“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” - Winston Churchill
Regarding info about authors in reviews
I don’t really like to talk about ‘rights’, but I should be able to say what I want, to decide what’s relevant to me. If other people don’t feel the same way, it’s ok. They can ignore what I say! It’s as simple as that. And if I go too far and others mostly disagree with me and think I post bullshit, I won’t have any friends/likes/views… And no one will hear me. But it’s readers that should decide. Besides, it’s terribly condescending. I am able to read a review and say ‘those facts matter to me, those facts don’t’, I appreciate getting all the facts someone thought relevant, and then deciding what of it is important for me.
And to people that say ‘personal information about the author is irrelevant’ I say WHAT THE ACTUALL FUCK? I will not go to Chris Brown concert or buy his CD precisely because who an artist is matters. I care if a shoe-shop owner is a misogynist. I care if that cleaning lady abuses her dog. I choose who I’m doing business with based on who people are. If you get a horrible customer service in a restaurant, you complain and don’t come back. More than that, you warn all your friends! But… but food was great, and restaurants are about food, right? No, it’s about the whole experience. So why do people flip about it all right now when books are the thing in question?
From an internet article: “We are all bullied by hyperbole, rants, unstated bias, and ill-informed accusation.” Oh, fuck off, will you? Life’s not fair. That’s all normal stuff human beings in general have to deal with in their lives on daily basis! You’re not a special snowflake. And you have issues when it happens over the internet? WTF is wrong with you? I have a problem if my boss acts like that, not strangers on the internet.
Yes, there are some ‘trolls’ that do inappropriate things. There always will be. But mostly reviewers don’t go to an author’s site just to say ‘you’re an asshole’ for no good reason (when they don’t like a book, they write a review. About a book.). It’s the author that comes in and start’s talking bullshit on reviewer’s page! And when we, the readers, retaliate in only way we can – by spreading the word and voting with our wallets – suddenly it’s called ‘bullying’. We really don’t go after authors because we dislike their books. We’re just defending ourselves from their invasive nosiness.If they don’t go around spouting venom at any and all critical statements regarding their work, we don’t go hating on them as people. We focus on their work until given a reason to do otherwise.
a) I should be able to decide what info matters to me
b) It's not kindergarten, I don't need you managing my sensibilities
c) There's action and reaction - it's authors that cause problems (either by taking negative reviews too personally or not being able to accept failure) We simply react - mostly by warning others (yes, I don't want to read and review a book if I know the author is going to come after me for all critical things I say, I don't need that bullshit. So I always appreciate a fair warning.)
d) I can choose who I want to financially support by buying their books. What I base my decision on is my business. It's not fair - that's life, deal with it. Like I am every day of my life.
e) My review is my intellectual property. Removing it without a warning is unforgivable. If I park my car wrong, it gets taken away, not fucking destroyed without a word. The policy itself is misguided, but the way it's enforced? Unforgivable.
f) GR crated a solution without a problem. 99,9999% reviews are about books only. And shelf names are for fun, for you and your friends! Stop shooting at mouse with nuclear missiles!
g) Reviewers do it for free while the site makes money! So it's not like they're sooo nice to us and we should just shut up and be grateful, because their service is free. They make income of us.