"Don't Attack Reviewers"

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm going to join Alc in the avoid all people precious in this debate. Aaronovitch was pretty polite in his comments and was rounded on, unpleasantly. Whether he should have stayed out of it or not - and I think that's a cholce for the individual author, based on how able for the flak they are - isn't relevant. That he put in a polite comment (and it was polite, if a bit pedantic) and was rounded on pretty nastily is more about general manners on line and why we all just can't be civil. Urgh.

Shove up, Alc.

 

[Brian G Turner]

IMO internet sites are supposed to have an editorial policy that applies both to contributors and commenters. Unfortunately, a lot of sites still insist on quality controls on the former, but free for all with the latter.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I'm going to join Alc in the avoid all people precious in this debate. Aaronovitch was pretty polite in his comments and was rounded on, unpleasantly.

I thought he was very patronizing in his initial response, though more polite afterwards. Also, the conversation allegedly migrated elsewhere after this, where apparently it got more heated. (I wasn't a part of that, so I'm just relaying information second-hand.)

But I also don't have the same view as Ana on how/when authors can interact with critics/fans. So I probably would have reacted differently than she did, though I do get why she did react that way--to me it did seem a bit like Lordy McLord coming in to wave his wand of Authorial Lordship over the plebs.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I thought he was very patronizing in his initial response, though more polite afterwards. Also, the conversation allegedly migrated elsewhere after this, where apparently it got more heated. (I wasn't a part of that, so I'm just relaying information second-hand.)

But I also don't have the same view as Ana on how/when authors can interact with critics/fans. So I probably would have reacted differently than she did, though I do get why she did react that way--to me it did seem a bit like Lordy McLord coming in to wave his wand of Authorial Lordship over the plebs.

Really? How? He came across as pedantic, yes, but Lordy McLord? In what way? There must be a subtxt of communication going on that I don't get. On the other hand I don't get most political nuances and like to take people on face value and assume there's no agenda. Sometimes I get scalded by doing that, but it's the only way I can stay sane, by believing the best. And nothing Aaronovitch said made me think anything other than author thought something had been referenced wrong and wanted to put their tuppenny in.

 

[Hex]

It's not just you...

I thought his initial post could have been better worded, but honestly, the response shocked me.

Also, you know, he wrote the book. In some sense that makes him the guy all weighted with privilege, but in another sense it makes him the expert on what the author was trying to show, and on how the characters developed as they did.

It feels odd to me to say to an expert that they can't contribute because they know too much. More than odd.

Sure, people should have the opportunity to discuss their own opinions of a book privately or in a small group, but to want to discuss a book and resent the involvement of the slightly patronising but ultimately polite and well-behaved author seems very, very strange. They didn't need to agree with him. They didn't need to be influenced by him. Maybe they could have done what authors are told to do if they absolutely have to reply to a review, say, "Thank you so much for your interest. Your opinions are very valuable to me." and get on with their lives?

 

[Nerds_feather]

Springs - that's how it seemed to me--condescending/patronizing. But again, speaking personally and not being judgmental of Ana, I wouldn't have reacted to it the same way. People are condescending/patronizing in online conversations all the time, sometimes without meaning it, and I usually give the benefit of the doubt.

Interestingly, a lot of the furor happened here, in the comments. The writer of this column--disclosure, a friend of mine but also someone I disagree with on this specific issue (you may notice "The G," aka me, wading in to articulate that disagreement)--received a massive deluge of hate mail because of it, including many from self-described fans of BA. The worst of these threatened rape and other forms of violence for having spoken her mind the way she did.

That would be an example of the power imbalance. I do imagine BA was as shocked and horrified by that as I was, and would never be okay with someone doing that on his behalf, but it would still underscore that author/fan interactions over criticism--real or imagined--tend to occur in a context of power imbalance. (And keep in mind I say all this as someone who doesn't actually agree with the position against BA in the SH piece. I do believe in author/fan interaction.)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Sorry, again - what exactly was condescending in his remarks and why? I can't see it. Can you explain, with the text, what it was? So that I can avoid the same errors should I ever become a hugely successful author (tongue firmly in cheek, btw...)

Also, he has no control over his fans. I assume he wouldn't welcome such behaviour from them (but have no idea, really) but what someone else does in your name is seperate from what you yourself do. We only have responsibility for ourselves and, unless he was inciting the reaction, it's not his fault.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't think he sounded particularly patronizing. And Ana's response ... where did all that heat come from? She even scolded him for being a man daring to post in a female space. (I can imagine the response across all fandom if a woman was scolded for giving her opinions in a male space.)

And then in that other article, what is this all about, dividing up the world between authors (who have suddenly become "the industry") and readers ("fans"), as though writers aren't ever fans, too? In my experience most SFF writers are most emphatically fans of the genre. But now we're the big, bad establishment, with all this power, and if we so much as open our mouths to explain* ourselves, then we're trying to crush the little people? I don't like this idea of excluding people just because it happens that they wrote books that were published.

Also, I have seen what it looks like when an author behaves badly to those who criticize his or her work, and it looks nothing like what Aaronovitch was doing.

Also, the issue of the hate mail she was getting: was that an issue of a power imbalance, or because she said some things that caught the attention of the kind of people who just look for an opportunity to abuse and threaten someone (you know, trolls). But if it was Aronovitch's fans, then it's a matter of fans threatening other fans because they disagree with them, isn't it? Which we can see sometimes when the author was never even present in the discussion. Some people get weird about their favorite authors. Or they like to pretend they do to cause a sensation online, and because they know they can get away with it because of their anonymity.
_____
*Although I still think that explaining yourself can be a waste of time if people don't like something you've written, because there will always be someone, or several someones, who will pick apart your explanation and you'll have to explain that, and then ... well, it can go on for a long time.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Also, he has no control over his fans. I assume he wouldn't welcome such behaviour from them (but have no idea, really) but what someone else does in your name is seperate from what you yourself do. We only have responsibility for ourselves and, unless he was inciting the reaction, it's not his fault.

Of course he can't control his fans, but he still has them and that, by itself, is what makes the power relationship unbalanced. It's like, I don't have to believe in certain things (sexism, inequality by passport, etc.) to benefit from them. (And it's not just fans, as the original article states.)

On the former point (whether or not the initial reply on TBS by BA was patronizing/condescending), well, you are under no obligation to see it my way, as there's no universal, objective bar for what does or does not constitute "patronizing/condescending." However, speaking just for myself, it was more a tone thing, a sort of passive-aggressive "I'm so sorry you didn't like the book, but please let me tell you how it is" kind of thing. I detected similar in some subsequent exchanges involving him on this topic.

However, again, that's just me. And I am not in the "no author/fan interaction" camp, so I don't actually see a problem with the substance of his reply--though perhaps in the choice of venue, as TBS has a well-established "culture". If I'd written the review on NoaF, and he'd come on and said the same thing, the subsequent discussion would have gone differently, as we have a different "culture." The Chrons has a different "culture." Etc.

 

[The Bluestocking]

IMO internet sites are supposed to have an editorial policy that applies both to contributors and commenters. Unfortunately, a lot of sites still insist on quality controls on the former, but free for all with the latter.

As someone who looks after my nonprofit's online social media accounts, I can attest to keeping online spaces SAFE as being a very intensive and thankless job. It means that you have to be ever-vigilant of what content you allow on your sites and also on the rough-and-tumble of the comments threads. The former is easier to do especially if you have strict contributor/submission guidelines. The latter can be like a the Wild Wild West.

This is probably why there are a growing number of sites just turning off their comments section. Conversation is good but with online harassment and trolling becoming increasingly rabid and the violence spilling over into the offline world (see #Gamergate), it's sometimes best to just take the comments section off the menu. This could apply to online reviews by bloggers too if the heat gets too much and the reviewer is feeling threatened. Ditto for authors - Joe Hill, for example, does not leave the comments section of his blog on. This probably automatically cuts down on the temptation to fire back at detractors in the comments sections which would in turn snowball into a bad situation for everybody concerned (and much to the glee of professional trolls).

Having said all that:

• I agree with y'all about not engaging (it doesn't matter whether you're a writer, an artist etc - just don't. You'll never win. There are people who SPECIALISE and TAKE PLEASURE in online bullying).
• I want to say a HUGE THANK YOU to @Brian Turner and the Chrons moderators for keeping Chrons such a safe online space. I've been a nerd/geek all my life but have been hesitant to join communities like this (except for John and Hank Green's Nerdfighters because that's a safe and positive online geek community too) and you guys are doing a really fantastic job in helping keep this community so welcoming.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Of course he can't control his fans, but he still has them and that, by itself, is what makes the power relationship unbalanced.

I have to disagree with you there. It is only through influencing his fans that he has power, and in cases where he isn't influencing them then there is no power unbalance in his favor. I would think that at that site, at least originally, most of the influence would have been going the other way, until it got out of hand and spread beyond that venue. Who did the spreading, by the way? Is that known? Did he do it, or did she, or did other people bring it up elsewhere? And then, are the people who are attacking her so viciously really his fans? I have to wonder about that unless he is the kind of person who incites his fans to behave that way. Maybe he is getting hate mail too, but isn't about to encourage it by acknowledging it.

What I do know is this: On the internet there is a lot of weird and unwholesome behavior. Not just in cases where people can act in anonymity, but even when they use their real names there are the geographic distances between them and the people with whom they interact, and that can make them feel safe about tossing around insults with people they will never meet face-to-face. Some of that behavior is highly co-dependent, and some of it is cruel and bullying. Once someone starts stirring up unnecessary drama -- and from what I saw on that site, it was unnecessary, because it started out civil enough on both sides -- there will be people who automatically rush to their defense, just as there will be people who see an opportunity to make trouble and get out their poison pens.* And before long, it won't be the principals in the original disagreement who keep things going, or even just the well-meaning people who get sucked in for one reason or another, it will be all the people who were drawn to the drama and who feed on it. It would be impossible to estimate how much the people who feed on other people's drama (the trolls lurking in the shadows and writing anonymous letters) love, love, love it, because they are not the ones being terrorized and they will never be held accountable.

That's why the internet can be a dangerous place, not because authors are trampling on their critics and wielding some great power they possess to crush anyone who says anything they don't like. Geez, if that were the case, authors would never feel the need to fight their own battles. They could just call in their slavering minions to do it for them.

_____
* Someone is going to say now that I'm blaming the victims, but I'm not. What I am saying is that people who have been using the internet for a while should know the dangers and not attract the attention of the trolls and the crazy people -- who will go on being crazy regardless, none of the people they persecute made them that way, but they'll be aiming it at somebody else.

 

[Nerds_feather]

You're right that an author is only willfully abusing his/her power if s/he is deliberately egging on fans to go after, say, a blogger who has been negative about a given book. But if an author gets in a public argument with, say, a blogger about said hypothetical book, and then a bunch of the author's fans go after that blogger, how is the resultant situation not also a function of that imbalance of power?

Now of course it can go the other way. A blogger or internet presence can wield or manipulate "power" in such a way as to gain advantage over the author. I definitely do not see this as a one-way street.

I also tried to make this clear, but I want to reiterate--I don't personally agree with the notion that authors and bloggers/readers/critics/fans should stay away from each other. I do think everyone should be aware of and respect the various power imbalances and circumstances, but adults who go into things in good faith and with an eye towards respectful dialogue can overcome most problems that arise.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But if an author gets in a public argument with, say, a blogger about said hypothetical book, and then a bunch of the author's fans go after that blogger, how is the resultant situation not also a function of that imbalance of power?

But we can only know that is the case if we know that the people going after a blogger are really fans of the author in question, and I doubt that people threatening rape or death sign their own names. They may just be after her because they think she's an "uppity" female who happened to come to their attention when her dispute with a particular author went public, or because (God help us) they imagine it's funny. It's disgusting, but my point is that you don't have to do or say anything in particular -- offend an author, offend a reader, praise an author, be an author, be a reviewer -- to bring about this kind of abuse, because any of those things could do it, or something else entirely. You just have to be noticed by the wrong people.

And they might, for all we know (and if they are trolls it's not unlikely) be writing similarly awful letters to the author, because he or she caught their attention through the same dispute.

It is true that an author can use his or her influence to cause some considerable "localized" unpleasantness -- I've seen that -- which is upsetting enough to the recipient at the time, and is completely inappropriate, but that can usually be cut off pretty quickly just by ignoring it (nothing annoys those who are trying to upset you like ignoring them). But to say that the author isn't responsible for what his or her fans do and then to ascribe the actions of those fans to some fell power that the author wields over them sounds to me like trying to have it both ways.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Why are we all talking about power imbalances here? In my view there may be one, but that's not why my basic advice to all authors receiving a negative review should be to sit on their hands. It's far more practical than that. It's as Chuck Wendig said in his post - what the hell are you going to achieve by responding? And the answer is - almost nothing good. You aren't going to change the reviewer's mind in all likelihood. If you somehow do, you're going to look like the bad guy brow beating a reader. Your popularity is not going to soar as a writer, in fact you may well turn readers off your work. And you could well start a war. No one wins a war.

The only author I can think of who ever gained from attacking her critics was Amanda McKittrick Ros - possibly one of the worst novelists ever to put pen to paper. And she gained largely because of her unflappable belief in the quality of her own writing coupled with the amazing quality of her critics who she repeatedly attacked in the papers of the day! So yes, If Stephen King attacks your work, by all means respond to him in literary fashion. It can't help but boost your profile. People will flock to read the book Stephen King hates. But if Joe Blog is critical, no one cares and you'll just look like the bad guy.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

what the hell are you going to achieve by responding? And the answer is - almost nothing good. You aren't going to change the reviewer's mind in all likelihood. If you somehow do, you're going to look like the bad guy brow beating a reader. Your popularity is not going to soar as a writer, in fact you may well turn readers off your work.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

The reason why I allowed myself to get distracted on the question of power imbalances is this:

A woman blogger came to the attention of some of the most repugnant denizens of the internet, because she had a dispute, much publicized later, with a male author about his book. As a result, she was threatened and bullied, as women who speak out about anything often are, and I cannot begin to imagine how traumatized she must have been by those threats. I am outraged by this, and I believe that any number of forces at work in our society, individually, or more likely in combination, are responsible -- some sick ideas still going around about gender probably being the most significant of these, and the fact that she was arguing with an author about his book almost certainly the very least of these -- if it was really a reason at all, except as it caused her name to be known to the kind of people who write such letters. And to act like it's about authors and readers and reviewers and power, instead of gender issues and power, or a growing culture of bullying on the internet and power, is to ignore the much greater problems in order to concentrate on something really quite trivial.

Because the dispute in question really was quite trivial, no matter how the people involved felt at the time, and even if all the rest of it hadn't happened, it did neither of them any good to be a part of it.

What I am trying to say, and perhaps have not been saying it well, is that there are so many people trying to prevent women's voices from being heard, and who are waiting to punish us for speaking out, when we are heard let us make it count -- and not confuse a p-----g contest between authors and reviewers with the issues that women face all of the time.

And having said all this, I think that's covered everything I have to say on the subject.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

On the former point (whether or not the initial reply on TBS by BA was patronizing/condescending), well, you are under no obligation to see it my way, as there's no universal, objective bar for what does or does not constitute "patronizing/condescending." However, speaking just for myself, it was more a tone thing, a sort of passive-aggressive "I'm so sorry you didn't like the book, but please let me tell you how it is" kind of thing. I detected similar in some subsequent exchanges involving him on this topic.

However, again, that's just me. And I am not in the "no author/fan interaction" camp, so I don't actually see a problem with the substance of his reply--though perhaps in the choice of venue, as TBS has a well-established "culture". If I'd written the review on NoaF, and he'd come on and said the same thing, the subsequent discussion would have gone differently, as we have a different "culture." The Chrons has a different "culture." Etc.

So, if it's a cultural thing would the blogger have taken offence no matter what Aaronovitch said? And was there an assumption of his tone? Ie were people looking for offence and on their high horse as soon as he put his reply in? That's the only thing that makes sense to me, for the blogger to have rounded on him so thoroughly and dismissively - that offence was found where, perhaps, none was meant (or, on the other hand, perhaps he meant it exactly as it was taken. We won't know - but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt especially when, in his later exchanges, he gives his reasons for input which seem genuine enough.)

I think people carry their beliefs with them and are quick to rail against anything which challenges those beliefs and in this case it was that an author not only shouldn't input but that they absolutely should not dare to respond because the arena was somehow verbotten.

I,too, believe authors gain nothing from responding (and can become pretty ingrained and uber-defensive when they do). But I also think there was a real sense of elitism within this exchange and people were looking for offence.

And I shall follow TE's example and say that covers pretty much what I have to say in the matter.

Edit: and that I agree with Hex - attacks on the blogger are wrong, too. She was snippy. It's not a crime. I'm snippy a lot of the time.

 

[Hex]

First, I am appalled to hear the blogger was so horribly attacked. Whether the nasty comments came from fans or random internet evil, it must have been awful.

It is a terrible problem -- and the ridiculous fuss with gaming is a beautiful example of how angry some men can become with women (apparently as an undifferentiated group) when they dare to have opinions or do things or in other ways demonstrate that they are a competent, thoughtful human being. Because feminist conspiracy, phases of the moon, etc etc etc. They're a small group (apparently about 300 people) who reflect their own opinions back at each other and can't see that they're wrong, and what they do is abhorrent and terrifying.

Does that mean men should never comment on threads because they're coming from a position of power? How dare you treat me like a rational human being who is interested in your opinions?! (<-- joke. JOKE. In case anyone wasn't sure)

There are other groups who also reflect their own opinions back at each other and therefore don't see when they're behaving strangely, and I wonder if the blogger's initial response to the author's comment came from that kind of insular environment, because it doesn't seem justified from the outside. It also assumes that he should have known the particular culture of the blog, even though it wasn't stated anywhere.

It seems really unfair to blame an author for commenting because it might possibly cause some people over whom he has no control to get cross and behave like evil criminals. The alternative is that he never says anything just in case. If people behave like reasonable human beings (which he did -- and he had reasonable expectations about his right to speak) then they have the right to express their opinion.

I know you believe in authors and bloggers talking, NF, but clearly others believe that daring to express an opinion is an act of power-laden (knowledge-laden?) aggression from the author. That's totally up to them, but they should make it clear -- very, very clear so someone following a link to a review can see -- that authors are not welcome to comment. Accusing someone afterwards of invading a female space etc. is throwing up walls to reasonable discussion and creating an in-group/ out-group where some people are not entitled to have or express opinions.

EDIT: I probably shouldn't comment any more on this either, since I've talked a lot on this thread and I suspect my opinions on it are clear. However, never say never.

@psychotick -- it rarely seems to work out well, when authors comment on reviews, but the original article went a lot further than that. I think it's probably not a good idea, but authors still have the right to comment.

 

[Toby Frost]

A wider question: what exactly is the purpose of comments boxes?

Going back to what I said earlier about a deluded sense of entitlement, why does it matter that Mr X from Ytown can say whether he likes or hates an article? Why should he be able to? If he really wants to air his views, why not just get a website of his own? I've never read anything in a comments thread that changed my opinion or made me think beyond "Yes", "No" and "You should be sectioned". If a writer (say) puts up an article about their work, I don't feel as if I've got an innate right to pass judgment on it in that way.

Now, I'm pretty sure that I think about some things in a rather odd way, so I'm happy to concede that I might be missing something here, but I don't see much point in having a box for all those beautiful and unique snowflakes in their smelly basements to shout agreement or fury about what's been said. A forum is different, because people go there to have civilised, moderated discussions. So too is having an email address for queries.

I'm not calling for people to back away from answering their critics or to fall silent when attacked by maniacs. I don't think that turning the comments section off is a form of cowardice, in the same way that locking your front door when you go to bed isn't cowardice. But I wonder if there is a need for the very idea of free (ie totally uncontrolled) discussion on the internet to be challenged. We don't have free political discussion, after all. That's mob rule. Instead, politics is funnelled (moderated, if you like) into parties. If you call that an infringement on your rights, you're crazy.

 

[Idealect]

There may be practical reasons not to respond to reviews but I don't see what could possibly be wrong with it in principle. If a review wrongly speculates as to the author's motives, surely you can say what (you think) your motives were. If the review says the book is "about" this or that, why shouldn't the author respond with their own perspective, particularly if the perspectives are mutually exclusive, in opposition or otherwise objectionable. If a review heavily leans on dishonest rhetoric, what's wrong with an author dissecting the review and pointing out where arguments rest on sneers? If an author thinks a review sums up the strengths and weaknesses of their work, or points something out that they didn't realise or think of, but agree with in retrospect, can't they say so? etc etc.

In a world where the writer can write and post a casual response, not in a newspaper, not in a statement: with only the illusory (and real) authority of having written the book, surely the observer has to take some of responsibility in evaluating if such a response is fair, accurate, etc, or not, and so, grant the author the right to respond fairly.

Honestly even if a review just says the writing was generally average I think a writer is entitled to say they think their writing was quite brilliant thank you and good day, because who does it hurt? If someone's stupid enough to take the writer's word for that they're stupid enough to take what the review says on faith too, so the contradiction will be good for their mental development and the accuracy of their opinion about the book.


The only danger I see is that the writer responds extremely inappropriately, or attracts the attention of bored morons, but that has nothing to do with the in-principle-principle (as opposed to the practical principle one might adopt to avoid the temptation/danger of responding that way).

 

[Ursa major]

A wider question: what exactly is the purpose of comments boxes?

If the site is a commercial one (well, its deluded owners want to cover their costs and more with it), they want as many clicks (and cliques) as they can, to maximise their ad revenue. That's certainly the case with newspaper websites: it's obvious that many articles are specifically designed to attract (mostly one-dimensional**) comments. And if an article verges on being sensible, the subeditors provide titles and sub-headings (stand firsts) that misrepresent the writer's opinion to make sure there will be a flood of negative comments.

I expect the site to which Mr Aaronovitch responded is the opposite of this, one where people with certain views about the world congregate to agree with each other (possibly*** about how awful people are to have other views).


** - One dimensional comments are great for click-baiting: they attract 1D comments from opposing views; and as there's no room for compromise, the two (or more) sides just rant at each other.

*** - Sorry if I'm misrepresenting the site concerned: I own the first book in BA's series but have yet to read it, so didn't look too closely at the Book Smugglers piece in case I saw a spoiler. (I saw one inadvertently; I wish I hadn't). A complaint about a male character possessing "male gaze" suggests a viewpoint, though the reviewer provided an "on the other hand" and so was definitely trying to be balanced. (And perhaps her accusations of "man-pain" are valid.)