishing industry today, so be it. I personally do not care all that much, though I do wish it were more of a meritocracy. What I care is that an author brings this up in a context where it sounds like 'be nice or no one will publish you'. Which in this case is also 'do not voice your honest opinion or no one will publish you'.
If this had been a blog post about how the publishing industry (like any other industry) is as much about who you know as it is how good you are, fine. That's what Lilith Saintcrow's post was about and it's good advice. However, because Fitzpatrick expressed it by telling a story about someone whose career had trouble because, among other things, she wrote a harsh review of Hush, Hush, it feels vindictive and it feels like a warning.
There's nothing wrong with choosing to review 'nicely' so as not to step on any toes. There isn't. That's a personal decision that each reviewer must make. There's also nothing wrong with reviewing as harshly and honestly as possible. (People keep saying that there are reviews that cross the line into making fun of the author and disrespecting their personal lives. I for one have never seen them, but if they exist that's a different story.) A book is a product put out for consumption, and an author like any other producer must expect feedback of all forms from the consumers who buy their book.
Anyhow, I hope that made sense. Having read some of the hideous vitriol that exploded around the new year, I now look back on this post as rather gentle, all things considered. It's not, however, too much to say that there is a fight between some authors and negative reviewers, and if you disagree then I advise you to read this summary. Pay particular attention to number three, wherein the full text of an e-mail from an author about a reviewer is found. If you have any sense of common decency, and I maintain hope that you do, you will be horrified.
(It's not a religious crusade, by the way. It's a crusade for free speech - not so much securing the right, but trying to deal with people who don't think we have it already.)
Oh, and one more thing. I'm really tired of seeing people who disagree with Fitzpatrick treated as if they must only trash books, have no lives, and get zero joy out of anything other than trying to ruin some poor author's career. These people are not demons. I see all of their updates and I assure you that they, like all readers, would much rather read a good book and love it than read a bad one and hate it. That's why they're on Goodreads. Just saying.

Know this distinction. Critical reviews involve thoughtful analysis and synthesis of the work at hand. They support their statements -- both positive an..."
And by that definition, I have yet to see a single 'negative' review on Goodreads.
Thank you, Rhiannon. That helps.

So basically this whole 'be nice' speech is moot. Blurbs from other authors won't be necessary in the future. So long as your ebook is good enough and well edited, you could be the next Susan Ee. Girlfriend doesn't have to deal with publishers or blurbs from other authors. Just saying.

LMFAO!"
Why is this funny? It's not, you know.
Cory wrote: "Just wrote: "i think stupid bitch should be her official name. what do you think?
LMFAO!"
Why is this funny? It's not, you know."
I guess we are back in middle school now where saying naughty words is hilarious. Teehee.
LMFAO!"
Why is this funny? It's not, you know."
I guess we are back in middle school now where saying naughty words is hilarious. Teehee.

1. I did not enjoy this book because I thought the characters were flat.
2. I am putting this into my never-ever-ever-ever-read folder because the characters sucked.
The intention behind these two reviews might be the same, but the way they are worded can lead to completely different situations. I don't think it's wrong to write a negative review, but there's no need to insult something to prove your point. It's not like the author purposely wrote a book you didn't like to get on your nerves. Read: it's not a personal issue!
That being said, this is not to say that I'm taking the authors' side, as I have seen some pretty rude comments from various authors over mean reviews. Authors should be able to graciously accept negative feedback, or just overlook it completely if it really bothers them.
I'm not even sure I really get the point of this huge battle between reviewers and authors...and I can't even remember where I was trying to go with this.
Erm.
(?)
Just wrote: "Midnight_Kiss wrote: "Cory wrote: "Just wrote: "i think stupid bitch should be her official name. what do you think?
LMFAO!"
Why is this funny? It's not, you know."
I guess we are back in middle..."
Real mature.
LMFAO!"
Why is this funny? It's not, you know."
I guess we are back in middle..."
Real mature.

This thread has gotten so far out of hand that it's become ridiculous.


no, i am not new here. i've seen enough of your bullshit to know that all these authors you write about on your blog, who are "persecuting" your friends, what that's called is..."
Do you honestly think that any reviewer behavior is actually justification for an author to call them a stupid cow?
No, wait, bad question. Of course you do. You have no sense of common decency. I keep forgetting.


no, i am not new here. i've seen enough of your bullshit to know that all these authors you write about on your blog, who are "persecuting" your f..."
Citation needed, jackass. Except for that one; you can have it for free.
Divers wrote: "Anila wrote: "Divers wrote: "wow, good comeback.
no, i am not new here. i've seen enough of your bullshit to know that all these authors you write about on your blog, who are "persecuting" your f..."
lol, you've been doing the same thing, you're not any better.
no, i am not new here. i've seen enough of your bullshit to know that all these authors you write about on your blog, who are "persecuting" your f..."
lol, you've been doing the same thing, you're not any better.

Let me put it this way: if you actually have a complaint with anyone's behavior and would like to see them change, point it out to them with examples, since you keep claiming to have many, and I bet they'll listen. If, on the other hand, your entire purpose here is to be an asshole for giggles, carry on the way you're going because it seems to be working.

The above is nothing more than assault. I can't more people aren't objecting to the kind of behavior exhibited by members Divers and Just.


This is a thinly veiled scare tactic and sorry, NOBODY is having it. If I think your work sucks, I will say it, and I will say it proudly -..."
Love it!

If you want your ..."
Hear hear! Romance and romantic fiction should be taken seriously! *ahem* Sorry, go on..

Thank you for the lovely Gene Wilder photo! Now I've got "Pure Imagination" running through my head.

I smell sock puppets.

To readers I say, like what you like, hate what you hate, & accept that people don't have to agree with you. For every person who hates a book, someone else loves it. Every book has a place...even if it's not on your shelf.

I don't think Fitzpatrick was trying to use "scare tactics" or saying reviewers should only spout rainbows & sunshine in reviews. Be honest ALWAYS. But in doing so you're not given a license to be an absolute bitch about something. I've read plenty of reviews on GoodReads & other sites where I just shook my head & thought:
"WHAT IN THE HELL WAS SHE/HE THINKING"?
It's okay not to like something, say it, state it, SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS, but don't get so personally abusive. It's a review, not a personal attack, unless that authors work has harmed you irreparably the DO take the high road (if you can find it) & be done with it.
Anything else makes you seem petty & small, especially tirades attacking an author's personal character in the name of "honest & un-censored reviewing". You can't tell me that it's beyond all of you to write a review that is honest without being a hateful witch. If it is, I feel sorry for you that you have to admit that.
My rule of thumb when writing a review is I don't post anything I wouldn't feel comfortable saying to the authors face if ever given the opportunity. And I mean every single word, the review in its entirety. I think a lot of people posting on the Internet take advantage of the anonymity & pop off at the mouth saying things they would never say to another person face to face.
So treat your reviews like a face to face encounter, don't put anything in there you wouldn't say under that type of situation. Simple. Criticism is fine, cruel belittling words just because you can with no consequence because its the Internet? Not fine.


But you have to realize that every opinion moves you forward. Somebody can notice some mistakes in your story or have ideas on how to improve your story.
We don't write negative reviews just for the hell of it. Some of us simply have a different opinion on some books. And we have the right to write it.
Every criticism should be constructive.
And you as an adult should know that you can't please everyone. Just accept that some people have different option on your book.
To destroy someone else's chance of publishing a book like that is not just very selfish but also childish from you. Maybe their book is something good and original but we may never know it.
You should think about your actions and not feel offended by someone's opinion.
No one should behave like this.
Aww, did you really drive down to your local Starbucks to post under that account a few times? Well, that explains why you weren't doing 50 of them at the same time for a change of pace. I'm sure your lazy efforts to trick the system will fool everyone this time!