Author Archives: sadie

Craziness on the Interwebz

3 Replies

Screen Shot 2015-01-21 at 10.33.54

Oh, it’s been an interesting week or so in the indie book world. First, there was another special snowflake author, making a practically scripted new-author-with-thin-skin mistake and paying the similarly well-established price. Now, someone has, for sure, takSpecial Snowflake Awarden the Angry Special Snowflake Award when he took his Goodreads is evil and all reviewers are trolls in disguise rant off of social media and blog platforms and published an actual book about it. No joke, it’s titled Authors vs. Goodreads and you can find it here and here. The world has gone mad, mad I tell ya.

I read about half of this magnum opus (You can read my review here.), honestly people it was as much as I could take. And it was nothing new. Just more of the same, Goodreads didn’t give me my way and those mean, mean reviewers trolled my work and took offence at my sock puppets, that we hear all the time.

Nothing new, except that he wrote it from the perceived position of an expert advising new indie authors about the dangers of Goodreads. I find this problematic because, from the half I read, it’s already painfully obvious that he doesn’t actually know how things work at Goodreads. Or he knows but it serves his purpose better to conveniently overlook, you know, reality.

But more importantly, a man banned under numerous profiles really shouldn’t be advising new authors on how to succeed on goodreads. It’s like a Special Snowflake instruction manual—read it, learn to perceive everything as a personal attack and to respond with anger and aggression, then wonder why no one wants to play with you on the monkey bars and throw a hissy. Crazy.

And that seems to have been his MO. I found this example of someone’s interaction with him:

FTR, I didn’t even rate his book. Or mark it read, for that matter. I just shelved him with a gif, on his favorite, my wouldn’t-pee-on-it-if-it-was-on-fire shelf. He also threw a tantrum over my see-private-notes shelf. B/c it was totally unfair that he, the author, couldn’t read my private notes.

The author of this book also goes by the name A.V. Roe, who was banned from GRs for attacking members reviews of his books. First under a sock acct (now deleted, even though he swore it wasn’t him) making ableist remarks towards the reviewer, (view spoiler) and then from his own author profile.

When blocked from one review for being abusive, he took to private messaging (view spoiler), then posting a blog (view spoiler) attacking more members, where he accidentally responded under the wrong author acct revealing himself without doubt as also being the author Dean Billing. (view spoiler).

And after being warned and provided links to the author guidelines, eventually by GRs staff as well, he took his case to groups b/c he was being bullied and abused and treated so unfairly. (view spoiler)

After being banned he came back at least once under a regular user acct again using the Dean Billings name. When that was also deleted he came back as author Zoe Desh, which was again deleted by GRs, rating his book about GRs and their flawed, unfair review system.

Here are some ss’s of his reviews on smashwords…I’m sure he totally meant to mention that he is the author of both of those books. Totally. (view spoiler)

ETA: here are some of his comments that are now gone with his GRs priviliges. I still think it’s hilarious that he made such a fuss about how he couldn’t care less b/c writing books was just a hobby and we were taking it all so seriously and needed to get over it.

And here we are, on the whiny, rant of a booklet he wrote, with a new pen name, anti-GRs website and Twitter acct later, still bitching and whining about the reviews, and reviewers, he couldn’t care less about.

le sigh

(view spoiler)

Now, sorry about my general technical non-knowhow, but I haven’t the slightest idea how to make those view spoiler tags work here on WordPress (though the links do) and they’re too big to post open. However, you can go here (#34) to see the comment on Goodreads and read them there.

A number of subsequent commenters mentioned remembering the hoo-ha, but I wasn’t party to it and, thus, am not taking it completely at face value. However, as Desh admits openly in the booklet that he was banned on multiple accounts (or excommunicated as he phrases it) and currently posts tweets like this:

I’m willing to believe it’s at least typical of his behaviour, even if not a perfect remembrance of it.

It’s hard to imagine someone being so very wrapped up in themselves, but another Goodread user commented thus:

I don’t know if it’s that he missed the memo, or, here’s a thought: other possessors of XX chromosomes older than 30: you know that breed of XY chromosome holder, white, aged over 35, who expects your time and attention because they are a white male? Maybe he’s one of them? They had the world at their feet, at least when it came to dealing with XX chromosomes, their whole life. In a meeting, they will interrupt and talk over you, because what they have to say is inherently more worth listening to than what you have to say. They expect – demand – your attention.

And now I wonder if the culture of GR was a harsh shock. Suddenly, he can’t mansplain that our reviews are all wrong. “Smut isn’t supposed to be politically correct, for heaven’s sake – this is about getting your load away. What’s WRONG with you all? Why don’t you get it?”

And the more he used the techniques that served him well his whole working life – repeating his pov endlessly until the women just shut up and leave go do their own thing – well, here on GR we do not shut up and we do not go away. In our space we learned to say what we think and to stick to it.

So, yeah. That, maybe.

On discovering Desh was male, I had a very similar, if not as elegantly phrased, thought and that just makes me sad.

But even if Desh’s online temper-tantrum is actually an academic feminist’s wet dream of a case study, the booklet is pretty obviously a stunt. Let’s break this down. Goodreads is a large book-data gathering machine. We all—even Desh, it’s one of his complaints after all— know this. So, any book provided a ISBN/ASIN can and probably will be added to the database.

Desh then publishes a booklet on a popular book sales platform and his own website, along with the statement that he doesn’t want it on Goodreads, but he’s tracking how long it will take to show up there and will report back. Um…that kind of sounds like he wants it on Goodreads, otherwise there’s nothing to report.

Then, once this attack on Goodreads and Goodreads’ users is discovered by readers (you know the very people the book is calling trolls and villianizing), they unsurprisingly read it, dislike it and rate/review it accordingly. Their friends then see these rating in their update feed, go look at the book too, have a similar reaction, read and rate it, and then their friends see the book, etc.

That’s how snowballing works (no, not that type of snowballing, geez) and, no doubt, exactly what Desh was hoping for. (Though he calls it trolling and apparently assumes there is some clandestine group of evil reviewers just waiting to gang up and trash a book.) True, some may rate it on principle and instant dislike, but the reviews show an awful lot of people actually reading the book prior to reviewing.

Meanwhile, Desh gleefully sits back in his proverbial castle and sends out hourly tweets like these:

The whole thing is obviously a set up for an eventual, “See, see, I told you so!” And it’s working. He’s undoubtedly going to play this to the very end. More power to him.

Now, given Desh’s history of picking fights, his stated intent to keep people updated (whatever that means), and the need for a little more drama to keep this train rolling, I expect a backlash from this post. (Pending it’s noticed at all, obviously.) God(dess) protect me from dying of laughter as I feed the troll…and not the reviewing kind.

Honestly though, it’s not Desh’s book, tweets, delusions of grandeur or pitiable attitude that prompted me to write this post. No, it’s the next evolution of this affair that’s worth mention. Yes, there’s more.

A French author named Tobias Gavran has written a rebuttal to Desh’s book in the form of a satirical spoof. It’s called Authors for Goodread and can be found free here.

I’m just going to post the Dedication/Disclaimer page to give you an idea of the tone it takes.

Dedication pageHe’s even given himself a GIF heavy, 1-star review on Goodreads to really make the point. It’s worth a read. Despite obviously being sarcastic, it makes a lot of sense and it’s only 19 pages long. To be fair, though, that’s probably the same number of words as Desh’s 104 page masterpiece, only in a more reasonable font size, for ease of reading.

While I laugh at the goings on lately, it’s also noteworthy because it’s such an excellent example of the damaging effect that artificially separating readers, reviewers and writers has. Ideally, an author should be a bit of all three and a reader has no obligation to be anything more. But it’s nice when they are and should be appreciated as such.

I recommend reading both booklets and making your own choice about which makes sense to you. But regardless, I strongly encourage readers to keep on reading and maybe,  just maybe, if I can be so bold as to ask a favor, please don’t judge all indie authors, all readers or all reviewers by the standard set by special snowflakes, but especially not by the likes of Zoe Desh and Authors vs. Goodreads.

I have one authored book listed on Goodreads, have written 700+ reviews and have literally thousands of books on my shelves to read. If I’m to identify as anything its as a reader first, then a reviewer and lastly an author. But the fact that I can order them, doesn’t make me any less one than the others.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” I think the idea applies to the ability to be both a Goodreads reader/reviewer and an author. There doesn’t need to be antagonism between the enclaves. And as amusing as all the above is, it’s not helping anything or anyone.

I’m just saying.

Widdershins

Book Review of Widdershins (Whyborne & Griffin #1), by Jordan L. Hawk

Leave a reply

WiddershinsI bought a copy of Widdershins, by Jordan L. Hawk.

Description from Goodreads:
Some things should stay buried.

Repressed scholar Percival Endicott Whyborne has two skills: reading dead languages and hiding in his office at the Ladysmith Museum. After the tragic death of the friend he secretly loved, he’s ruthlessly suppressed any desire for another man.

So when handsome ex-Pinkerton Griffin Flaherty approaches him to translate a mysterious book, Whyborne wants to finish the job and get rid of the detective as quickly as possible. Griffin left the Pinkertons following the death of his partner, hoping to start a new life. But the powerful cult which murdered Glenn has taken root in Widdershins, and only the spells in the book can stop them. Spells the intellectual Whyborne doesn’t believe are real.

As the investigation draws the two men closer, Griffin’s rakish charm threatens to shatter Whyborne’s iron control. When the cult resurrects an evil sorcerer who commands terrifying monsters, can Whyborne overcome his fear and learn to trust? Will Griffin let go of his past and risk falling in love? Or will Griffin’s secrets cost Whyborne both his heart and his life?

Review:
While reading Widdershins one word kept repeating through my head—CUTE, cute, cute, cute. Then I thought how refreshing it was to have two strong sexy men who weren’t alpha-assholes. Yeah, Griffin gets a little bossy in the bedroom, but both men are pleasantly beta-like. I liked it. They’re also a little older than the average romance hero and I always like meeting a non-nubile twenty-year-old, with a little life-experience in a lead role.

The villain was appropriately evil, while the supporting bad guys had enough grey to make them interesting. There was a strong, kick-ass female character (almost unheard of in the m/m genre, in my experience). Yes, Christine for the win! The sex was hot, without ever cluttering the story and I enjoyed the writing.

So, lots to like about this book. My only real complaints were a FEW editing slips and I didn’t think Whyborne got enough of credit or…is there a word for having everyone see how horribly they’d been misjudging him? Anyhow, that. But I suspect that’s because he needs that same persona to carry on into future books. (Speaking of future books, this one ends. It’s not a cliffy.)

I’m calling it a success on all fronts.

That is not an apology, Raani York

24 Replies

Screen Shot 2015-01-14 at 13.17.20Last week author, Raani York had a mishap. She well and truly stepped in the shit. And in the microcosm that is a certain circle of Goodreads, it blew up.

Lucky for Raani, it never went much farther than that. Unfortunately for her book, Dragonbride, it was far enough. Over the course of four days, the book was hit with almost forty 1-star ratings. Now, even including Raani’s own 5-star rating and a couple others that it’s been suggested may be the result of review swaps (I don’t know or care, since even they’d average out eventually), it carries a 1.72 average. It’s unlikely to recover.

I don’t intend to spend a lot of time talking about what transpired, my intention is to discuss her response to the aftermath of her on-line transgression. But there are a couple points to be made here, before I address the apology that Raani has now posted. The first is that I’ve watched this from almost the beginning. I even posted a comment on the original blog advising Raani that it was going to be reacted to poorly by readers.

I’v also been active in discussing the post in question online and, for the most part, commenters have been comparatively polite. (Those posting one star reviews, not as much. But I’ll get to that in a moment.) The most common attitude I heard expressed from Goodreads frequenters, who’ve seen this all before, was ‘this is obviously a new, naive author who made a stupid mistake and now she’s feeling the consequences.’ Note, not accusing her of malicious intent or calling her names beyond naive.

I’m not suggesting no one did, certainly Raani was quickly labeled a Special Snowflake and she became a bit of a meme on the #replacebookwithbaby hashtag for a moment. It’s just that it wasn’t the general tone of most of the discussions I read or was part of. And I believe this was wholly due to the fact that Ms. York was unfailingly polite, if painfully thick skulled, throughout the affair. It couldn’t have been pleasant for Ms. York to know that dozens of people were talking about her in a public forum and very few of them were agreeing with her. Despite that, she never lashed out at anyone.

The second is, though it’s often forgotten and very few say it, Raani York has the right to have said every ill-advised word she did in her original post. The same freedom of speech reviewers demand, that leads to outrage over posts in which authors try to dictate their behaviour, gives her the right to say anything she damned well pleases, especially on her own blog.

However, freedom of speech does not mean free from the consequences of what’s said and Ms. York stepped on a landmine. Authors and their seemingly endless lists of how reviewers should act is a hot-button in the reading/reviewing community. Any number of us could have told Ms. York with 100% certainty that as soon as Goodreads regulars got wind of her blog she would be condemned and carpet bombed with 1-star reviews. This is the standard response to authors who do what Raani did, regardless of intent, and they are viscous. Had she done even a little research she would have known better.

The original blog post, in which she laid out the things she wished reviewers would do when reviewing a book, has been taken down. I’ll list them here, just in case anyone’s curious, but breaking them down is not the point of this post.  (For the record, though, it seems to be that first one that really riled people up, myself included.)

1. If you aren’t convinced of our work, and you don’t feel it deserves a 4- or 5-Star review, please contact us in private and let us know why you are not the biggest fan of our book. When you find constructive criticisms we understand, but still have good words about our writing, we can decide together, whether or not a quite positive 3-Star review can be published.

2. Make sure you REALLY read the entire book before reviewing it. I was given a review by a person who has clearly “jumped” half the book before telling me it was extremely bad(how can anyone judge a book who hasn’t actually read it?). Thank God that review was never published!

4. Before criticizing my grammar and typos, please make sure your review is impeccable, otherwise you might not be taken seriously. Keep in mind that a self-published 1st edition still might have a few flaws. I don’t say that’s how it should be – but it happens. Every Author who is permanently working on getting better is going through it again to correct these mistakes in a second edition. So am I, together with my editor.

After letting things settle down Ms. York has now posted an apology for it. And it’s this apology that prompts me to finally write a response of my own. Because, while I commented in the GR discussions and tweeted most of the blog posts I found about Raani’s Wish List (I watch these things. They’re learning experiences for all of us.), I have made no effort to officially comment on it.

I’m doing so now because something important is happening here and Ms. York is risking another set-back. You see, as I noted, she can say anything she likes, but she has to be willing to accept the public’s reaction to it. Fair enough on all fronts, really. But this requires she have some ability and enough understanding to anticipate that reaction. I don’t think she does.

Those of us who’ve spent years on Goodreads and Amazon have a fairly firm grasp of the unspoken rules and nuances of the online community. One of those is realising that there is a bit of a war between what I’ve called reviewers who claim the right to say anything they please with no accountability to anyone and special snowflake authors who think their precious baby (book) should be treated with kid gloves by everyone. These are the extremes of course, but they are both vocal and have a number of active supporters. (I’ve actually started writing a whole essay on it. One day I might even finish it.) The point is they exist (along with everything imaginable between them).

I likened Ms. York’s post to tossing a Molotov cocktail at a standing army in a preexisting war. Thus the immediate and seemingly coordinated response. It’s well practiced, though still the work of individuals. Even those of us who navigate this war regularly occasionally misstep. I issued an apology last year for one of my own. So, surely Raani York can be forgiven. The problem is, she’s not helping her case with her apology.

So, to finally get to the heart of the matter, here is Ms. York’s apology. I’ve added screenshots in case she takes my unsolicited advice and scraps it for something better.

My issue with this post is admittedly based on an assumption. I’m assuming that part of her intent is to smooth the ruffled feathers of her reading public, in the hopes of salvaging her reputation and the further saleability of her book. If I’m wrong on that, then Ms. York can just ignore me and keep on keeping on. (Well, she can obviously ignore me either way.) But assuming I’m not wrong and at least some of the intention is to garner good PR, it’s 100% a failure.

The closest this particular blog comes to an apology can be seen as this, “I’m sorry that a lot of people attacked me and in doing so, saw that you, my friends, supported me and may, thus, have been attacked too.”

This lacks a few very important elements of a heartfelt and meaningful apology. There is no acceptance of original wrongdoing. She states that she didn’t take proffered advice about removing her blog post (or I think that’s what she’s saying), but not that she regrets what she said in it. This is the difference between “I’m sorry you were offended by my words” and “I’m sorry that my words were offensive.” One places the blame on the listener/reader and one accepts it as your own.

It doesn’t address the aggrieved. It’s written to her friends and supporters, not those who were outraged at her words.

It doesn’t begin with her own actions. She’s still placing the impetus of the whole series of events on the original 1-star reviewer. She says, “Caused by insult and rage against my person…” Not caused by her, but by this mystery reviewer.

Even the title skips over the apology. It infers she learned a lesson…or one preexisted, or she found one written somewhere or she’s intends to teach us one…but there is a lesson and it is about regret. That’s not the same thing as actually regretting anything. The title is pointedly, not “I Learned A Lesson…” and at the end of the day, the lesson she needs to have learned from this isn’t about regret anyway.

Worst of all, it’s still framing her as the victim in all of this. So, while the post successfully prompted Raani’s fans to come comfort her, it didn’t actually apologise for having done anything. Apologised for having been the centre of a storm that may have allowed some friends to be rained on too [like how I tied that in with her stormy angel], but not for having done anything worthy of censure.

And again, she doesn’t have to be sorry. She’s allowed to have opinions that people don’t agree with or get angry over. But Ms. York (because I hate to talk about people if I’m not willing to talk to them) if you’re hoping this apology will help you look less like a whiny, Special Snowflake and reopen doors that have been closed to you in the online reading community you need to try again. This won’t do.

P.S. You’ve got a cool name though.