A cautionary tale: An author confronts her #1 critic

[Venusian Broon]

I saw this in today's guardian and found myself reading it all. I'm not entirely sure if it's supposed to be posted here - so feel free to move it to somewhere else mods if you know better!

http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...author-confronts-her-number-one-online-critic

I read it more like a confessional from the author of the piece who is trying to comprehend how, well, obsessive she became. But then it's quite self-deprecating and amusing in places. I particularly liked the bit:

"Patricia warned me that this was exactly what Blythe was waiting for – and Athena Parker agreed: “[GR Bullies] actually bait authors online to get them to say something, anything, that can be taken out of context.” The next step, she said, was for them to begin the “career-destroying” phase.

“Is this even real?” I Gchatted Patricia.

“YES THERE IS A CAREER-DESTROYING PHASE IT’S AWFUL. DO. NOT. ENGAGE."

 

[Hex]

I don't think Kathleen Hale's behaviour could ever have been described as rational, reasonable or non-damn-terrifying. She was very, very scary, publicly, and did herself a lot of harm.

Good for the Guardian that they allowed her to have a platform to defend herself, though.

To balance a little: http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/blog/the-choices-of-kathleen-hale

And the GoodReads review (hard to see what the fuss was about, really): https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/640892161

 

[Venusian Broon]

I don't think Kathleen Hale's behaviour could ever have been described as rational, reasonable or non-damn-terrifying. She was very, very scary, publicly, and did herself a lot of harm.

Good for the Guardian that they allowed her to have a platform to defend herself, though.

To balance a little: http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/blog/the-choices-of-kathleen-hale

A nice rational article Hex.

The thing about the Kathleen Hale article in the Guardian is that even when she's trying to justify her hard-line behaviour regarding the incident, I think she knows full well she shouldn't have done what she did. Hence the humour to hide the darker side. At least that's the way it comes across to me.

I don't know her or the spat, but even from Kathleen Hale's own words the whole incident does not paint a great picture of herself (I could be positive about her in that she's put her head above the parapet and been open in what she did, although there's loads of ifs and buts as I don't know all the details.)

 

[HareBrain]

Blimey, people on the internet and writers seem like two groups to avoid.

 

[Juliana]

Nick link, Hex! VB, I'd seen the Guardian piece on the weekend - twitter was full of nothing else. Some people do odd things, full stop. Nothing to do with the profession, everything to do with the mindset.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

This

First:

When you publish a book, when you create anything and release it into the world as entertainment to be consumed and enjoyed by other people, you lose all control of the conversation about your creation.

from http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/blog/the-choices-of-kathleen-hale

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It doesn't make sense to argue with critics, especially if the argument becomes heated or obsessive. It's not really a matter of an author "defending" his or her work, because they aren't about to convince those who disliked the book to suddenly reverse their opinions ("Oh, wait, I enjoyed it after all -- how didn't I notice that?") and if there are those who feel a strong distaste for the subject matter and how it is handled, it only prolongs any controversy. It's true that some readers will rush to read the book out of curiosity, but there are others who will make up their mind never to read anything by the author in future. I think the two might cancel each other out, but in the meantime there is angst and bitterness to no good purpose.

If readers are at odds with each other about what they think, if there are debates on the subject, the publicity may do the writer good. But the author should stay above the fray.

 

[Ursa major]

While an author shouldn't react like that, the person she was reacting to didn't seem like your average Internet critic.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

No, she didn't. But that would be the author's cue to accept the criticism gracefully (which does not require agreeing with it) or present a calm, dignified, thoughtful explanation of why she wrote what she wrote. And then say or do nothing more. She'll look good and the other person look bad.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I could only shudder to imagine what this Kathleen Hale would have done if she ever made Youtube videos for a living-and yes, people do that. If this is her reaction to a single trolling book review, then I can't imagine how she would react to all the trolls on Youtube. I've seen far more hurtful, personal things through that site than what was described within this article.


It does paint a good picture for how not to behave after being published. Good to keep in mind. Criticisms and praises will come along, both sides of the fence; it's human nature. We're too different from each other to keep in with a single opinion line. Take the bad with the good and go on from there. I'm sure there's readers who never look at Goodreads. Heck, I'm one. I never look at Facebook or Twitter, either. And there's others like me out there.


So one can still gain readers even if given a review that would blister you more than the sun. Take who you can and move on. You can't please everyone.

 

[Hex]

It's hard to know what to think, because the Goodreads review doesn't seem to me to be unduly troll-ish. The reviewer didn't like the jokey treatment of domestic violence, and she described statutory rape as "rape", but she struck me as having strong feelings about these things (as she's allowed to since she was just a reviewer expressing her own opinion of a book), not out to troll the author. I've seen many reviews that are worse (including academic reviews supposedly written by professionals).

The other things the author talks about -- the apparent Twitter trolling, etc., don't exist any more so there's no evidence either way. The blogger/ reviewer community is breathing fire over this; it appears that their perception of what happened in January is significantly different from the version in the article -- that doesn't mean they're right, but it is interesting.

It's a bit ironic that Kathleen Hale has made a huge point of the reviewer using a false name, and then demonstrated very clearly why anyone writing online might choose to conceal their actual name and identity since people can take offence at what you say and turn up on your doorstep.

In passing, it is perhaps interesting that almost every mention of The Guardian article on Twitter is re-tweeted by the author, even the ones suggesting she might not have behaved very well. It could imply that this is about publicity as well as an attempt to rescue her reputation.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Humour is always the best way for an author to deal with crap.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Criticisms and praises will come along, both sides of the fence; it's human nature. We're too different from each other to keep in with a single opinion line. Take the bad with the good and go on from there. I'm sure there's readers who never look at Goodreads. Heck, I'm one. I never look at Facebook or Twitter, either. And there's others like me out there.


So one can still gain readers even if given a review that would blister you more than the sun. Take who you can and move on. You can't please everyone.

Precisely this. And like you Karn, I don't read internet reviews from Amazon or Goodreads to pick my next book.

As a quasi-scientific study just to see, I took off the top of my head my personal ten favourite and ten worst novels - then found the top ten best novels of all time (as polled by the BBC) for comparison then went on Goodreads and crunched some numbers regarding their ratings from votes gathered. Now of course there are bound to be sock puppets of all flavours as well as trolls and those that respond to trolls, but as Teresa says they are likely to cancel each other out to a large extent.

Results were for the total groupings of books:

My Best 10 novels
Average Rating: 3.9
% put 4 or higher: 71
% put 2 or lower: 10

My Worst 10 novels
Average Rating: 3.7
% put 4 or higher: 60
% put 2 or lower: 11

BBC Top ten of all time
Average Rating: 4.2
% put 4 or higher: 81
% put 2 or lower: 5


Apart from the obvious result - that the ten best rated by the public polled the highest scores and had the least people that disliked them, the point I'd like to make is that the people that didn't like the work was about 10% for both my best and worst choices.

So if you get to the stage of being published you should expect at least 10% of people not to like your work as a matter of course - no matter what. (I should perhaps crunch through all the reads to get the total averages for all books , but I don't have weeks and months to spare to attempt that, so this sample with have to do...)

Anyway all of the above is a bit silly and full of holes.




I also found a list of the 'worst' novels of all time, as voted for by some people on Goodreads i.e. only about 20,000 people. The numbers from their ratings (which were the votes of 8.8 million people!) were:

Average Rating: 3.7
% put 4 or higher: 59%
% put 2 or lower: 19%

Of course that list of books included - all of the Twilight books, 50 shades of Grey, The Da Vinci code and the Golden Compass. All huge best sellers - so make what you will of that (i.e. I don't think the authors would care )

 

[Nerds_feather]

The thing about the Kathleen Hale article in the Guardian is that even when she's trying to justify her hard-line behaviour regarding the incident, I think she knows full well she shouldn't have done what she did.

If she knew "full well she shouldn't have done what she did," why did she then publish the story in an international broadsheet, thus magnifying the exposure this goodreads reviewer was subjected to 1000 fold? That makes any "introspection" on her part look incredibly phony. I mean, she could have told the same story with names and places changed--but no.

Messed up, if you ask me.

 

[Venusian Broon]

If she knew "full well she shouldn't have done what she did," why did she then publish the story in an international broadsheet, thus magnifying the exposure this goodreads reviewer was subjected to 1000 fold?

Penance? Incredibly bad at saying sorry? Any publicity is good publicity?

In her explanation it seems clear that she's desperate to sort 'issues' in public space regarding herself out, but really doesn't seem to have the first clue on how to do it (or when to stop obsessing about it). So messed-up is an answer too I suppose. I think the 'stop obsessing about such things' is the lesson I will take from this.

I came across the article in the Guardian and had no knowledge of the spat or the author - the Guardian article does say right at the end that 'some names have been changed' but I don't know what names other than her own are real.

 

[The Judge]

Everyone's assuming she's telling the literal truth in her Guardian article -- even those people in the blog riposte who vociferously won't believe anything she says about the reviewer don't hesitate to take her word for all the things she's supposed to have done in tracking the reviewer down. But I wonder. Even the best and most truthful of us exaggerate a situation to get some kind of reaction, if only laughs. I know it makes no sense to appear even worse than you really are, but then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to admit to any of it in a public newspaper anyway, apart from the publicity angle -- in which case exaggeration (and perhaps a "Ha, ha! Fooled you!" denouement) could well have its place.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I tried to read it, but aside from a little depreciation on her part, Hale goes out of the way to paint the other person in this evil, in order to exonerate and excuse everything she did.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I tried to read it, but aside from a little depreciation on her part, Hale goes out of the way to paint the other person in this evil, in order to exonerate and excuse everything she did.

Agreed. The whole thing is incredibly narcissistic.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But I bet people are curious about the book now, and it will result in sales to people who wouldn't have looked at it otherwise. She's alienated many readers, but how many of those would have heard about the book without the controversy or read the book if they had. Alienating possible readers is not the same thing as alienating probable readers.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Perhaps, TE, but if she behaves like this, I think I'd be a reader to never want to purchase anything with her name on it.


I am taking something away from this situation, though...never bother with reviews given to one's work. And do not behave like Hale. Hehe.


Reminds me of a cutscene from Final Fantasy X-2, actually...a character was running from debtors so he went all but hog wild trying to flee, and stole a form of hovercraft to escape on. A random child character later on remarks as the PC passes by, "Mom said not to act like Tobli."


Don't ask me why I brought that up. I guess it's both examples, a good one and a very silly, childish one, of how not to behave when the public will see it.