How not to respond to a bad review

[queentess]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

The people who were responding directly to her in the blog discussion weren't bullying. The people who piled onto Amazon to leave vicious comments and 1 star reviews of her book purely in order to "punish" her for her outburst, were.

What if her reactions and the review sparked an interest in people, so they downloaded the sample and read it and then left a 1-star review? I don't call that bullying. That's what happens when there's publicity and the book sucks.

The author also went after Red Adept on the blog, and she's really big on the Amazon Kindle forums, so I suspect there was also a bit of "protect our own" retaliation going on.

[Worldwalker]

I'm talking about the blog, rather than the Amazon reviews. I did go to check those out a few minutes ago. While most of them, indeed, were just meanness, the fact that the author trotted out the positive ones left by her family and friends as "proof" she's a great writer did kind of open the doors to the opposite.

Incidentally, the reason many people would comment online but not say anything negative to her face is not that they're too polite to tell her that her writing is bad, but because they don't want to run the risk of a person of questionable mental health shouting at them in public, or even laying into them physically. I don't generally say anything online that I wouldn't stand behind in person, but I too would be very reluctant to invite this clearly unstable individual to start swinging at me. Physical attacks never end well.

[januaryman]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Remember, though, that the 307th poster wasn't looking at the previous 300 or so posts expressing the same opinion; they were looking at the first few .....

That's one of the problems with the Internet that is going to take a while to sort itself out socially. We have millions of people giving speeches with nobody listening.

These are valid points and insightful, WW. I was tempted to throw in a one-liner comment on that blog (about perhaps the author also had a misspelling in the title) that might have been funny, but would have done nothing to help the situation; it would have made me think I was being witty. That I even had that inclination makes me feel callous and self-serving.

WW hit the nail on the head. We are thinking narrowly and within normal human (non web) interactive parameters that have change significantly from the face-to-face days when a "snub" to a man on the street is a slight that only HE notices, to internet life today, where off-hand, insensitive posts are "enjoyed" by the world.

It's the same engenderment of mob mentality that anonymity allows, especially as evinced by those anonymous authors who secret their identities on the pretext that revealing their "secret identity" would endanger their safety. Like Batman, I suppose.

Summing up, I agree that the author was dead wrong. There were many who gave her good advice to clam up. She did. Eventually. And I know there were probably many others who responded without seeing the tsunami of hate mail that was already posted. I was almost such as poster. Maybe we just need to think twice before we posted cruel messages because we read news reports of disturbed people who feel the attack(s) was/were too much to bear and seek the terrible safety of suicide.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by januaryman

It's the same engenderment of mob mentality that anonymity allows, especially as evinced by those anonymous authors who secret their identities on the pretext that revealing their "secret identity" would endanger their safety.

The problem is, revealing your identity can endanger your safety. Let's say that one person in a million is a headcase who will try to harm someone they disagree with. If I say something provocative in public -- at an elected official's "town hall" appearance, let's say -- the odds that one of the few dozen people in attendance is that person are extremely low. But, on the other hand, if I say it online, where tens of millions of people can read it -- especially if it's pointed out, as this author's rant was, to people who will respond strongly -- the chances of one of those many readers being a dangerous nut are considerably higher. I've never been threatened over the things I say offline, and they're no different, save being shorter and less well thought out, than what I say online. I have been threatened, many times, for saying those same things online. I seem to find the nuts. And so that the nuts don't find me, I keep my identity as "Worldwalker" separate from information which could be used to easily locate me (it's far from impossible, but too much effort for your average nut, which reduces the problem considerably). It only takes one deranged person to present a problem, and if one is in the habit of saying provocative things, the larger the audience, the greater the chance of encountering such a person.

Genuinely famous people tend to attract stalkers for much the same reason: wide exposure. Percentage-wise, Joe Schmoe might be just as likely to attract a stalker as David Letterman (though actually, fame seems to play into it as well) but how many people see Joe Schmoe on a regular basis? But on the Internet, we're all potential David Lettermans -- look at Jacqueline Howett, who went in a moment from unknown hack writer to known by (and laughed at by) millions.

So, the possibility of that one unhinged person turning up (especially turning up at your front door) can be sufficient to make anonymity look like a very good thing.

In the case of writing, there's the review issue. "Revenge reviews" are all too common. It is clear from the 5-star Amazon reviews that Ms. Howett reposted to that blog that she has family and friends who will (either through honest belief, or simply through needing to get along with someone who clearly has serious issues) will post anything she dictates. Is it all that unlikely that someone who would scream obscenities at reviewers and blog commenters would also plaster those people's writing, should it be for sale anywhere, with negative reviews? And, unfortunately, it is the people who are most disturbed who are most likely to retaliate in that way. A lot of people frankly just don't want to expose their professional work to assault by deranged amateurs.

Also, there's the preconceptions aspect. What image do you have of me, Worldwalker? I'll bet a lot that it doesn't look much like me. That's a sucker bet, because there are an enormous number of possible images, and only one of that number would be right; house odds are overwhelmingly in my favor. Not having any preconceptions about what I should be like based on some data about me other than my posts, you have to read and respond to my words. You can't just say "well, WW is such-and-such, and all such-and-such think that" because you don't know, really, who I am. I'm just text on your screen, and it's that text, not some label you stick on my physical form, that is all anyone has to respond to.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

What image do you have of me, Worldwalker? I'll bet a lot that it doesn't look much like me.

An old aboriginal man with a rattle stick.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

An old aboriginal man with a rattle stick.

That's actually closer in concept to the origin of the name, actually, than many of the attempts people have made at it (they usually involve sports or travel in some way). And I like the image. Maybe I need an avatar ....

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

That's actually closer in concept to the origin of the name, actually, than many of the attempts people have made at it (they usually involve sports or travel in some way). And I like the image. Maybe I need an avatar ....

Well, you can hardly blame them.

FWIW, I always picture you as this. Something about the name that's an auto-association for me... My celebrity doppelganger is much more attractive than that, but not nearly as awesome.

[Worldwalker]

Well ... Chuck Norris. 'Nuff said.