Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
I found a website who had a screenshot of the beginning.
So what happened was: bad rating -> author asking the reviewer about the rating and giving herself a 5-star rating -> reviewer calling the author "speshul snowflake" -> someone suggesting to the reviewer to go and put his hand in a blender.
In the comment section the only aggression was from the author and her fans. The author's comments made it seem like she had been threatened with rape, and the blogs on her side insisted that there had actually been threats which had been removed in the meantime. There hadn't been. The author said so herself. She excused her aggression as PMS.
After the ordeal, after GR removed the one offensive shelf and the author-based reviews, the author wanted to change the cover of the book to change her name on the cover. She was told that even if she changes her profile name it will be changed back. She seem cheery when she made the cover change request. I don't know what made her change her mind about publishing, but it wasn't because of the comments on GR. |
Don't see anything particularly interesting in that screenshot to indicate that the author was especially aggressive. I do remember the stupid comments from Derrick and Victoria though.
But I've already given my reaction to that thread. I see that my take on who was or was not aggressive is slightly different from yours. But as it was my take after reading the whole thing at the time, I don't see it as particularly invalid. I thought it was a perfect example of what I had mentioned some time ago in this thread about both sides of the equation being equally ridiculous.