Category: Opinion Piece


We do not need to tell you that the internet has become a favorite haven for bullies to terrorize others through the anonymity that the web offers. However, the public is starting to take notice.

More authors and bloggers are fighting back by bringing attention to this festering problem. Bullies have turned the web into a virtual cesspool of hate filled impropriety, targeted at anyone who ventured to articulate their disapproval of this behavior.

We came across an article by the talented Ellen Painter Dollar.

Ellen brings to light several good and sensible ways that we can do to troll proof our internet experience. Here are a few key points we pulled because we believe them to represent the exact point that STGRB has been driving home for the last 2 years.

“Trolls cause real and significant damage.”

Several circle participants said the biggest benefit of our conversation was realizing that they are not weak or shallow or silly for being deeply hurt by mean-spirited online comments. We shared stories about trolls who have called us names; dismissed our knowledge and expertise; accused us of all sorts of nefarious activities, from being a terrible mother to not really being a Christian; and gone way way way over the line of good taste to leave sexist, suggestive, and just plain rude comments.

Absolutely! Time and again STRGB has written blog posts of the damage cyber-bullying causes.  Remember Charlotte Dawson.

It’s a devastating loss for the family and friends of the 47-year-old television presenter. Dawson was hospitalised in 2012 after hundreds of social media trolls viciously targeted her on Twitter.

For the longest time victims of troll abuse have been told to “ignore it, let it go, it’s not worth your time or effort, don’t respond” and so on.  We have always told authors and readers who are being targeted, to take this approach as well. In the past, it was considered dangerous to give these bullies any kind of publicity or attention.

Mostly because there was so little support other than this site and a few brave authors who had taken it upon themselves to expose this abominable behavior. They did this knowing they were placing a bulls-eye on their foreheads for the bullies to throw their poison laced knives at. But we did not quit.

That was then, but this is now. Ellen points out a simple fact that is finally being recognized by more and more bloggers, authors and readers, even the trolls themselves can’t deny this.

So when people attack us—when they don’t merely disagree, but ridicule and dismiss and name call—it feels personal because it is personal.

It’s personal because the trolls mean it to be personal. It’s as simple as that. Why else would a bully bother to harass and stalk authors, or anyone that narrow their eyes at them? Because they want the conflict. They want the feeling of satisfaction it gives them to decimate another human-being without being challenged. However, that has changed hasn’t?

Being silent is no longer the norm. Readers, the ones who really have a vested interest in books because they actually enjoy reading for the sake of entertainment, are now beginning to see the reality of cyber-bullies attacking authors.

Don’t believe me, check this out.

AnneOnSTGRB

AnneOnBullies

Thank you Anne Rice!

“Thick skin” is not the best or only solution to trollish behavior.”

The most common advice given to writers when we complain about troll attacks? “You need to develop thicker skin.” Translation: Get used to it. Trolls aren’t going away so figure out how to do your job without letting them bother you. 

We have seen so many authors being bullied to the point that they can no longer sit down to write without having anxiety attacks. People acquire a thick skin when they live through some life altering trauma, or when they keep failing, but never give up until they win. Our experience through life give us a thick skin, NOT trolls. Sorry, the only thing trolls or bullies do is destroy the lives of decent people and they do it with as much infelicity as possible. Why? It’s because they believe themselves to be free from the consequences of their behavior.

Here one of them (All Hail Grimlock who was eventually banned from Goodreads) actually threatens an author’s fan with a purposeful hateful review:

Threat

Well guess what the tables are turning.

 “Writers have the right to protect ourselves, even if that requires bucking social media convention.”

Writers whose primary outlets are online (and especially those who regularly write about touchy subjects, including religion) have come up with a variety of methods for protecting themselves from the whirlwind of feelings churned up by trollish comments.

We agree completely.  It also helps to have celebrity authors making national and international headlines with their support of stopping the “Gangster Bullies” (wink, wink).  What has this done for our cause?

One. It has brought much needed media attention to online bullying in every form.

Two. It has given more readers and the general public at large, a dose of what really happens when a bully attacks.

Three. It has given more and more people the courage to speak out and demand that these bullies are held accountable for their actions.

And most importantly, it has proven what we at STGRB have been reporting for the last two years.  Without a voice to speak out against bullying there can never be change.  Change is good.

A New Voice

Today we want to share this message we received just recently from a new blog reader.  It illustrates well the perspective of someone being introduced to the bullies’ behavior for the first time, coming in from a neutral viewpoint.  This new blog reader makes some very insightful remarks about the bullies.  We thought our regular readers would appreciate them:

How I got to this website is an interesting story. I was on GR looking
for upcoming reads when I stumbled upon “A Winner’s Curse” by Marie
Rutkoski. The first review was Steph S. with a gushing review. I
clicked her profile to see that she was actually a co-founder of a
blog. I go to her blog to see if she had more information pertaining
to the novel, but instead I came across the “How to Trick Bloggers
Into Reading Your Book.” Needless to say, the drama was rather
shocking and so I went to the accused party’s, Judyann McCole, website
to hear her side of the story. It actually sounded legit. I then found
[redacted], which eventually lead me to here.

I do have a GR account, but I’ve always been a lurker. I read the reviews
before I buy the books. However, I’ve always noticed two things: if
the popular bullies reviewed a story with 5 stars then they were at
the top of the list. If the popular bullies reviewed a story with 1 or
2 stars, they were at the top of the list. Not only that, but the
negative reviews weren’t constructive reviews. They attacked the
author’s work and the author’s personal character. And yet, these
“reviews” had likes and comments supporting them. It’s a rather
disgusting sight.

I am an [redacted] aspiring author with a little ways to go to reach
a big dream. However, to see these people ATTACK and try to DESTROY
the careers and futures of new authors or indie authors is absolutely
heartbreaking. In addition, the fact that GR lets this happen and
people accept this as a way of life is disturbing on so many levels.
I fear that if my book gets published, will they attack me too?

I also have an AW account, but I stick to the [redacted] forum and the
[redacted] forum. And there is never any drama in those particular forums. I
used to explore the rest of the website, but I saw the drama and the
cliques and decided to stay where I knew I wouldn’t have to deal with
that. However, having reading AW’s role, it makes me very discouraged
to keep going to the website.

All in all, I wanted to say that I am glad that I came across this
site and the valuable information with it. I’ve literally spent the
whole day going through all of the posts in absolute shock about how
all of these sites and bullying are interconnected. I believe in the
motto of innocent before proven guilty, however, this website takes no
prisoners and lays everything with LEGIT EVIDENCE, as opposed to
altered and tapered lies.

We’d like to thank our new reader for allowing us to share this message.

Through a tip from one of our visitors, we found someone who is just like us: readers who are sick of the bullshit review policy on Amazon.  The tip came from Jack:

Check this out everyone. A friend and fellow writer posted it on Facebook. In particular note the hashtag one star thing for Twitter. I just did it:)

http://greenembers.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/why-amazon-thinks-youre-stupid-opinion-piece/

This reader, Green Embers, starts off with:

GE1

Then:

GE2

GE3

Even Joe Konrath says much the same thing in his blog post, Amazon Removes Reviews:

Joe1

 

Joe2

Finally, Green Embers ends the post by encouraging everyone to join in a twitter campaign against this asinine review policy:

GE4

We agree and we’ve all tweeted Amazon a big fat one star with this hashtag.  We encourage others to join in.  Now, we just need to start another twitter campaign for GR.  :)

So, we’d like to end this post with a little message composed by all of us here at STGRB:

Amazon if you’re reading this, pay attention.  That goes for you, too, GR (i.e. Patrick, Kara, Emily and anyone who is daft enough to protect the GR bully community).  We’re not stupid.  We are all readers on this site and can tell by reading reviews which are genuine and which are obviously put there by trolls who just want to ruin an author.  Green Embers and Joe Konrath are right.  You aren’t improving your review system by deleting honest favorable reviews and refusing to remove those written by obvious trolls.  All you’re doing is insulting your customers.

Furthermore, we would never dream of treating authors the way the trolls who infest your sites treat them.  We don’t expect authors to give us freebies, or kiss our asses, or bend over backwards to please us.  We will always show respect and admiration for those who put so much of themselves into their hard work for our reading enjoyment and who are brave enough to place their hearts and souls out there for public scrutiny.  Even if we read a book we think is crap, we will still show respect in our behavior and our reviews.  We will not take it out on the author in an attempt to ruin their reputation and writing career.  And we will never attack an author for something they have said because we’ve taken it the wrong way, twisted it beyond recognition, and shit it out into the social networking toilet rightfully known as the GR and Amazon fora.  Why?  Because we are the true GOODreaders.  Because we choose to show respect, integrity, and gratitude in everything we do, to everyone we know, that is, everyone who is a non-troll.  A person would expect professional organizations like yours to do the same, but instead you don’t because you’re either too stupid, lazy, corrupt or just plain f’d up.  It’s time to clean up your act, Amazon/GR.  It is long overdue.

Protected: An Encouraging Message

Below is a post published by Peter Pan on July 27, 2012.  In it, he shares his experiences with the GR bullies and how he came to oppose them and everything they stand for.

**************************************************************************************

The Goodreads Bullies at one point called me an author suck up.

How did we get to that point?

Well, here’s how it all began.

For one, I do have a life outside book blogging. This means that I read a lot, I post a lot of book reviews and it’s only ever-so-often that I log into Goodreads. I never followed the drama. I would see them and think, “Wow, not a very bright author to do/say that over a negative review.”

In other words, I took what these people were saying as the truth. Did it stop me from reading those books? No. I was either already not going to read them or already planning to and I personally didn’t give a flick about the author. I just wanted a good book to read.

Well, one day I noticed one of the authors they were targeting was one who I’d reviewed for. I’d emailed them a copy of the review and they had said thank you, even though I’d given them a critical review.

Up until this point, I’d assumed these people were being honest, and I’d just been lucky to have never encountered anyone freaking out over one of my negative reviews. So when I saw this, I thought, well, why didn’t they freak out over my review then?

I decided to dig deeper, and here is what I found:

First, they had been targeting this author before they had reviewed the book. I think this affects a reviewer’s ability to be unbiased in their review. Their reason for attacking the author was so convoluted it made me feel sick.

Second, at no point did this author lash out about the book review (though they did eventually set the record straight for some inaccuracies posted in the review, which I then verified and was attacked for verifying.) Note: An opinion is an opinion. Saying that a character did or said something they never did or said is just inaccurate, not an opinion.

It was at this point I was told I suck up to authors so I could receive free books. If that were true, I wouldn’t ever give critical reviews. Why would I want free books from an author if I don’t like their books? Their thesis didn’t hold water. I backed off then and watched from afar, and became more and more disturbed.

If I’d believed they were being truthful at first, how many people were fooled by them due to not being able to look more deeply into what was going on? That’s what sent me from fool to furious. No, I never let one of their hate campaigns affect my book-buying habits, but I HAD though they were being truthful when I now know they weren’t.

What’s worse is that things have picked up since then. I don’t think this is because more authors are behaving badly. I think these badly-behaving-reviewers are addicted. They like the attention and the drama, and the more they get, the more they want. So they keep stretching things further and further in order to accuse more authors. Words are taken out of context. Events are entirely fabricated. Anything to create a drama, and so many, like me, believe them at first. Too many remain fools, while others are into it so deep they don’t see a way out. Reviewers agree to fit in. Authors support them in hopes of boosting their own sales and gaining acceptance from them. Better to be on their good side before you can get on their bad side.

Finally, everything makes sense. Why did authors never attack me for a negative review? Now I know why.

For one, my reviews are tasteful. They are done to alert other readers on what to expect, so they can decide if they would like it. Is it based on my opinion? Yes. Did I state my opinions as facts? No.

Secondly, my reviews were always about the book. They weren’t attacks against the author and they weren’t written to rip a book apart because of how I already felt about the author.

-A book review should be about the book.

-A reviewer shouldn’t review a book if they are going to go into it wanting to give it a negative review.

Should the above be laws? No. But they should be expected social conduct. Anything else should be seen as inappropriate at least on a moral basis.

I’m not a “troll” because I disagree with you. It’s funny these people liked and commented on my reviews for years, but suddenly I was a troll the second I disagreed with them? While that’s a convenient accusation for them to make, I don’t think they are so out of touch with reality to think that no “real” person could ever disagree with them.

In the event anyone wants to say I’m a writer, go ahead. I am. I write book reviews. We really aren’t so different. There is no superior kind of writer. Authors need us to buy their books, we need authors to write them so we have something to read. We might not buy some of their books, because we prefer other authors, but other people will buy their books. They may not give us freebies to review, or they might. There’s no need to complicate this simple paradigm with efforts to destroy someone’s career or to accuse a book reviewer of only being nice to authors to get free books. That is a petty way to handle a disagreement and a slap in the face to us reviewers who take our responsibility to write honest reviews seriously.

Reviews are for the reader. Not the author OR the reviewer. And book reviews are about books. If you post a non-book review on a book page, it’s spam. So please, stop spamming Goodreads with your irrelevant opinions based on false information.

Why does this only happen with books? Because this group of ladies chose books. If they chose to review restaurants, you can bet they would hate the chef they never met because they once saw him coming into work wearing a Red Sox jersey. That would say he is inconsiderate of fans of other sports teams and those who hate sports, and so his restaurant deserves to fail and no one should eat there. If the chef replied in any manner of defense, they would say he couldn’t handle criticism of his cooking. And if any of that happened it would be just as bizarre as what is happening on Goodreads.

Because it’s about them. Not about the books or the authors. The problem is wherever they go. If wherever you go you find drama, it’s not hard to figure out who the source of that drama is.

It’s pointless to blame authors. The reviewers aren’t doing any legitimate readers a service. The opposite, in fact. We’re sick of wading through their personal dramas and personal attacks against the author and their petty shelving just to find the legitimate book reviews.

If Goodreads wants to improve the experience for the casual user, I recommend that book pages be for book reviews and nothing more. Shelves are fine, but do we need to need scroll through 100 cases of “so and so shelved this book as ____” just to find one review? Do we need to scroll through 5 reviews to find one that is legitimate? Currently it’s a mess.

At this point, I’m not sure I can trust reviews by people I don’t know any more. What if they are writing a “fake” review just to hurt the author, and it’s not an honest depiction of the story or how they really felt about it? That is, if they even read it. They successfully destroyed all existing credibility of reviewers in general, excluding those who were wise enough to stay out of this mess.

Since we need to repeat this so often, I will say it again. A negative review is not a bully review. A bully review is a review about the author that has nothing to do with the book. A critical or negative review is entirely acceptable. And reviewers DON’T need to be afraid to post those. I’ve been posting them for a long time and no author has ever attacked me for it. This idea that authors are attacking reviewers is so far of base. Once you look a little deeper, you will see what is true.

“I’d rather stab my eyes out than read this book because I hate the author” is not a book review. If an author is hurt by that, it’s not because they can’t accept criticisms on their book. It’s because they are human. There is a difference to attacking a book and attacking an author. While I don’t think either is necessary to give a critical book review, I especially take issue with attacking the author. It’s bullying to the author, and it’s annoying to the rest of us who just want to read honest book reviews that are . . . get this . . . about the book!

Crazy I know. A book review about the actual book. What kind of god-fangled idea is that?

We’ve had another request from a site visitor to post his/her opinion piece on our blog.  Below, Anonymous expresses his/her views on Goodreads’ recent growth, its independent authors, and what is happening to them.

**************************************************************************************

Goodreads likes to think of itself as a social cataloging site for bibliophiles, but its recent phenomenal growth can’t be put down to 12 million people wanting to catalog their books online. Other sites let you do that but have only a fraction of the membership. So what accounts for the fact that Goodreads more than doubled its membership between 2011 and 2012, and looks set to do the same in 2013?

My guess is that a tidal wave of self-published authors has been joining. Back in 2006, when Goodreads was founded, the notion that you could market a book to bestsellerdom using social media (see Amanda Hocking) was new and unheard of. Now it has finally trickled down to the masses, to the point that it’s now part of every indie’s received folk-wisdom, no matter how naive he or she might otherwise be. And Goodreads is always named as a good site to join if you want to schmooze about books.

But this sudden growth in Goodreads membership has brought another problem to the fore: that of amateur reviewers. It’s possible that Goodreads’ founders really did think that the site would be a great place for ordinary book lovers to congregate and swap opinions about books, but they were unprepared for other developments. Some reviewers were quick to realize the power Goodreads gave them, and were not shy about exploiting it. They realized they could review books they hadn’t read, or shelve books under abusive labels, and Goodreads didn’t object to the practise. Some reviewers were book bloggers with their own blogs, and quickly saw that Goodreads could be used to amplify attempts to favor certain writers and undermine others. So they started to use the review system to advance personal agendas, settling scores, and even for entertainment– baiting authors to see how they would react. And they haven’t stopped at Goodreads, but have extended their reach to all social media: now whatever an author says on Twitter, Facebook or elsewhere is fair game.

Most writers who hang around on Goodreads are self-published and new to the business, so they make easy marks. They’re oblivious to the politics and the personalities. A lot of them don’t seem to realize that there’s a power imbalance, and it’s not in their favor. A reviewer can trash an author’s book and call all his or her friends in to do the same, but an author can’t really do anything to a reviewer. Too many authors think they can respond to reviews, or even merely disagree with a reviewer in a public conversation without suffering consequences. They don’t see the lynch mob gathering until it’s too late, and many have suffered for it.

But is this a good development for Goodreads? Goodreads doesn’t make money off reviewers, it makes money off writers. It’s writers who pay to advertise there, not reviewers. For comparison, look at Librarything: it charges users if they want to catalog more than 200 books, and has less than one tenth of Goodreads membership. Readers aren’t anxious to pay for the privilege of joining a book cataloging site, even though Librarything has some features which make it a far better place for bibliophiles to socialize.

Goodreads probably figures that the supply of eager indies will never dry up, so it doesn’t really matter to its bottom line if some of them are driven away. But what if the word gets out that Goodreads is becoming a place where writers are attacked if they piss off a reviewer? What if it gets out that there are book bloggers out there who use authors as bait to drive up traffic to their blogs? Will authors still keep flocking to Goodreads, or will they find less angst-ridden ways of promoting their work? If enough authors come to the realization that Goodreads is a dangerous place, it could be the start of a sea-change in the way social media is used to market books.

Below is an opinion piece written by a site visitor who asked us of he/she could share his/her thoughts about the bullies on our blog.  We want our readers to know that if they have something they want to share and wish to write an opinion piece, they are welcome to do so and submit it to Athena via Contact Us for approval.

**************************************************************************************

Is Being Evil a Handicap? (An Opinion Piece)

By Anonymous

Is being evil a handicap? This is a question that I would like to pose to readers of this excellent blog, for they are dealing with evil every day as they battle the internet trolls who strive to steal their peace, their livelihoods, and their happiness. After all, what else do you call such life-sucking vampires but pure Evil? Evil strives to hurt and to harm. Evil does not have good intentions. Evil seeks to destroy. But, admittedly (and unfortunately), evil also has a power all its own. It exists, and there are people who have always been drawn to it throughout history. There are people who grow stronger from the pain they inflict, who enjoy and thrive on it. There are people who hide behind masks of sanity who are, in reality, cold-hearted through and through. We all know such people when we encounter them, because of how they make us feel, even if they look and behave normally to the outside world. We know them because of the destruction they leave in their wake. In days gone by, these people would’ve been ostracized by their community for their behavior. Now many of them hide, undetected, behind computer screens, typing away in the flickering light, hunched in the dark, their insanity raging behind “well-written” one-star reviews and scathing attacks designed to destroy author’s careers. They make vitriolic personal posts intended to strike at the core of another human being’s heart; they attack all that is near and dear to another person; they stalk, harass, belittle, name-call, and gather like-minded bullies to destroy whomever is their next target. They do not care about the real people they harm, or the families hurt by their attacks. They don’t see the aftermath of their behavior, nor do they care. They hide behind “free speech.” They hide behind anonymous IP addresses. They hide behind fake Amazon accounts. But their intention is the same: to harm and destroy.

Intention is everything. Every sane human being has the capability to look inside oneself and ask what his / her intention is behind every choice, decision, and action. Every sane human being has the capacity to feel compassion. Every sane human being has the capability to amend the error of his / her ways after realizing he / she has made wrong choices.

Insane people cannot. Evil people WILL not.

Combine an insane person, such as one of the bullies STGRB frequently profiles who is no different from the typical frothing, eye-rolling, obscenity-screaming bag lady one sees on the street, and an evil one, such as a hate-filled, bent-on-destruction bully, and you have an entity all its own. A frightening, destructive one. The best way to deal with that type of person is to recognize what you are dealing with and head the other way when you see him / her coming your way. That is why this blog provides such a good service with the bright light it shines on such individuals: the layperson is now able to recognize the evil, often faceless bully on the internet, and utilize self-protection.

Which brings me back to the topic at hand: Is being evil a handicap in its own right?

For proud handicapped persons such as one of our other bullies (often featured on STGRB), they might say it is, and a badge of honor at that. After all, this particular bully is often seen around the web using her handicap to bully others. I’ve seen her on too many blogs boasting about her handicap, using it to garner sympathy, and then using it as a whipping stick to shut down people who disagree with her. When a disagreement gets heated (usually after this bully becomes vicious and starts attacking and name-calling), she will ultimately resort to pulling out her “handicap card” to shut people up: “I’m handicapped and you’re an ableist insulting me and you don’t know what you’re talking about, so shut the eff up” (paraphrasing here). It usually works because most people are respectful and have some degree of compassion, unlike this bully herself. In my opinion, this bully is a dual-handicap person, someone who exhibits a lack of compassion as one of her challenges. I have never once seen her apologize or take responsibility for any of her harmful actions on the internet. In fact, the more publicity she gets, the more she brags about her “strong” personality. Yeah, right. Her hateful one, is more like it. For all the people who have encountered her terrible attacks, her relentless pursuit of destruction, her rage-filled fixation on anyone she feels has wronged her, her organized lynch mobs against innocent people, and her drunk-with-power online identity, you know what I’m talking about. She is ruthless, and proud of it. And she appears to be completely devoid of conscience about her actions. That, in my opinion, is the true definition of Evil.

These bullies will likely say this blog is discriminating against them with this post. They will say this blog is ableist and hates handicapped people. This is not true. This blog post is my opinion, as a simple contributor. Simple as that. And from what I know of STGRB, this blog despises evil people and the destruction they leave in their wake. This blog champions the victims of soulless predators and evil-doers who seek to harm people’s lives, dreams, and livelihoods. This blog doesn’t hide from the truth, or from shining a light on cruel people bent on destruction, even if such people sit in a wheelchair or are psychologically unbalanced. Bully #1’s physical handicap or Bully #2’s self-professed mental instability do not, in of themselves, harm others (in fact, they could be a source of great learning and inspiration for us all, if those two people had any sense at all). But their handicap of evil DOES harm others, and that is why they have ended up on this site. Basically, from how I can see it, STGRB is an equal-opportunity bully offender, and should be proud of it. The site does not discriminate, clearly. 😉

In conclusion, I once again ask the question: Is being evil a handicap?

I would say it is. It prevents an individual from being a decent, kind person. It prevents a human being from reaching their full positive potential here on earth. I am sure being evilly handicapped denies the person from experiencing true happiness. It would be sad, terribly sad, if it weren’t so harmful to everyone around them . . . and deliberately so.

Psychopathy (or sociopathy), by most psychiatric definitions, is the only true measurement of real evil out there. It is, quite simply, defined as a lack of conscience. And that lack of conscience is demonstrated in many ways, often hidden. So how do we fully recognize it, we ask? Well, it’s pretty clear: it is the INTENT TO CAUSE HARM WITH NO CONSCIENCE ABOUT THE DESTRUCTIVE RESULT OF ONE’S OWN ACTIONS, whether it’s trying to destroy a writer’s career with fake one-star reviews, or murdering someone in cold blood. And not having a soul—or heart—is probably the biggest handicap a human being can have.

Powered by WordPress & Web Design Company