Read on Twitter
Above and beyond all discourse on reviews, lists, tagging, whatever...
I really dislike when "reviews are for readers" (as strongly as I agree with it) is used as a shield for someone to be unnecessarily cruel to midlist or indie authors.
I really dislike when "reviews are for readers" (as strongly as I agree with it) is used as a shield for someone to be unnecessarily cruel to midlist or indie authors.
There are spaces where the lines between bloggers & authors blur, and that can be one of the few bright spots of social media.
However, I think as bloggers we ought to be aware that this "blurring" makes it harder for some authors to avoid seeing people speaking about them.
However, I think as bloggers we ought to be aware that this "blurring" makes it harder for some authors to avoid seeing people speaking about them.
"Reviews are for readers" is correct. There should be no reason for an author to follow up on a critical review or harass a reviewer. None.
No matter how the lines are blurred, some shouldn't be crossed.
Personal attachment to their work is no excuse for harassment.
No matter how the lines are blurred, some shouldn't be crossed.
Personal attachment to their work is no excuse for harassment.
This does not give you an excuse to act like a knobhead.
Steven King doesn't care if you call him a talentless hack or say he should never write again.
The parent living off an £10k advance for 18 months worth of writing? They might. It could be devastating for them.
Steven King doesn't care if you call him a talentless hack or say he should never write again.
The parent living off an £10k advance for 18 months worth of writing? They might. It could be devastating for them.
We talk about mental health and whether it's all "worth it" a lot in blogging. But we aren't the only ones having those thoughts and conversations.
Reviews are for readers, yes. Negative reviews are informative, yes.
Neither of those statements are an excuse for cruelty.
Reviews are for readers, yes. Negative reviews are informative, yes.
Neither of those statements are an excuse for cruelty.
There's a difference between criticising a book and using your criticism of a book as a platform to take potshots at the author.
And while (let's be honest) some authors are shit at differentiating between the two, that's no reason to be a dick.
And while (let's be honest) some authors are shit at differentiating between the two, that's no reason to be a dick.
Look. It's been a fucker of a year. We're all in the same communities, and the fact that we're all much more Online makes our spaces feel more claustrophobic.
There is space for literary criticism. In whatever form.
There is no space to be an arsehole.
There is space for literary criticism. In whatever form.
There is no space to be an arsehole.
(The thread above presented with the usual caveats that things change when harmful content or behaviour is involved, and the disclaimer that the thread was born of fuzzy, long-term thoughts and not any one specific incident.)
