Below is a post written by a site visitor who witnessed an attack and wrote about it in STGRB fashion. Since we have been so busy lately, we want to thank this visitor for taking the time to do this. If any of you witness something similar and want to write about it or if you just have something to say about the bullies, go for it. Send us your thoughts, ideas, experiences, etc., and we’ll post them for you.
************************************************************************************************************
The recent attack on Hugh Howey (author of the amazingly successful Wool) glaringly illustrates a number of important lessons for independent authors.
Here is a timeline of the events:
April 3 2013
Hugh Howey makes a blog post entitled ‘The Bitch From WorldCon’.
In it, he talks about his encounter with a snake oil peddler at WorldCon. This woman was going around telling unknown writers that she could make them famous if they only listened to her. When Howey disagreed (without telling her who he was) she condescendingly dismissed him. He then proceeded to indulge in a passive aggressive fantasy about winning a Hugo and telling her to ‘suck it, bitch.’
This naturally drew a very critical response, most of it from certain, er, notorious Goodreaders, who poured onto the comments section of his Goodreads blog to attack him. The comments are fortunately (or un-) all gone now because on the 12th, Howey deleted his post and with it the comments. He replaced the offending post with an apology. That apology is now gone as well, replaced with this one.
Why? It seems the first apology was not satisfactory, and was predictably attacked by , , and .
There are doubtless many more, but these reviews and (especially) their comments will suffice. The brawl spilled over to the Amazon BBA thread, where guess who had this to say:
But wait! There’s more!
Things wouldn’t be complete if some publicity-hungry indie didn’t try to garner some publicity at Hugh’s expense.
So what are the lessons to be learned from this?
#1 Be careful what you post on social media.
You might think you’re expressing an opinion or harmlessly venting about an unpleasant incident in which you were clearly the injured party, but not everyone is going to think so. The online bully community is made up of self-appointed gatekeepers like the ‘bitch’ from WorldCon: unsuccessful publishing industry professionals and ‘experts.’ It’s natural that they would defend one of their own and past experience has shown that they never work alone.
Howey had some fans who tried to defend him (and were shouted down) but a less successful author is in real trouble. So be careful what you do or say on social media: ‘they’ are watching. Some things, like complaining about reviews, asking people to vote on reviews, or discussing possible lawsuits, should be done in private.
#2 Aggressive-aggresive is better than passive-aggressive.
It’s baffling why Howey didn’t take the easiest route and politely inform the woman at WorldCon of his identity right then and there. Not only would he have had the satisfaction of watching her squirm, but he would have provided an invaluable service to independent authors everywhere. The world of publishing is full of self-professed ‘experts’ and gatekeepers like this woman, and many unknown authors are too inexperienced to see through them. Those indies witnessing the scene would have had the lesson brought home to them: be careful who you trust. And the snake oil peddlers who heard about it would have learned to be a lot more careful in the future: after all, you never know who you might run into when you’re at one of these conventions, trying to bamboozle authors.
Instead, Howey’s passive-aggressive reaction completely obscured the lesson, and allowed this predator to be portrayed as a victim.
#3 If you find yourself at the center of one of these bully firestorms, don’t respond and, above all, DON’T APOLOGIZE.
This case is as glaring an example as any we’ve seen that apologies don’t work. Nine times out of ten, they are deemed insincere, and provoke further attacks. And some publicity hungry indie will always find a way to ride your coattails by dissecting your apology on their blog and wagging their finger at you.
Silence is golden.
Hugh Howey has nothing to apologize for.
Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy, but as time goes by, I see less and less value in apologizing anyway, at least to people who are angry. Certainly there are plenty of unforgiving gits in this world (and especially on the Internet) with permanent chips on their shoulders who take apologies as signs of weakness anyway.
I agree. Hugh Howey has nothing to apologize for.
Tall Poppy Syndrome is alive and well.
Agreed. He didn’t need to apologize. He did nothing wrong. As we say on our Bully MO page, it’s these jerks that stalk authors blogs and look for some reason to come at them – any reason. They are trolls of the worst kind.
In this situation, and so many others, apologies are worthless. Reason why, is that these people live for online conflict. If an apology is accepted, then the drama is over. Since these people live for the thrill of that, they would have nothing to do with their day. Even the slightest hint of a fight sends these people scrambling to the center of it. These are disgusting individuals, bored or let down by real life.
Good point!
These peoples’ lives are seriously pathetic. The only joy they get is terrorizing others online? What a waste of time. What a waste of their life.
I am a reasonable person who believe in social justice. I heard about Howey’s incident in a blog post I read about punching down which means when you pick a fight online you should not go after people with less power than you even if they are terrible people.
The woman he criticized sounded terrible and I would have liked Howey to have talke about his considerable success self-publishing even if he didn’t say who he was. It would have benefited the Canadian authors who were listening in on the conversation. However he decided to go the passive-aggressive route as this article points out. I disagree with the article when it says aggressive is better. I say assertive is better. You aren’t trying to hurt anyone, you are just standing up for what is right..
Also, don’t use sexist language. It might win you fans in certain demographics, but they will be on your side no matter what you say as long as the target of your criticism is a woman. Using respectful language even if your target doesn’t deserve respect makes it more likely that reasonable people will judge your actions fairly and it won’t provoke your devoted fan or critics to strong emotion.
So apologies might not work on unreasonable critics, but they do go a long way with your reasonable critics. Perhaps you should stop paying attention to unreasonable people and value the reasonable yet less noticeable people a little more.
What’s scary to me is, what if he had been any of the ‘bottom listers’ in self-publishing?
While his situation was most definitely bad, I’m happy for him he had some readers that defended him.
Imagine the damage with the same tactic, if the author had been a much less well known author?
Bunch of assholes.
And here I was actually starting to feel a little sorry for Anna Bitch K. during the kerfuffle on Amazon. Sheesh. I should’ve known better. It’s sickening. Anna Bitch is just jealous of these authors, I know she is. According to what she’s said on the fora, she’s been writing her own book. So yes, she’s simply jealous of those authors who are successful, and this guy is definitely one of those very, very successful authors.
Maybe someday she’ll choke on her jealousy. Well, her and everyone else who bullies authors out of jealousy.
All I can say is: KARMA. It’ll come back to them eventually, if it hasn’t already… I heard that one of the bullies on Amazon got stuck in a storm and had a crap ton of injuries as a result. Poor guy. 😉
This truly is the best example I’ve seen in a long time where these “gatekeepers” put down self-published authors to set their own agendas. They even do it in obscure ways I won’t get into right now. What they don’t realize is that they are living in their own dream world and most self-published authors, especially those who have been published with publishers before, will rarely say anything negative about their self-publishing experience.
“It’s baffling why Howey didn’t take the easiest route and politely inform the woman at WorldCon of his identity right then and there.”
It’s not completely baffling to me. Authors tend to be hesitant to reveal what they do, or even talk about what they do for many reasons. One is they don’t like to talk about themselves. I know that sounds baffling, but I actually understand it. It happens more with authors who have been around than with new authors. And that’s because new authors still don’t know what is in store for them with the bullies
But you are correct. Authors should take a more aggressive approach and they should start speaking up with pride…for themselves and all other self-published authors. The problem is that self-publishing is still so new most self-published authors who have been published before with publishers are hesitant because they don’t want to be attacked. They live in fear of being attacked. And I don’t think I’m exaggerating. What happened with Howey could have happened to anyone. And just look at the bully list that showed up to jump into the forum. Anna Karenina should really take stock in her online reputation because she’s losing credibility daily.
A side note to “Genxpose:” If you think all comments on this blog are just fabrications, my dear, you are sadly mistaken. You have no idea the extent to which this bully issue goes for some of us, and you are highly underestimating the people who comment here.
Gen probably thinks the comments here are a fabrication because the comments on her own blog are. It’s pretty sad when no one comments on your blog but you and trust me when I say she’s had many conversations with herself.
Thank you for this post! So happy to hear I’m not the only one who thought these people were way out of line and bullies.
Such a shame…chalk up another ‘win’ for the forces of evil.
The real hell of it is that Howey, having now been cowed by these lunatics, will probably be second-guessing himself for the rest of his writing career, forever neutering his prose out of fear that he’ll ‘offend’ some deranged nitwit.
And up ’til now, he was a damn good writer.
To quote Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles, “…I am depressed.”
I wonder if they’re going to demand that Howey dissociate himself from STGRB.
I was wrong. They’re accusing the post of violating Howey’s copyright. So they’re adopting the ‘let’s all be terribly concerned about STGRB is violating Howey’s copyright’ tactic. Can a takedown order be far behind?
Oh good lord. Only if Howey asks us to take it down, which he probably won’t.
If he doesn’t ask you, they’ll see that as proof that he supports STGRB. He’ll probably be forced to ask you, just to make them stop attacking him.
We just received this link from a visitor. It appears as though MIT is doing some interesting research into cyber bullying. Take a look:
http://p.nowthisnews.com/entry/1513/
Actually, someone asked him about this exact issue and Hugh replied that he didn’t mind, he knows there are cached versions, and he’s even e-mailed the full post to people who have requested it. He also said he’s not trying to hide from what was said, just that he didn’t mean any insult and didn’t want to further offend.
You can find his response in the comments here: http://www.hughhowey.com/to-those-whom-ive-offended/#comments
These creeps only harp on the copyright issue because they have nothing else to go after. It’s the last resort for them.
Hugh is a hero as far as I am concerned and like others have said he has nothing to apologize for! If anything I hope this incident helps him to embolden himself and not back down in the face of their vitriol. These people are full of sh*t and you should never back down.
As far as the woman at WorldCon? I would have had to take a bath after standing in line with her. I’ll be so glad when slimy, no-good people like that are nothing but a joke and a memory. Self-publishing is the future and one day most authors will realize that whether they want to SP, go trad or be hybrids, they DO NOT NEED failed publishing professionals hanging on to them and their royalties (which was probably what she’s looking to get and collect).
Agreed!
Hugh Howey is an amazing author; he always comes across as a really nice guy. So, it’s no surprise that the bullies would have a problem with him. To call him a BBA because of what he wrote in that blog post is ridiculous. The bullies get hysterical over the slightest little thing. They thrive on the drama they create. Luckily, Mr. Howey has already hit the big time, so the bullies’ nasty comments will have no effect on him whatsoever. Nice try bullies!
Hugh’s blog post was totally tongue and cheek. Anyone who doesn’t see that just hasn’t got a sense of humour. Whining about the name Hugh called that woman is taking politically correctness to an extreme. Ridley acts as if she took huge offence because Hugh called someone a “bitch.” And then Ridley goes on to call Huge a “creepy f***ing misogynist” and an “ignorant ass.” Ridley’s hypocrisy is outstanding! You can’t have it both ways Ridley. Here is an exact quote of what Ridley said about Hugh Howey:
– – “The guy’s a creepy fucking misogynist and an ignorant ass about people with autism.” – –
There is no way that ANYONE could be that P.C. Ridley is an out ‘n’ out Troll. “She says the most outrages things just to get a reaction out of people. We have all read enough of Ridley’s comments in the past to know that Ridley uses foul language ALL of the time and she constantly insults people. Yet now we are supposed to believe that Ridley is offended because Hugh Howey called someone a “bitch.” Eh? Don’t think so! “Ridley’s believe it or not!” Eh? NOT! Hahaha!
It has been comical to watch the bullies on the Amazon BBA thread trying to do damage control this week. But they can never play nice for long. Their mask always slips. Hugh Howey is a fantastic author and he always comes across as a real gentleman. I hear his book “Wool” is going to be made into a film. I doubt Hugh is losing any sleep over the drama seeking bullies. The worrying part is that the next time these bullies will go after a less successful author and as usual they will attack until they do the author some real damage. So many self-published authors have had to remove their books off Goodreads and Amazon due to that nasty group of bullies.
The bullies don’t give a damn who’s career they ruin. By attacking Hugh Howey, the bullies have shone a spotlight on themselves. So, at least in future people will recognise the bullies as drama seeking trouble makers.
Agree with everything you wrote.
To help put this into perspective: The bullies have been posting on the Amazon BBA thread at least SEVENTY times in ONE day. How often does STGRB post? About ONCE every few days, with around TWENTY comments each time.
SO WHO DOES THE MOST WHINING? THE BULLIES ON THE BBA THREAD!!
*sighs* Ridley is so in need of a therapist.
I have 20,000 words written so far of a book I’m going to “upload” to Amazon.
I do NOT plan to touch Goodreads with a ten foot poll in order to promote this book, and I don’t give two shits how many potential customers I’d lose. It isn’t all about the money, and GR isn’t worth shit anyway.
They can still put your book up on GR, though. Even if you don’t want it there it could wind up there. And you’ll have to take legal action to have it taken down, unfortunately. I think STGRB wrote a post about this once.
I think we mentioned it before but our post on it is yet to come. Legally, the only thing GR has a right to under fair use is the book title and the author’s name. They do not have a right to publish book descriptions or cover images, nor do they have a right to publish an author’s picture and bio information. All of that is copyrighted material that they must have permission to publish on their site. If an author wants this copyrighted material removed, they need to contact Patrick Brown and tell him that if it isn’t removed, the author will file a civil suit against GR. We know several authors who have already done this.
Dear Bullies from Amazon BBA thread and GR: that’s right, b*tches. I’m writing a book and will upload it shortly to Amazon under a pseudonym.
Can you guess who I am so you can start your whiny shit with me? Like another mentioned in the comments on a different post: Catch me if you can, a**holes! Wait, this will be my pseudonym: Catherine Brown. NOT!
The ultimate irony would be one of these jerks buying my book! Or maybe they’ll stop buying ebooks altogether to make sure they avoid BBA authors who upload under fake names!
LMAO!
Did you see the post on DA about Hugh? Also Jane and another person Twitter is having a detailed discussion of what is allowed on DA. Jane is not giving an inch.
Look at the comments on DA about it.
Also you can check out the twitter convo too.
Sorry, here’s the right link to DA.
http://dearauthor.com/news/wednesday-news-amazing-social-experiment-by-dove/
The other one was where the article was posted. Those comments are crazy. One woman accused him of threatening violence to the woman. What?? Where do these people read this stuff into what was written?
Oh what? I’m with the first commenter, kchoze, on this one. It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s no more a misogynist rant than I am a duck.
Was that comment from kchoze on the Dear Author thread linked above? If so, the comment’s been removed.
But I agree. Howey’s rant was about one woman in particular. But apparently you can’t use the word “bitch” without being written off as a misogynist nowadays.
And now Salon (or at least this person “Aja Romano” who wrote this article on Salon) joins the moral panic parade about badly behaving authors. I’m starting to feel like I’m in some sort of online dictatorship where your neighbors are encouraged to spy on you and report your activities to the authorities if you get out of line.
Karig, first comment here:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/self_publishing_star_faces_backlash_for_misogynist_rant_partner/
I respectfully disagree with the advice against apologizing to people one may have offended, intentionally or not, on the internet.
The reason I feel this way? It says a lot about a person’s quality and class if s/he takes ownership of a situation and attempts to assuage conflict. Equally important, a person’s ability to graciously accept an apology or other conciliatory effort says a lot about that person’s poor quality and character.
I think the biggest tip-off about the common trashiness of the bully reviewers and authors and readers supporting them is that you NEVER ONCE read about any of them admitting to being in the wrong, jumping to conclusions, misjudging others, or apologizing for truly reprehensible behaviors. All it takes is a simple “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong” or “I was mistaken” to resolve all but the most serious issues.
So yes, people should apologize to these cretinous, trashy low-lifes when they start drama queening and bullying over petty, intellectually dishonest grievances. However, once the apology is made, the person should retire from discussion. Let the e-trash show itself for what it is — incapable of functioning like a healthy, rational adult. On a message board of all things.
I thought his post was funny…
Ditto.
Does anyone know why this was offensive to some people? Is it because he is a successful self-published author? Are they not allowed to call it like they see it?
Apparently not.
Some people take anything and everything out of context. They want to put their own interpretation on what is written. I found the post funny and tongue in cheek. Honestly, he handled the situation with the girl good compared to what some others would have done. It must have been very embarrassing to him to have her look down her nose at him like he was less than human. It’s the same way these people are doing to him right now. Like he has no rights what so ever to say what he wants when they can say whatever they want whenever they want.
It doesn’t surprise me that the bully reviewers are quick to sympathize with a woman who essentially bullied and abused Hugh Howey and to resent his ridiculing her to the public. These people are abusive themselves and most abusive types prefer not to be recognized (by themselves or by others) as abusers. Most abusers actively deny abusing their victims and their enablers are equally quick to deny it or attempt to justify it.
That’s why STGRB has hit the bully reviewer community so hard.
I would like to add that at least web sites like this now provide a forum where people can come to offer support. In some cases the bully issue is more complicated because the bully is subtle. I saw two bully reviews on Amazon where they admit they did not finish the book and took things out of context in order to harm the author. I know this because I read both books. But people who did not read them will still think twice now. Each time it was a fake name and a first review. Big red flag when book shopping: if reviewer leaves a scathing review for a book and that reviewer has never left a review before, the odds are it is a bully.
“Big red flag when book shopping: if reviewer leaves a scathing review for a book and that reviewer has never left a review before, the odds are it is a bully.”
Yeah. I have a few of those. No other reviews before or since.
Agree as well. I’ve had fake crap reviews before. Whenever you point out that they’re
bullsh*t reviews, it only pisses them off more.
I’ve since learned most readers are smart enough to know the difference between bullsh*t
reviews and real ones, thank goodness. It’s just too bad that authors cannot engage with
the reviewer to let them know their review is crap. When you do that, you really do make the situation far worse.
At least MOST readers have good, HONEST intentions. Those are the ones we write for.
You know as a person born female, I get really sick and tired of women throwing the misogynist word around when someone makes a general insult. The insults made could have easily have been applied to any man (just change bitch to bastard). Women want to be treated on equal grounds as a man then they are going to have to endure the same level of criticism. He didn’t say, all women are stupid, women don’t know what they are talking about, women just need to go jump off a cliff etc…or even this is why women belong in the kitchen. He made general insults that were his to make—which he restrained from making out loud and belittling this person. That says– in spite of the situation–had respect for her. If women want to be immune to criticism and get special treatment then they need to welcome the ideology of being treated WEAKER. Calling someone misogynist because they treat the female gender on an equal level as they would a man is hypocritical. And calling him a misogynist is cheap.
I totally agree, I’m female too, and sick to death of other women whining about misogynism. It’s really getting to be an old, tired excuse for women to b*tch and moan. They use this excuse to b*tch about certain content in romance books, b*tch about every little thing someone in the media might say that relates to women. Ugh! It’s enough already! Didn’t they ever hear of the story of the boy who cried wolf too many times?!
I’m really starting to think they’re using misogynism as another excuse to whine. Cry me a river, build me a bridge, then get the hell over it already. And yes, other women want to be treated equally, but at the same time demand all these privileges (you’re not allowed to call me “b*tch”, but I can call you assh*le and b*stard any time I please). Who died and made them queens? More like sanctimonious b*tches. Oh, look, I said the B-word. GASP!
Really, women like that come off as a group of spoiled, privileged brats who don’t know real problems (social or otherwise) from a bad manicure. They probably can’t keep a boyfriend due to their high maintenance lifestyles and constant b*tchery. I mean, what do they say to their significant others whenever he lets certain words slip from his mouth? You know?? It really makes me wonder.
I’d like to address both the initial blow-up response regarding Hugh’s so-called “Sexism & Misogyny” and the notion that we must censor art based on the personal life of the artist.
For one, albeit perhaps somewhat immature (i.e. the grabbing of his crotch and the ‘suck it!’) in its expression of author-indignation, the original post by Hugh Howey did not warrant the backlash it has received. From reading the vehement comments, there seems to be a fundamental confusion between object and subject, and an outright dismissal of context and its misunderstood friend — subtext.
In each of the so-called offensive statements, Hugh does not insult the general population of any group. I will cite each ‘crime:’
1) “The Bitch from WorldCon.”
Was he calling all women a bitch? No. It says so in the actual title of the article, and then goes on to clearly illustrate why he might be justified in calling this particular woman such a name. Is this word exclusively a gendered insult, singling out women? No, not any more. Is it mature? Of course not. It’s a rant, with the accoutrements of willful ad hominem. But that is the general tone of the article.
2) “Now, I have nothing against crazy people. They are my people.”
Does he mean all bitches are crazy? Or just this one? Is he insulting or dismissing crazy people in general? I’m crazy, and I’m not offended. Nor do I feel he’s talking about me through her.
3) “And I don’t have anything against socially awkward people with high functioning autism.”
Is he really insulting people with autism here? Or dismissing them? Or making a comparison that denigrates the gravity of the subject of autism? Is it not a valid opinion to suggest that some of the odd participants at WorldCon, or any other areas of misfitland (sorry if misfitland offends), fall into this category? That these individuals (I was once myself an awkward young lad standing at the back of the room in convention halls) do represent the rainbow of the socially maladjusted? He didn’t say they were retarded; that would have shut his entire blog down. “You didn’t say retarded, did you Hugh? Whew!!”
4) “Now, picture Sheldon’s girlfriend from BIG BANG THEORY.” “Big-toothed and nodding…” “Crazy girl…” “…she-devil…” “…that demon’s whispers…”
Is it not true that the character of Amy Farrah Fowler is an extreme comic portrayal of a female geek, who shares the same basic traits as her boyfriend Sheldon (both of whom cross the line when it comes to socially acceptable behavior), and is portrayed in an exaggerated and somewhat grotesque manner by an extremely talented and attractive actress who doesn’t hold anything back for the sake of comedy? Is he saying, “Now, picture the actress, Mayim Bialik, that played Blossom. You know, the ugly one.” No, the reference was to place the “Bitch from WorldCon” in context with an exaggerated illustration of a socially awkward female variety of geekdom, using a fictional character to support it.
5) As for the “Suck it, bitch.”
This comes after the logo of the “Readers’ Choice Award” that Hugh won. Of all the people to be offended, it should be Big Al’s Books and Pals for putting up with Hugh’s mean slight.
Now, the wonderful thing about art, and in this case writing, is that it has two distinct lives: the first, in the act of creation itself; and the second, a life beyond its creator. For this very reason, I believe we should differentiate between the two.
1. As a writer, writing is a deeply personal process, a strange mixture of subjective and objective states of mind that, after passing through the sieve of multiple drafts and edits, culminates into an object of art that is greater than its constituent parts. In its inception, a story is a volatile stew of psychic forces. You often hear writers speaking about their process as if they were in a perpetual state of discovery, mining their way through a story. It doesn’t even matter if the writer is a ‘planner’ or ‘pantser,’ the act of writing itself owes a good deal of its enchantment to the operations of the unconscious. If done with purpose and patience, it will eventually find an audience.
2. The work, once it is abandoned to the reader, has the potential to help us transcend our own small worlds and experience empathy, placing ourselves within the context of other people’s thoughts and perspectives. But even so, it also presents the world-as-mirror, one that reflects as much the reader’s perspective (and psyche) as it does the author’s. If we did not have the capacity to project our own personal experience onto the story, storytelling in general would never have become so essential to our lives.
In summary, most of what makes a particular work successful (in terms of ‘connection’) remains mysterious and very subjective. I don’t believe the writer has any more control over this relationship than the reader, as each creates the work in his own head. In some ways, I’d suggest we hold the writer (artist) “responsible” for a work’s vision, but not hold him “accountable;” meaning, a writer should stand behind his work but not have to explain or justify it–that is for readers to resolve, whether they laud the effort or hold it in contempt.
I just don’t understand why authors are suddenly expected to be perfect and inoffensive in every way. These people would have heart attacks over the way many literary greats like Hemingway and Fitzgerald conducted themselves.
I don’t know a single person in the world who could avoid offending anyone ever. So why this standard for authors? The art isn’t good enough, we’re also supposed to live up to some supposed ideal of perfect behavior? Goodness we’d be missing some amazing books if only perfect people were allowed to publish. Similarly, authors in the past have said pretty horrible things about readers, reviewers, and fans, so why the change?
I think the internet has given people unprecedented access to authors, at least perceived access, and with that comes entitlement. People feel entitled to pirate books, to critique without question, to abuse copyright on places like Goodreads, and to threaten author’s careers when they step a toe out of whatever line each person feels is important.
Hugh Howey is a darn nice guy. Some of that post was a mistake, but it reflected more the general language we all use now rather than his own underlying misogyny. Everyone online gets to be sanctimonious because no one knows who they are and can’t see all of the racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise offensive remarks they may make on accident.
Hugh is a class act, he apologized, and if they think he deserves to be robbed of a career and all respect because of a mistake then I hope the same for them if they ever slip up.