Negativity on Goodreads

It's even worse when it's other writers doing that kind of personal bashing. Of all people they should know what goes into writing a book!

It's because of really disgusting comments about my PERSONAL LIFE on Goodreads that I refuse to go there. It's basically bullying, and since Goodreads doesn't want to censor anyone (I get it, really I do), it stays there in all its ugly and hateful glory.

Four things:

1. Reviews aren't for authors; they're for readers.

2. Comments about the author that are personal, invasive, or involve doxing don't belong in reviews. In some cases, they may violate local statutes.

3. A negative review about a book (not the author) is still a legitimate review.

4. Goodreads has changed its policy.

I read the blog post and didn't get "bullying" from it. I haven't read the comments for her book, but based on the way she described them, I think people just didn't like the book.

So, good for her for looking after herself and avoiding a situation that makes her unhappy. But she doesn't say that the people leaving comments did anything wrong, and based on her rough description in her blog post I don't think that they did.

Some people don't like our books. They have a right to express that opinion. They even have a right to express their hatred of our books. Authors are in the public eye. Negative reviews come with the territory.

I didn't actually see any bullying reviews of the last book. Lots of positive reviews, and some people just didn't like the book.

That happens. I've had people review my books who start by saying they haven't read the book because they already know it's stupid.

You just move on.

HoldinHolden said:

It's because of really disgusting comments about my PERSONAL LIFE on Goodreads that I refuse to go there. It's basically bullying, and since Goodreads doesn't want to censor anyone (I get it, really I do), it stays there in all its ugly and hateful glory.

Click to expand...

I had someone write a blog post review about a book I no longer have public. In the blog they referred to me as the wicked witch of the west and that even the witch thought she was beautiful. Wait...what? How did my looks just come into this? When did I ever say anything about how I look and why am I suddenly the wicked witch. I found out later it was a member of a former writing group I left after realizing it was more of a hang out than a crit group.

sophiab said:

Right she didn't say they were bullying, I said so. Some of the comments I have seen weren't necessary. And it's not just against her work but many authors as well. You can click on any book review and find someone ranting and raving on there. I included her post because she wrote about it. This post isn't meant to be all about her, but the site in general. People have a right to express their opinion, I'm not arguing with that. But it's not fair to attack a writer and expect them to always have a thick skin. Readers don't get a free pass to be nasty.

Click to expand...

Well, Goodreads in general isn't necessary, so I guess nothing said there is necessary.

Can you give an example of the "ranting and raving" you can find on "any book review"? I've certainly seen negative reviews, but I haven't seen all that many rants.

I have read books that enraged me, most often because of brutal sexism, rape that turns into true love, etc. I don't see any reason to hold back from expressing my dislike of these books. The author wrote something offensive, I paid good money for it, and then I have to take the author's feelings into account when I write a review? The author certainly didn't take my feelings into account, or s/he wouldn't have written something so offensive.

And that's as it should be. The author shouldn't be taking my feelings into account, the author should be trying to write something that reflects his or her feelings. And I should do the same when I write a review.

If authors don't like reading negative reviews, they should do as the author from the OP did and avoid review sites; expecting review sites to change to be "nicer" to authors would make the reviews less honest, and therefore less valuable.

Captcha said:

The author wrote something offensive, I paid good money for it, and then I have to take the author's feelings into account when I write a review?

Click to expand...

This.

I'm very passionate about books, which means my reviews range from glowing fan-girl "OMG!" ones, to pretty harsh diatribes. My reviews aren't meant to be nasty, they're meant to accurately reflect my reactions to the story and/or writing. Why should reviewers have to be less negative? Shouldn't they be allowed to express their disgust/annoyance/disappointment freely?

sophiab said:

But it's not fair to attack a writer and expect them to always have a thick skin.

Click to expand...

Goodreads doesn't allow you to "attack writers" in their new policy. Unless you think attacking a book is the same thing as attacking the person who wrote it (it's not, it's really not.)

I don't think the people who write reviews expect anything from the author, thick skin or otherwise. Reviews are for readers and authors don't have to read them. Maybe even they shouldn't.

I often wonder how many good reviews people read for their own books or if they just read every single negative review and only a portion of the positive ones. If people are doing that like it sometimes seems they are, they're not painting themselves a whole picture. It's like turning on the news and sitting there afterwards wallowing in how terrible the world is. Because news stations are known for focusing on the good in the world, amirite?

I agree that you just kind of have to expect some people to be ugly for whatever reason they choose. The internet is FULL of people like that, not just book review sites. That's why I personally chose not to go back to Goodreads. I accepted that it happens and you just keep plugging away, but made the decision not to have to look at it. It's better that way. There's actually a HYSTERICAL youtube video of celebrities reading hateful comments about themselves- happens to anyone in the public eye!

sophiab said:

But it's not fair to attack a writer and expect them to always have a thick skin. Readers don't get a free pass to be nasty.

Click to expand...

The writer can stop reading reviews if it hurts their feelings.

The reviews do not exist to help the author (feel good or make sales.) They exist to help readers find books they'll enjoy.

So if the review doesn't help the author (feel good or make sales), that's absolutely irrelevant to whether the review should exist. Freedom of expression >> butthurt.

Captcha said:

I read the blog post and didn't get "bullying" from it. I haven't read the comments for her book, but based on the way she described them, I think people just didn't like the book.

So, good for her for looking after herself and avoiding a situation that makes her unhappy. But she doesn't say that the people leaving comments did anything wrong, and based on her rough description in her blog post I don't think that they did.

Click to expand...

I didn't get bullying either and if the author doesn't view it as bullying, who are we to argue? She's the person who is going to be the most sensitive to it. And kudos to her for removing herself from the situation instead of expecting everyone else to change what they're doing.

FWIW it's the negative hateful reviews that drive me to read the book, and very often the trolls making the comments are just that, trolls.

Looking at the blog post, I don't really get the impression that bullying was the issue here. It sounds like she just realized that seeing negative reviews of her work wasn't great for her confidence, and wisely decided to take a step back.

That said, I think there's a big difference between criticizing a book (even in a nasty way), and making it personal about the author. Unless the author's personal life is relevant, there's no reason to bring it up.

Some people write reviews because they want to be snarky. And some people are just not very good at writing reviews, and bring up stuff that isn't really relevant or fair.

Accepting criticism and dealing with assholes are both skills that authors need to develop, but they're different skills. I think there can be a tendency to treat criticism and reviews and sacrosanct, but they're really not. Some people are just jerks, and in the case of actual bullying, I think authors need to be prepared for the possibility, but I don't think they're obligated to be fine with it.

Goodreads is not a healthy place right now. There's an all out war going on between some reviewers and some authors and neither side comes out smelling of roses - nor does Goodreads itself. I hope it calms down soon. Personally I stick with using Goodreads mostly to track my reading, and interact with my own friends on there, but I keep well away from the fighting.

DancingMaenid said:

Looking at the blog post, I don't really get the impression that bullying was the issue here. It sounds like she just realized that seeing negative reviews of her work wasn't great for her confidence, and wisely decided to take a step back.

Click to expand...

Call me cynical, but when I read that blog post, it almost felt like a subtle promotional piece--"Here's the last book in this trilogy--not everyone's gonna like it, but I think it's really GOOD! And it's so shocking, I'm going to have to disappear for while!"

I didn't go on to read all the comments to the post, nor did I cruise around and check on reviews of her other books. I have little doubt she's gotten slammed here and there, little doubt that a review or two crossed the line into being personal. However, she never cited bullying, and while bullying happens (and has been well-illustrated) we really have to stop hanging the bully tag on every instance of negativity. It muddies the waters and makes it harder to see the real thing when it happens.

But in the end, when I see that someone doesn’t “get” what I’m trying to do, it can hurt.

Click to expand...

You see, to me this reads as a variation of 'you don't understand my genius.'

Medievalist said:

Four things:

1. Reviews aren't for authors; they're for readers.

2. Comments about the author that are personal, invasive, or involve doxing don't belong in reviews. In some cases, they may violate local statutes.

3. A negative review about a book (not the author) is still a legitimate review.

4. Goodreads has changed its policy.

Click to expand...

This. A thousand times this.

sophiab said:

Right she didn't say they were bullying, I said so. Some of the comments I have seen weren't necessary. And it's not just against her work but many authors as well. You can click on any book review and find someone ranting and raving on there. I included her post because she wrote about it. This post isn't meant to be all about her, but the site in general. People have a right to express their opinion, I'm not arguing with that. But it's not fair to attack a writer and expect them to always have a thick skin. Readers don't get a free pass to be nasty.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, if you write a book and you put it out there in the public domain then you don't get to dictate how people feel about it or respond to it. You have to have a thick skin, and if you don't then you are in the wrong industry.

I agree that personal attacks are wrong. But really, I read what you linked to and I didn't see personal, just some people who didn't like a book and said so. Yes, some folks said it with more force than others, but so?

I mean, I HATE corn. I mean, you have no idea how much I hate it. The smell, the taste, the texture, the weird yellow colour. I think all corn should be burned and farmers who grow it should recieve strongly worded letters telling them not to. That's okay, I'm ALLOWED to say that. What would be wrong would be for me to attack Poor Old Farmer Brown over his family life, political or religious beliefs, looks etc just because he grows corn.

See what I'm trying to say.

Now, do you think Farmer Brown really gives a shit about whether I like corn or not? No, because I am one person and there are lots of other people out there who DO like corn. I am not his target audience so my opinions are worthless to him. But they are useful for other people who maybe aren't sure if they are going to like corn or not. Or who like cornbread but aren't sure if corn on the cob will be for them.

Speshul snowflake authors should take a leaf out of Farmer Brown's book.

I've had great reviews and terrible reviews on Goodreads. I tend to snicker at the one-star reviews because they largely appear to be from trolls or people who would not like my book anyway. I don't engage the negative reviewers. I don't use GR much anyway, and I don't have time for middle-school clique hissyfits from presumed adults.

How does one even "leave" Goodreads? Books get up there on their own and then they don't come down, even if they go out of print. So what does "leaving" even mean?

Or is it like "leaving" a forum, where the person just won't post or whatever?

jeffo20 said:

Call me cynical, but when I read that blog post, it almost felt like a subtle promotional piece--"Here's the last book in this trilogy--not everyone's gonna like it, but I think it's really GOOD! And it's so shocking, I'm going to have to disappear for while!"

Click to expand...

If you're cynical, then so am I.

jeffo20 said:

I didn't go on to read all the comments to the post, nor did I cruise around and check on reviews of her other books. I have little doubt she's gotten slammed here and there, little doubt that a review or two crossed the line into being personal. However, she never cited bullying, and while bullying happens (and has been well-illustrated) we really have to stop hanging the bully tag on every instance of negativity. It muddies the waters and makes it harder to see the real thing when it happens.

Click to expand...

I did check out the last book in the trilogy she mentioned. At the time of my checking, there were no bad reviews that slammed her for not writing the book the reviewer wanted. Not on Goodreads, at any rate. So, I wasn't even sure where she was coming from on the goodbye post.

I did poke around on the other books she'd written and honestly, nothing leapt out at me as being troll behavior or slamming her, her mother, her family, her lifestyle, the way she wears her hair...or even her book. The reviewers simply didn't like it. Some strongly. Some strongly enough that they decided they wouldn't read anymore from her again.

If there were any troll or overly negative reviews, I couldn't find them. (Next up on News 11: Author views bad review as personal attack because she 'writes from the heart')

It reads like a case of author-nerves about her last book getting to her. So she decided a pre-flounce from goodreads was in order.

A.P.M. said:

How does one even "leave" Goodreads? Books get up there on their own and then they don't come down, even if they go out of print. So what does "leaving" even mean?

Or is it like "leaving" a forum, where the person just won't post or whatever?

Click to expand...

Indeed. Books are listed all over the place: Riffle, Librarything, Shelfari. No need for authors to follow.