At the bottom of the page, Goodreads had issued the following directive (if you are signed in as an author, it appears after every bad review of a book you’ve written): “We really, really (really!) don’t think you should comment on this review, even to thank the reviewer. If you think this review is against our Review Guidelines, please flag it to bring it to our attention. Keep in mind that if this is a review of the book, even one including factual errors, we generally will not remove it.
“If you still feel you must leave a comment, click ‘Accept and Continue’ below to proceed (but again, we don’t recommend it).”
I would soon learn why.
Serious question: I don't think the way she responded was correct, but how should she have actually responded? Like if she had top quality PR consultation, what's the correct way to respond when trolls or negativity threaten to derail your work before it's even had a chance to speak for itself?
When you're debating opinion, the simple act of entertaining someone else's opinion validates it. There's no reason to engage someone who simply thinks you suck. When you're debating fact, acknowledging someone else's facts grants them validity (note that if their arguments are accurate, they already have validity; the only question is whether you want to increase their platform). If "random blogger" says "this book is about rape" when it isn't, there's no upside to even reading "random blogger." If "NY Review of Books" says "this book is about rape" when it isn't, there's every upside to engaging the NYRB. If "random blogger" makes a cogent argument as to why your book is an apologia for rape, there's no upside in broadening "random blogger's" platform. If "NYRB" makes a cogent argument as to why your book is an apologia for rape, they'll ask you to respond before they publish. This is one of the biggest holes in the internet people can fall through: you and I can be equals. Same age, same city, same hobbies, same paycheck. But if I write a blog and you don't, you get to tear me to shreds and the worst thing I can do is engage you. Total anonymity, transitory anonymity, and conditional anonymity all have more freedom than identity. Identity has more authority, however. The trick, then, is to resist using your identity to lend credence to conditional anonymity.
She shouldn't have. Don't Feed The Trolls. That applies to life. Whether you're an author, or a blogger, or simply irrationally tempted to look at the comments section on YouTube. They are human sewage, their existence is schadenfreude, and they're everywhere, and the only way to kill them is to starve them. There is absolutely nothing you can do. Ever. She thinks she fixed the Blithe Harris negativity? No way. There is no chance the troll didn't create another troll account. None. The idea that you can expose a troll and fix the negativity is a seductive delusion. Don't feed the trolls.how should she have actually responded?
What a fascinating read, and I'll be honest, I could see myself falling into the exact same trap. It's so hard to not defend what it is you've created. Honestly, without mk insisting we not engage with criticism about Hubski, I'd be out there all day long scrapping it up. We balance each other out nicely.
Yeah, you can't do that. I learned the hard way when I used to mix it up in /r/bestof (I've been bestof'd like 100 times). Early Reddit was a community. Middle Reddit was hipsters, and most of the comments in /r/bestof were people hating on anything that was bestof'd. What you learn is that humans need to be able to slag on stuff without having to confront the creator. That's part of consumption. It's taken as a given that the creator of the art is at a level higher than the consumers of the art, and that drives both idolization and revilement. Either way, you have to stay the fuck out of the way. It's funny - nobody expects Stephen Spielberg to engage every Keyboard Kommando that hates on Jurassic Park. He's got better shit to do and we all know it. And while none of us are Spielberg, none of us have the paychecks, none of us have the talent etc... we're in the same spot. If someone wants to talk shit about your work, you as the creator have to let them do so unimpeded.
Yeah, I get it and I agree that it's certainly the best way to go. That said, the hardest part is not taking genuine criticism or even hateful trolling, the hardest are factual errors. You know, the ones that insist that we have somehow put up or encouraged prominent redditors to come to Hubski. That shit infuriates me. We actually had an online magazine suggest to us that we had paid syncretic to do just that. They didn't write about us and haven't since. Whatever. I remain quiet, even when I feel like calling someone out.
Frustrating and creepy. I wonder how our anonymity has affected our interactions and internal dialogue. I certainly feel crazy sometimes when I don't feel like I'm being heard..yet I want to remain private and out of harms way. Seems we're moving towards less anonymity.. I wonder how that will affect our online interactions/transactions. More or less PR doubletalk?