Devil's Advocate & The Kathleen Hale Controversy

Use this forum for book and reading discussion that doesn't fall into another category. Talk about books, genres, reading issues, general literature, and any other topic of particular interest to readers. If you want to start a thread about a specific book or a specific series, please do that in the section below this one.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sparrow
Posts: 26
Joined: 10 Apr 2014, 01:27
Favorite Book: The Gulag Archipelago
Currently Reading: Médicis Daughter:
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-sparrow.html

Devil's Advocate & The Kathleen Hale Controversy

Post by Sparrow »

I didn't see anything on here about the Kathleen Hale fiasco. I'm going to play Devil's Advoate here and ask what you guys thought about the whole thing?

(If you haven't read her article yet, it's called 'Am I being catfished?' An author confronts her number one online critic
and published by The Guardian. I can't add links yet, but it's easy to find)


For anyone unfamiliar, she's an author of YA fiction, who, a few weeks back published an article in The Guardian. The article centered on how, in reading reviews for her books, she was really bothered by one in particular. The review was written by a top reviewer on Goodreads (but she cross posts her reviews everywhere), and in Hale's opinion, the review was particularly virulent, and also brought up some points about the book that were entirely manifested by the reviewer (complaining about a scene that didn't exist in the book).

The author looked into this particular reviewer online, and discovered she had a reputation for writing negative reviews that could sometimes be over the top. So Hale tried to talk with her, but the reviewer snubbed her and then blocked Hale. A few months later, her publisher asked if she wanted to choose someone to send her book to and then interview with for her virtual book tour, and Hale chose the reviewer. She said she partially chose her bc she still felt like they could connect and she could talk with the reviewer about some of her misinterpretations, but Hale also admitted that by choosing her, she would have access to the reviewers home address, thereby possibly opening up a new avenue to communicate with this person.

During the period in between being blocked by the reviewer and getting her home address, Hale became a bit obsessed, going as far as getting a background check on the person. She discovered the reviewer was using a pseudonym, and also claiming to be someone much younger, and in a different occupation, than she really was.

Hale also discovered the website “Stop the Goodreads Bullies”- which, by chance, lists what they perceive to be the worst offenders- and of course, this reviewer was on the list. Stop the Goodreads Bullies, for anyone unfamiliar, is a website run by anonymous people who claim to be reviewers and readers, but not authors, whose mission is to have certain reviewers on GR and other review sites banned, for their “bad behaviour” (ie- writing super nasty reviews on a regular basis, trashing authors careers, etc). Yep.

Stop the Goodreads Bullies is another conversation all together, so back to Hale-

in her article, she details this journey, all the way down to the day she actually went to the reviewers home, only to chicken out and leave a gift book on her steps (not her book, for the record)..

When the article hit the web, people totally freaked out. Reviewers went nuts, calling her a stalker (Hale says she was simply ousting a catfisher). They called for mass burning of her books, said she ought to be arrested, and of course, proceeded to blow up review sites with negative reviews. It got bad enough that Hale went underground, and deleted her account on Goodreads (her author profile is up, but that's maintained by GR).

One of my pet peeves is when an author comments back on a negative review of their book. As a writer, I completely understand the unhealthy need to read your negative reviews, but the bottom line is, if you can't handle them or blow them off, you should not read them. I couldn't. Writers look at their books as their kids almost, so naturally we're highly sensitive to it. If someone called my son something ugly, I'd go into mama bear mode- my instinct is the same with my books (besides, I'm critical enough of my work, and I think most writers are- we don't need anyone else to heap it on bc we're doing a pretty good job of it ourselves). I think the best thing to do is to wait to read the reviews, until the book or the content has been out there for awhile, and you can distance yourself a little bit from it, and not be so sensitive. But if you choose to read them (they certainly can provide constructive criticism and make you a better writer in the long run), NEVER. ENGAGE.

So, the big debate is: is Hale the bad guy and crazy, for wanting to talk to her detractors? Obviously going to her house is a bit over the top. But is the desire to engage with someone about your work really an unhealthy thing? One thing I will say is that Hale named this reviewer in her article- by her pseudonym, but anyone who wants to can look her up and probably track down her personal info. That's not okay at all- and in very, very poor taste.

Some people say that reviewers shouldn't use pseudonyms- I'm a little ambivalent on the issue. On one hand, I am all about limiting my electronic footprint. On the other, pseudonyms means there's not really any accountability- even if someone writes negative reviews that claim there are things in the book that aren't. After this mess, a lot of people said Hale's a perfect example of WHY pseudonyms are needed. I think that's looking at the issue for the wrong reason. Personal safety is the issue; the ability to trash someone without being called out in it is not. If they did that in a newspaper or a magazine, they'd be sued for libel.

And how about reviewers? It's important for us to be able to review things without worry of retribution or attack. Even the best books in the world have people who don't like them, and I've seen first hand how rabid some people can get when someone reviews a book they love. That's pretty unfair.

Undoubtedly, there are reviewers out there who are intentionally cruel in their reviews, and LOVE writing that type of review. They're kind of obnoxious, but they're within their rights- anything less and we're talking about censorship. For me, I see them as I see people in general- some are sweet, some of funny, some are honest, and some are just jerks. Screw 'em.

Here's what bothered me most about the whole situation though- and this goes back to rabid fans. After this well-known reviewer (who is well known for her over the top reviews) trashed the book, even before the whole contact fiasco began, her fans and followers started rating the book low. And AFTER the Guardian article came out, of course, the reviewer in question went insane, and so did her fellow over-the-top reviewers and their legion of fans. To the point that Hale's books suddenly had hundreds of negative reviews. Now, obviously, all these reviewers did not go out and buy Hale's book, read it and then review it in 12 hours. In other words, they're trashing a book they never read, simply bc their “review idol” did. And I would even venture to say that the same kind of thing happens often, bc her fans don't want to be seen as uncool, or admit liking a book their leader had torn apart. It's like high school cliques, really.

The same thing happens to reviewers though sometimes- let me give an example. Outlander is big business right now, thanks to the show, but it's been around since the 1980's. Because of the renewed interest, there's been a wave of new readers, and by proxy, new reviews- but anytime someone writes a negative one, they're attacked in the comments. If they're on Amazon, people vote that the review wasnt helpful, even though it was a thoroughly written review. That's pretty messed up, and can actually hurt people n the long run, with respect to being chosen for future reviews of ARC;s.

I've been on the internet for a long time- I've adminned for websites, built my own; I've blogged and I work as an editor and content writer of all sorts. I review books often, and I have built a decent enough reputation that I occasionally get to review ARC's, and I love it. But if there is one thing I've learned over the years, it's that the internet is full of trolls and jerks. The real world is too, but the internet is particularly rife with them, since they can cower behind a screen without fear of retribution. Personally, I don't like Jane Austen's works. Bored to tears by it, but some people- a lot- think she's an absolute genius. Since she's deceased, and her books are top heavy with positive reviews, writing a negative one isn't going to hurt her feelings. But I never do. Know why? Austen fans. Rabid, crazy, offended Austen lovers. Not so much bc I think they might question what I wrote- I encourage a healthy debate- how boring would things be if we all liked the same things? But I DO have to worry that people will start lowering the helpful votes, and potentially ruin my relationship with publishers who think I'm worth sending ARC's too. How insane is that? And I bring this up, bc I know some people are thinking, well, maybe Outlander fans, but Jane Austen fans? They're all about being polite and proper and sociable. But they're not always. So we end up with a plethora of positive reviews for Austen books, who say mostly the same thing, and no negative. An Austen virgin sees the positives and assumes the lack of negatives mean everyone loved it, so it must be good. It creates an imbalance, and it isn't just certain books, or small niches.


So no matter who you are, how nice you are or aren't; no matter what you're writing or how thoroughly you do it- someone on the internet is not going to like it. And they'll be more than happy to let you know- in fact, they'll live for it.

As authors and writers, we have to develop a thick skin. We also need to respect that negative reviews are a part of writing, and unless they are blatantly misrepresenting your content (saying it's a book about pedophiles when it's about sewing, for example)- or the reviewer is going way beyond negative reviews (blowing up the internet to trash you as a person or writer, contacting your friends and business associates, etc)- then they're within their rights. DON'T ENGAGE. No matter how hard it is not to talk to them, stay away.

As reviewers, we are responsible for our own ethics. I wish the world was all equally ethical, but it isn't, and the only person's ethics I can impact are my own. When I write a negative review for a book, I try to stay within the boundaries of the book. I generally will not review a book at all if I simply cannot find a thing good about it, bc, why? Reviews need to be balanced, and I guess I just feel like there's enough ugliness in the world, and if I really hated someone's book, I can be more human by sparing the author's feelings. That doesn't mean I won't write negative reviews- but again, it's all about balance. Pointing out the good and the bad.

One of the motto's that the “goodreads bullies” in question have been tossing around a lot is that reviewers write revie2ws for other readers, NOT authors. I think that’s bs. I write reviews bc I know people will consider them before buying a book, to make sure it's what they want, but I also know that the author, and even other writers who might be reading reviews, listen the reviewers when they point out something they didn't like, so they can work on it. I'm sure some writers don't care, but I think a lot of writers- particularly newer ones- use the reviews as feedback to capitalize on as an educational tool.

So... thoughts? What do you guys think about Hale's actions, and the reviewers.




Note:
Again, I can't post links in my comments yet, but I'm sure you'll find a lot of opinion pieces on the article from her detractors and her supporters. I'll try to edit this and post some in here when I'm able.
User avatar
LivreAmour217
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2043
Joined: 02 Oct 2014, 12:42
Favorite Author: Too many to count
Favorite Book: Ditto
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 294
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-livreamour217.html
Latest Review: Island Games by Caleb J. Boyer

Post by LivreAmour217 »

Personally, I think both Kathleen Hale and the reviewer behaved badly in their own ways. I'll explain myself below:

The reviewer is at fault for being over-the-top mean! I've only done a handful of reviews so far, and I have gone out of my way to be as objective as possible with books that I didn't enjoy. I would never trash an author or say unnecessarily harsh things about the book, and I don't understand why anyone would enjoy doing this. By behaving in this manner, the reviewer is inviting trouble, as some people do not take kindly to being disrespected and will go to great lengths to get retribution. It's not fair, but that's just the way it is. You reap what you sow!

However, Kathleen Hale is not innocent in all of this. She should not have let a negative review bother her as much as it apparently did, especially since the reviewer has a reputation for being nasty! Like you said, writers and authors must develop a thick skin because there will always be critical people to deal with. Again, it's not fair, but that's the world for you. I do understand her desire to engage with the reviewer, but I believe that she took it too far. Not only did Kathleen Hale make herself look bad, she also put herself in danger by attempting to approach the reviewer in person. What if the reviewer is a physically violent person? She did not think this through!

As you can see, I'm not particularly happy with either one of these people. There is bad behavior all around in this story. I think we can draw two lessons from all of this: 1) Be kind, because it's ulitmately easier on everyone, and 2) Don't let other people get under your skin. Great post, by the way.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein
User avatar
najan 97
Posts: 1
Joined: 17 Jul 2018, 17:48
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by najan 97 »

behind every successful man there is woman to hold him .love does not conclude hut the heart chooses who is fit
Post Reply

Return to “General Book & Reading Discussion”