Isis Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 The Guardian published this article by an author where she describes how she stalked a blogger who gave her a one-star review on Goodreads, despite basically everyone advising her not to. This piece at Dear Author makes it seem black and white (i.e. that stalking is a crime, no matter what the 'provocation' was) and yet so very many people seem to think it is a case of there being two victims or two sides to every story (in other words, two parties to appoint blame to). The storify version has some fantastic examples of people seemingly completely forgetting anything they ever learned about sources when studying history. The aftermath of the Guardian piece has certainly proved to be 'fascinating' but I'm a bit boggled that they actually gave an author a platform to confess to stalking a reviewer. Just seems...wrong? Was the Guardian wrong to publish this piece in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I dunno if it's just because I'm very tired and distracted by the football, but I can barely make head or tail of what's supposed to be happening in that Guardian article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Am I the only one read the thread title and thought, "STANEK!"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Am I the only one read the thread title and thought, "STANEK!"? I actually figured it was Bakker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 It's a piece Bakker should read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emberling Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Wasn't going to the reviewer's house total main-character-from-a-novel behavior? I just read a book like last week where a main character, who has just found out The Truth About Her Parentage, tracks down her surrogate mother's apartment by hacking a bunch of computers and just barges the fuck in and is naturally welcomed with open arms. I feel like I've read that story a hundred times. You can see it in this one, in how she kept being convinced that if only they'd meet things would work out and they'd be friends! And there would be a shocking twist and they'd team up together to find the culprit and then maybe fight more crime!! Because that's how the story goes. Except, you know, not. Because strangers showing up at your house is fucked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peadar Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 To be fair, she stalked somebody who was stalking her. Not that she was being wise or anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I don't think figuring out the identity of an anonymous online entity being nasty to you counts as "stalking". The author of the Guardian article went much further than I would ever have done in her situation, but I have absolutely zero sympathy for her nemesis (or any other internet creature that is relying on anonymity to protect itself from the consequences of being mean). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I don't think figuring out the identity of an anonymous online entity being nasty to you counts as "stalking". The author of the Guardian article went much further than I would ever have done in her situation, but I have absolutely zero sympathy for her nemesis (or any other internet creature that is relying on anonymity to protect itself from the consequences of being mean). Leaving a negative review of a book is "being mean" these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isis Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 Key point about the Guardian piece is that it's a story written by an author about themselves. Rather than being a piece of investigative journalism. Where is the evidence that the blogger stalked anyone, Peadar? The only 'evidence' we have is the author's account. And that's a person of let's say, questionable judgement. What the author did was take it offline - which there is no excuse for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Soon as I saw STGRB in that article any sympathy I might gave had vanished. Those people make 4chan look like The Red Cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Leaving a negative review of a book is "being mean" these days?Negative reviews are perfectly fine and to some extent even reviews with expletives are acceptable, but calling out a book for something it didn't do is not nice. I don't know whether the author has truly encountered this (we only have her word for it), but I've definitely seen instances of people doing this with books that I've read and it looks plausible. What the author did was take it offline - which there is no excuse for.Why? There is no meaningful difference between "online" and "offline". Very, very few people are truly anonymous on the internet. It requires going a considerable distance out of one's way (i.e. Tor, paranoia regarding personal details) and even then it's not really guaranteed. I've never written anything online that I wouldn't be prepared to say offline in a similar discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 On my phone so sorry for the double post, but that second link is spot on. STGRB is a ducking hate group and that author should face criminal charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 It's not nice? It's her review, she can say whatever the hell she wants and shouldn't have to fear crazy authors showing up at her fucking front door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isis Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 Going to the home of a person who gave you a bad review and leaving a book on their doorstep falls within the definition of stalking. That's what I meant by taking it offline. So while I am happy to have to discussion about the difference between something happening online/offline, there are some quite clear cut elements to this case. Tracking a person down and going to their home because you 'longed' to have a discussion with them about your work as an author is not acceptable behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Negative reviews are perfectly fine and to some extent even reviews with expletives are acceptable, but calling out a book for something it didn't do is not nice. I don't know whether the author has truly encountered this (we only have her word for it), but I've definitely seen instances of people doing this with books that I've read and it looks plausible. It's been debunked elsewhere -- the review makes mention of the fact that a relationship in the book falls under statutory rape laws in Wisconsin, which is apparently true. More information, with a quote for anyone whose web filter doesn't like the site name: From what I’ve read in multiple reviews, the 16-year-old main character is in a sexual relationship with someone several years older than she is. In the state of Wisconsin, where the book is set, the age of consent is 18. The reviewer is correct that this is statutory rape (which she indicates in the review). Peadar, even in Hale's own account I don't see anything that says Blythe was stalking Hale. The closest seems to be "tweeting in tandem", which... okay? Even if she ( B) were mocking, rather than just interacting with someone on Twitter, none of it justifies any of what Hale did. Isis, I don't know that in general I'd have a problem with the Guardian posting something like this, except that in this case it seems that they are (publicly) uncritically going with the telling that Hale's acting perfectly justified and normal here. There was no follow up to "I'd learn why not to engage..." with "...because I apparently tend to go to unreasonable lengths for things to go my way, and I scared myself as well as my stalk-ee." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I'm not sure the author actually broke any criminal laws. People are tossing around the word stalking but at least in New York that would require repeated actions that place the victim in reasonable fear of injury or death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Negative reviews are perfectly fine and to some extent even reviews with expletives are acceptable, but calling out a book for something it didn't do is not nice. I don't know whether the author has truly encountered this (we only have her word for it), but I've definitely seen instances of people doing this with books that I've read and it looks plausible. Why? There is no meaningful difference between "online" and "offline". Very, very few people are truly anonymous on the internet. It requires going a considerable distance out of one's way (i.e. Tor, paranoia regarding personal details) and even then it's not really guaranteed. I've never written anything online that I wouldn't be prepared to say offline in a similar discussion.Yeah but how would you feel abou writing a negative review and then someone tracks you through the interwebz to visit your house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Hmm maybe not for stalking but if they could prove she left that book the blogger could probably get a restraint order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.