[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
>> No.5600019

the comments are as interesting as the article

>> No.5600025

this actually pretty interesting

>> No.5600029

I read about half of that and all I learned was women are awful. Did I miss anything?

>> No.5600047

>>5599971
nice write-up but that bitch needs a tougher skin

>> No.5600059

>>5600029
Women + internet = bad news.

This has been evident since MySpace and stuff got big and the internet started becoming less male dominated. Hell, I waste probably 50% of my life on the 'net and I would never dream of behaving as pathetically as that (as either party, actually), because I compartmentalise.

>> No.5600060

How many of you are goodreads bullies

>> No.5600065

>>5600060
most of /lit/ is way too lazy for that

>> No.5600068

That is exactly how I imagine most 'online activists' (SJWs) are like. Funny how the whole incident was 'triggered' by typical SJW nonsense of accusing others of trivializing rape and PTSD and whatever. I guarantee SRS and SomethingAwful and the feminist circles on Twitter are full of lonely mentally ill menopausal women.

>> No.5600070

>>5600060
if anything /lit/ bullies the goodreads bullies, albeit in a rather half-arsed way

>> No.5600077
File: 34 KB, 500x500, BbkJW6W.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5600077

>> No.5600110

anyone got notes?

>> No.5600112

>>5600068
great laughs maximum edge

>> No.5600116

>>5600110
author gets bullied on goodreads, writes article about it

>> No.5600120

>>5600112
>regards, unhappy 47 year old "twitter famous" cat lady

>> No.5600124

>>5600116

She's has a serious fetal alcohol syndrome face, and doesn't know how to handle the banter, so who cares about this whole hysterical episode?

>> No.5600240
File: 108 KB, 900x900, 20121215_KathleenHale_MG_0167-CR2_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5600240

>>5600124
It's more horse face than alcohol syndrome face.

>> No.5600803

>>5600110
Someone wrote a negative review about an author's book on Goodreads (a book the author was likely assigned to write by Full Fathom Five, no less, not a pet project) and tweeted negatively about it.

Author decided to trick a book club into giving her the reviewrs personal information, drove out to her house, looked inside her car and her windows, and left a book called "how to be happy" on her doorstep. Then she paid someone to do a background check on her, stalked her social media accounts, called her place of worked, and outed her real name and information publicly.

>> No.5601131

>>5600803
Actually it wasn't just that she wrote a negative review, but that she started cyberbullying her, made herslef a head of some kind sjw cybermob on goodsread (I know, fucking stupid) and harassed every person that made a review that doesn't fit with what she thinks.
So you typical tumblrtard wannabe queen bee.
Other then that you're right. Though I'm not convinced she outed her real name and information. It might be changed, we have no real way of finding it out.

>> No.5601627

>>5601131
>harassed every person that made a review that doesn't fit with what she thinks.

Where did you read that? Or did I miss it in the article?

The only thing I can see that makes the reviewer sound like a bitch is "Blythe began tweeting in tandem with me, ridiculing everything I said," but given the author's own behavior, I'm not sure if I believe it entirely. All we've got to go on is this author, who frankly sounds like an entitled psycho who thinks that stalking is an acceptable response to 'someone wrote a negative review that other people referenced.'

>> No.5601654

>>5601131
>made herslef a head of some kind sjw cybermob on goodsread (I know, fucking stupid) and harassed every person that made a review that doesn't fit with what she thinks.

Oh, I think you're referring to to the 'BBA' thing? That's more author hysteria than anything. There used to be a trend on Goodreads for people to create shelves called "authors behaving badly" or "badly behaving authors" or "authors out of control" etc for books whose authors had responded to negative reviews with hysterics, anger, bitching, etc. In some reviews, people would then say "Going on my BBA list." Hale has somehow decided that Blythe created BBA and was the mastermind behind everything, when it's been a trend on the site for a few years. (Although Goodreads banned these types of shelves a while ago.)

>> No.5601668

>>5601627
>In response, Blythe rallied her followers. Adults began flooding the girl’s thread, saying, among other things, “Fuck you.”
>every time someone admitted to having liked my book on Goodreads, they included a caveat that referenced her review. The ones who truly loathed it tweeted reviews at me.
> For the rest of the afternoon, I fielded venom from teenagers and grown women, with a smattering of supportive private messages from bloggers who apologised for being too scared to show support publicly.
Looks like cybermob to me. Though the author is still a petty and should learn how to handle negative press.

>> No.5601700

>>5601654
Frankly, the idea behind BBA sounds stupid.

>> No.5601725

>>5601668
>In response, Blythe rallied her followers. Adults began flooding the girl’s thread, saying, among other things, “Fuck you.”

They didn't flood the author's threads, though? but allagedly some unnamed 14 year old girl's review. The author got this info based on hearsay from another author who got a bad review from Blythe.

>>5601668
>For the rest of the afternoon, I fielded venom from teenagers and grown women, with a smattering of supportive private messages from bloggers who apologised for being too scared to show support publicly.

But in context, this has to do with the author making tweets that imply bloggers are just wannabe writers. Something she twists into "ohh gosh I just said that they're all just aspiring authors too!" in her article. It had nothing to do with Blythe.

>every time someone admitted to having liked my book on Goodreads, they included a caveat that referenced her review. The ones who truly loathed it tweeted reviews at me.

Again, not the fault of Blythe. Blythe didn't make people reference her review in their positive ones. Blythe didn't make other people tweet negative reviews at the author.

>> No.5601731

>>5599971

>Why do hecklers heckle? Recent studies have had dark things to say about abusive internet commenters – a University of Manitoba report suggested they share traits with child molesters and serial killers.

Has this ever been anything other than a strawman?

>muh Marilyn Manson caused Columbine
>muh Catcher in the Rye caused John Lennon's death
>muh heckling pedophiles

>> No.5601749

>>5601700
>>5601725
How does it feel actually pretending to be retarded just so you can defend someone you'll never meet simply by virtue of them being a woman?

>> No.5601799

>>5600068
Most of them are too young to be menopausal

>> No.5601815

>>5599971
> I wished I could magically transform all the copies being printed with a quick swish of my little red pen. (“Not to make fun of PTSD, or anything,” I might add to one character’s comment. “Because that would be wrong.”)
Confirmed for writing awful book.

>> No.5601858

>>5601815
It's YA junk, waht do you expect?

>> No.5601934

>>5601749
Both of them are woman, from what we know - what are you getting at?

>> No.5602300

>>5601749
Everything I said was true. Read the article. Someone was implying that Blythe harassed the author, but the only thing given in the article that isn't "boo hoo, she gave my book a negative review" is that Blythe posted tweets that mocked the authors at some point. Everything else anon said is taken out of context and wasn't perpetuated by Blythe at all.

Also, both parties in this case are women, so?

>> No.5602338

>>5602300
>>5601934
Every time you say that a woman didn't do something wrong, then you are a white knight.

>> No.5602507

that's a very nice article, almost surely better than the author's book

>> No.5602567

So a Harvard gal from a priviliged background, used to getting what she wants, publishes a book that gets a bad review, by someone she obsessively starts stalking, even flying out to her house, and realizing this someone had used a fake identity, and so she gets the Guardian of course to let her tell everyone about this awful troll, humiliating it and destroying all its blog followers, while she herself, Harvard gal and all, used to getting what she wants, gets a loooot of publicity which will result in more people buying her book.

Women battling with each other is scary indeed. Always that psychological battle where they want to anihilate each other completely.

>> No.5602606

>>5602567
This whole thiing just seems like a waste of time.
Like holy shit, mean people, on the internet??

>> No.5602635

>>5602338
I really want this to go. Talking about women can occur without white knighting. There needs to be a term for the people who accuse of being a white knight to whoever doesn't dislike women as much as they do.

>> No.5602643

>women

>> No.5602902

Hale also bitched on Twitter earlier this year over a 3 star review, and implied that anyone who reviewed books--or, with her implications in context, critiqued them online--was an aspiring but not successful writer, unlike the ~published authors~ they review.

>> No.5604313
File: 1.12 MB, 330x248, 1404674507353.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5604313

>>5602567
>Women battling with each other is scary indeed
And they say woman fighting is not a good show (unless we're talking about mud/pillow fighting). Think how politics would look like if majority of politicians were woman.

>> No.5604575

>>5600019
The people defending her are taking such incredible leaps in logic. It's astounding, I'm pretty sure they're trolls.

>While I don't agree with what Blythe did (if what you say here is all true), what you did, Kathleen, is even worse. Yes, she was wrong if she gave a bad review to a book she had not really read. But, you STALKED a woman. You found out her real name, address, family, friends, pets, even where she was vacationing and when. You called her at her work. You went to her house. You even knew the piece of clothing in her car, what the papers on the seat were about. You looked through the window of her home. You knew she had teenaged kids. No wonder she answered "They don’t live there any more" when you asked about her kids, I'd be scared you'd know about them too and would deny they even lived in the same country!
>Get some excitement in your life. It's not like she had nefarious intentions
>As far as I can see Kathleen did nothing hurtful to the woman whatsoever and she accepts that her behaviour was a bit crazy but you can also see that she was driven to a lot of her behaviour by the horrible online persona of the clearly sad and troubled faker. If the blogger was above board why create false personas. I'm fully with Kathleen here.

Astounding.

>> No.5604594

>>5602507
>almost surely better than the author's book

lol i thought the same thing

>> No.5605183

>>5604575
>It's not like she had nefarious intentions

Right?? She only wanted to confront this person who left them a negative review at their home after lying in order to get her personal info. I mean, what could be simpler?

guardian comments are simply amazing

>> No.5606740

>>5602635
Misogynist is fine

>> No.5606779

Some of the comments sound really cultish for some reason.

>> No.5606926

>>5602606
>Like holy shit, mean people, on the internet??

You've been here too long. Why haven't you graduated yet?

>> No.5606991

The article seems to go on forever. Much ado about nothing.

>> No.5607054

>>5606779
That's because social justice is a cult

>> No.5607074

>>5599971
You have to be a woman to be able to read all that inane microdrama

>> No.5607078

Pretty interesting article. I don't think she really understands how poorly she handled that, though. The majority of people learn to handle issues like that quickly when they're new to the internet.

>> No.5607095

>>5600029
Not really.
Though of course you don't need some guardian article to tell you that.

>> No.5607100
File: 482 KB, 780x656, 1411899905619.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5607100

>tfw our book has 4.9 out of 35 votes on goodreads

>someone didn't vote 5

>> No.5607106

>>5600240
I'd fuck it

>> No.5607109

>>5604313
Shit man, it'd be utter nuclear annihilation within weeks.
Like, Dr. Strangelove levels of crazy.

>> No.5607116
File: 267 KB, 1485x612, 1413476821608.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5607116

>mfw

>> No.5607125

let's all rate her shit the minimum possible rating

>> No.5607132

I had the insight last night that third wave feminism was sprung from avenging internet abuse. Not really from cyber bullying but being cyber crushed.

Its only the heavy internet girls that are feminists

Internet feminism is a way women can finally be 'right' about something.

>> No.5607135

>>5599971

Can't we do anything anymore or is "you hurt my feelings", I want you arrested the new law?

>> No.5607161

>>5607135
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3087147/posts

>man takes pictures of kids wrecking his flowers
>cleared by law
>literally burned alive by neighbours

>> No.5607171

There's background information at http://stopthegrbullies.net/ (2012)

TL;DR: self-published authors get mad when people criticize their books

>> No.5607177

>>5599971
>“slightly-more-than-is-attractive-to-admit-here”

what is it about women that makes them think inserting a description of what should be there instead of being creative and putting something there is a fine substitute for creative?

<insert very witty joke here>

>> No.5607188

>>5607177
its better than 'more than I should have'

>> No.5607210

holy shit the amount of not care i feel about this is immense

women taking themselves seriously.. it's sad

>> No.5607222

>>5607188
no it's not. 'more than i should have' is a completely logical and typical phrase that eases my speed of reading. this is journalism, not creative writing. i don't want to read her cutesy-tutesy faggot crap on the guardian. no wonder she got negative reviews

>> No.5607245
File: 69 KB, 500x500, 6842756.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5607245

>>5599971
>2k word article about twitter drama and cyber bullying
>SJWs giving books bad reviews because they contain rape
>cyber stalking someone who gave your book a bad review
>putting up a Google alert on your own name

Women should not be allowed on the internet. This is the dumbest "article" I've ever read, and I've been to Vice.

>> No.5607697

>Hale claims Harris randomly said that there was rape in her book, which there wasn't, Harris is just a wild bully making up things to hurt her!
>read the thread of Harris's actual comments on the book
>she points out that it's statutory rape because the character is 16 and the other character is over 21. (In Wisconsin, where the book is set, sex with someone 16 to 17 is only legal if you are married and both over 16) and that's what she didn't like.
>Hale lied about what Harris said.

Also, for people not in the know, Hale has connections high up in the publishing world. Her future mother in law is an executive editor at Harper Collins (aka why her shitty book got published through Harper Teen in the first place) and the entire family she's marrying into is related to publishing. That's why she'll not face any serious repercussions, that's how she got the contact info confirmed (it's also confirmed that she lied to a book club organization in order to get Harris's info in the first place).

>> No.5607792

This woman's prose is like that of a bad comedian's guest column.

>> No.5607824

>>5607697
Damn what kind of external resources does publishing have? Ed Champion got to carry on his reign of terror 'cos his gf was a high-power publicist.

>> No.5607984

>>5600240
what's wrong with you people

She is pretty

>> No.5608001

>>5599971
Wow both of these people are completely fucking mental

>> No.5608025

>>5607984
Good photography can go a long way

>> No.5608046

Another thing that bothers me is that people are going to start sucking up to "Blythe Harris" as they begin chiding Hale.

the internet is full of women who love to shit on each other for no reason. I have no clue why women do this more than men. Internet-raised people are insane because we just see someone's else's misfortune as an opportunity to promote ourselves or posture in an attractive way

>> No.5608099

Should we troll her on Goodreads?

>> No.5608155
File: 37 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5608155

>>5607984
No...

>> No.5608206

>>5607245
This is the dumbest "article" I've ever read, and I've been to Vice.
good shit mate.

>> No.5608300

>>5602635
nigknighting
edgefagging
basically just fedora lords whining about how shitty women are and if you defend any you're a brodude feminist white knight faggot

you need to insult fedoras in the context of memes to have any effect.

>> No.5608306
File: 81 KB, 370x542, poopsenders.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5608306

>>5599971
>My publisher HarperTeen

Fucking YA.

>> No.5608342
File: 156 KB, 500x547, 1346796983402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5608342

why can't authors and reviewers behave civilly? What is this highschool? These people are adults. Same shit goes for tublrettes get a real hobby your not an opinionated 14 year old anymore.

>> No.5608354

>>5608342
women have the minds of children