Upon some reflection, I made a few realizations that impact my view of this whole thing.
First off is the very nature of reviewing that is standard in the US and has been for decades. Reviewers review for their own reasons. Not for any author's reasons, but for theirs. And the reviewers who get the most attention and accolade are those who are snarky, if not bordering on nasty. Doesn't matter the medium, snarky always sells well and gets that reviewer a good reputation with the public and with their peers.
Writers, OTOH, want good reviews to be about marketing their books, furthering their careers, selling stuff--which is reasonable for them.
That puts reviewers and writers' basic goals at cross-purposes from the get-go.
Goodreads started as a readers/reviewers' site. A place where people could talk about books they'd read, find books they might like to read, etc. An internet version of a book klatch at the local bookstore/coffee shop (which I've experienced in RL and do miss on many occasions).
So, in some ways, have writers come into Goodreads to pitch their latest book is rather like a writer coming up to a group of readers talking in the café of the local B&N or Starbucks and saying, "Hey, you guys sound like you like to read. My book is right over there. Go buy it. Have a good day!" and walking away. That just is not going to give a good impression, y'know?
Yet, that's what it seems many authors are doing on Goodreads.
Once I thought about the Salon article, I realized that it was entirely too one-sided to be true. If the book was never published, how was it available for review? Someone had to put it there. And with all the gazillion books available on that site, why would anyone notice hers? She had to have done something to make it known. I was speculating that she might've spammed (however that's possible on Goodreads) someone or somewhere with PR stuff, which will get a bad rep anywhere. Apparently, it wasn't as wide-spread as that.
It's pretty wide-spread now.
Like any established community, Goodreads has a culture. A smart person (author or reader) will look around, get the gist of what that culture is, and see if it's something they want to play in or not. I think because Goodreads is billed among writers as a place for promotion, people aren't going in with a respect for the culture that's established. And that will always lead to drama. It happens here (fortunately not often), and it's happened on nearly every site I've ever been a member or lurked on.
If this author created the whole stink for publicity, then all I've got to say is that her book better be the next Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey or it's going to come back and bite her big time. This kind of publicity only goes so far, after all.
), and I don't know why he hates me so. What I do know is that getting angry at him in public is the worst thing I could ever do.
