Rape Threats on Goodreads

I've been hearing a lot of these kinds of stories from other author-friends and am reconsidering my thoughts about becoming active on Goodreads. I left high school a long time ago (back when it wasn't this bad). I don't need that kind of drama in my life anymore, thanks.

If you track it down the "rape threat" was one reader putting the book on two shelves with in-joke names that could be misread. One was "sodomy by lawn sculpture" which is a reference to books perceived as being written by second wave BDSM-for-profit bandwagon riders, not a threat.

In this case I think there was bad behavior on both sides. But the goodreads folks were in their own backyard into which authors need to enter with caution if only because the use of language there can be very jargon and in-jokey.

That's so horrible! God and she had to pull the book and everything. People can be such as*holes

The author doesn't seem ready to enter the world of publishing. What happened and what the author says happened don't line up. It's been blown up. She says she doesn't want the attention, yet blogs twice and tweets repeatedly about it for almost 2 days now on an open twitter account.

She demanded the book was taken down and is now demanding people delete blogs and stop talking about it. You know, because the internet works that way.

The shelf was in bad taste but the amount of attention is unwarrented imo. I've see worse on goodreads with other authors just moving on.

I'm don't support bullying authors in the slightest but I think this was far from a hate campaign. There was a handful of ratings on the book last night (12)when this was all over the net and some of them were five stars.

Rule #1 if you publish a book, NEVER EVER EVER respond to any of the reviews.

And when the user saw the shelf was being misinterpreted she took it down. But IMHO when it was up the reason for the name was pretty clear.

That said I am boggled that "I have the right to review anything anyway" has gone from a simple truth to a perceived good reason to one-star a non-existent book.

veinglory said:

That said I am boggled that "I have the right to review anything anyway" has gone from a simple truth to a perceived good reason to one-star a non-existent book.

Click to expand...

Not being directed at you personally Veinglory, just using the quote as a starting point.

There's very often complains about one star ratings of unreleased books. And I've seen a couple of instances where authors have attacked early reviews (Amazon Vine reviewers) for being "slander/libel" and a "conspiracy to get me" (both paraphrased). It's becoming more and more common on Goodreads, and I've seen that it is absolutely connected with self-published authors seeing Goodreads as a "promotional platform".

However, there's never any complains about five star ratings of books that aren't out. And I think that really says it all, this is all about "bad reviews" nothing more. It's authors telling readers how to review (, or more correctly how to rate). -And in the case of Goodreads, it's even a case of authors telling readers how to socially interact about books.

There's really no way to stop early rating, unless you stop anyone from rating/reviewing before release date. But that isn't really the problem either, lots of people rate books they haven't read yet. And as some of the sockpuppet scandals on Amazon has shown, a "verified purchase" is no guarrantee for someone reading a book either.
I think this is a problem that everyone involved with books (authors, reviewers, readers) have to live with if we want ratings in online bookstores and communities like Goodreads.

You know, things would be so much better for everyone if people kept in mind the Golden Rule of the Internet: "If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't say it online." That goes for everyone: authors, reviewers, readers...everyone.

(Hey, I can pretend. I write fiction for a living.)

veinglory said:

If you track it down the "rape threat" was one reader putting the book on two shelves with in-joke names that could be misread. One was "sodomy by lawn sculpture" which is a reference to books perceived as being written by second wave BDSM-for-profit bandwagon riders, not a threat.

Click to expand...

That's how I read it, too. And I have no tolerance at all for rape threats.

I must be out of it (I have a Goodreads account that I never use), but I didn't realize that people actually gave poor reviews to works that are not yet out? Is the self-published writing community on Goodreads (or a part of it) that infantile? Maybe coming here spoils me forever because I find this forum so supportive, but I read about these types of antics and I'm truly baffled.

Part of the power of Goodreads is that an author can track every person who's ever said anything about their book. They can see where they shelved it, their review, whether they finished it, etc, and they can see what that person said about other books. So if someone innocently gives a book a poor rating and has not reviewed other books, or shelves a book in a silly shelf with no others, the author can see that. And if the author is paranoid, they think the reviewer is out to get them or only made an account to bash their book or some other silly thing.

Goodreads makes it too easy to stalk, and some authors are all too willing to do it. That contributes to the problem.

CrastersBabies said:

I must be out of it (I have a Goodreads account that I never use), but I didn't realize that people actually gave poor reviews to works that are not yet out?

Click to expand...

Happens all the time. And not just for self-published books. And God forbid your commercial publisher set a price point that upsets readers--that's the author's fault. Somehow. Magically. **shrug**

A.P.M. said:

Goodreads makes it too easy to stalk, and some authors are all too willing to do it. That contributes to the problem.

Click to expand...

Heh. Goodreads is Foursquare for authors!

(PSA: I think Foursquare is insane at best and dangerous at worst.)

((Disclaimer: I'm on Goodreads. I'm not on Foursquare. I haven't literally stalked anyone, and I'm not planning to.))

I made the mistake of contacting one negative reviewer on Goodreads. I intended to follow the rule of never responding, but I wanted to see if the reviewer would place a "spoiler alert" at the front of the review since they basically gave away the whole plot in the review.

I did not debate any of the reviewers points, even though I strongly disagreed with them, just asked for a spoiler addition. In response, I received several 1000+ word emails explaining in further detail why I failed, not only as a writer, but a thinker, a Christian, a teacher, and everything else.

I wised up and did not respond to any of these emails. Adhere to the Rule #1. Don't respond to any reviewers, even to ask for a spoiler alert.

This would make a great drinking game!

Step 1: Read this author's Tumblr: http://laurenpippa.tumblr.com/

Step 2: Take a drink every time she uses a cliche or a passive construction while discussing her negative Goodreads experience.

Step 3: Die of alcohol poisoning.

Alessandra Kelley said:

I think that "self-published authors seeing Goodreads as a promotional platform" is what is driving away the actual readers and reviewers who are supposedly the driving force behind the site.

Goodreads is presented as a site for readers, for people to catalogue and review their personal libraries and shelve them any way they please.

(snip)
Imagine that you are a reader who has shelved your own books in your own personal, idiosyncratic way, with shelf tags that amuse you and help you remember where things are, your own personal organisation of the way you think and read ...

And suddenly there is an author in your reading space complaining publicly about your filing system and where they fit in it.

Creeeeeeeeeepy.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if it was really just about readers' own personal books and libraries, and the personal, idiosyncratic way they shelve them, with their own tags to amuse and remind them, and their own organization of the way they think and read, why do they want to 'share' with everybody else?
If they just wanted a list, they could do what everyone's done before the Internet, make a list and keep it to themselves.
This is more about the 'social' media. And, with that comes other people, all wanting social attention. Like that Facebook phase where people were madly 'friending' anything with internet access. A lot of it seems to be people electronically shouting "LookatME!LookatME!LOOKATME!"
I had a Goodreads account, I only got it to follow some of the drama that showed up here. I cancelled it, because I couldn't think of any reason why I would participate in any of it.

frimble3 said:

Yes, but if it was really just about readers' own personal books and libraries, and the personal, idiosyncratic way they shelve them, with their own tags to amuse and remind them, and their own organization of the way they think and read, why do they want to 'share' with everybody else?
If they just wanted a list, they could do what everyone's done before the Internet, make a list and keep it to themselves.
This is more about the 'social' media. And, with that comes other people, all wanting social attention. Like that Facebook phase where people were madly 'friending' anything with internet access. A lot of it seems to be people electronically shouting "LookatME!LookatME!LOOKATME!"
I had a Goodreads account, I only got it to follow some of the drama that showed up here. I cancelled it, because I couldn't think of any reason why I would participate in any of it.

Click to expand...

Goodreads is (, or used to be before they let in self-published authors,) a reading community in the same way that Absolute Write is a writer community. -It's structured differently, but it's about people liking the same thing coming together and sharing their experiences.

The only ones I've seen exhibit any '"LookatME!LookatME!LOOKATME!"' behavior in connection to Goodreads are authors. And then only self-published authors.

I've been on Goodreads for over three years, and shelves have only ever come up in connection to author meltdowns. -But lots of people use Goodreads' shelving system to keep track of both what books they have, and what they read. I know that some reviewers use it to keep track of everything connected to bookblogging.

CrastersBabies said:

I must be out of it (I have a Goodreads account that I never use), but I didn't realize that people actually gave poor reviews to works that are not yet out? Is the self-published writing community on Goodreads (or a part of it) that infantile? Maybe coming here spoils me forever because I find this forum so supportive, but I read about these types of antics and I'm truly baffled.

Click to expand...

The way the article talked about it, I assume they meant start ratings. I think it's kind of silly to use them to rate interest in a forth-coming book, but I can see why people might do it.



People who give actual reviews? Crazy.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Goodreads is presented as a site for readers, for people to catalogue and review their personal libraries and shelve them any way they please.

Click to expand...

See, this is where I think the problem lies. You think it's presented as a site for readers. I'm not sure I agree since it has an author program, author profiles where we can hook up our blogs and add our videos, collect fans, we can arrange giveaways and pay for targeted advertisement to readers.

I think this has a lot to do with where the confusion lies. Goodreads are presenting to authors are a place to advertise and to readers as a place that isn't about advertising. It seems to have a bit of a split personality, encouraged by the site management. I think this is where many authors are a) getting the idea a bunch of bad goodreads reviews will ruin a book, and b)It's an advertisement tool. People don't want negative remarks pasted across their advertisement.

Things would be much simpler if they weren't trying to earn money out of authors advertising.

djf881 said:

This would make a great drinking game!

Step 1: Read this author's Tumblr: http://laurenpippa.tumblr.com/

Step 2: Take a drink every time she uses a cliche or a passive construction while discussing her negative Goodreads experience.

Step 3: Die of alcohol poisoning.

Click to expand...

"Justin Timberlake's wife?"

That says a lot right there. She's only 22, but still... ewwwwwww....