Huh...

[shipperx]

Dear Author breaks down the actions of the Author who stalked a Good Reads reviewer... and the breakdown reveals that the stalker's actions were about as creepy (and her recollection as inaccurate) as you would have suspected.  (Why did the Guardian publish this again?)

Smart Bitches also has interesting commentary.

Storify also has an interesting breakdown about how being published in the Guardian = privilege, which devolved into enabling/victim-blaming

Comments

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this whole clusterfuck is just... ugh. I can understand not liking getting negative reviews. Tracking down a goodreads reviewer and showing up at her doorstep and harrassing her at work? And then writing a column praising yourself for it and painting yourself as the victim?!?

And at the same time, it annoys me that a loud minority of the people jumping to the reviewer's defense are using the exact same arguments that, say, gamergaters are ("FREEZE PEACH! RAH RAH!"). The Internet really brings out the worst in people.

I remember a few years ago, Michael Crichton got in hot water for naming a character (specifically, a pedophile rapist) after a critic who'd given him a bad review. That suddenly seems like business as usual.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I cannot imagine what The Guardian was thinking posting this as a 'funny little anecdote' by an author. This author stalked for information to seek out someone's home and employment! Over a negative book review!

[cindergal.livejournal.com]

I've been following this story over the last few days. While pretending to be someone you're not on the internet is a little weird (if this reviewer did in fact make up a false online identity - which is different from just having a pseudonym), it was not catfishing. And the writer's actions were bizarre and bordering on criminal.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Although, I do tend to agree with the tweet (linked on one of the above links)

Why would a blogger/reviewer have a pseudonym, asked the stalker who arrived on her doorstep...

(I say that knowing that my Goodreads account only says ShipperX. ShipperX is my go-to online identity...because I've been online long enough to know -- and to experience -- that there are crazy people out there. I never link to my real name.)

[cindergal.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah - like I said, making up an online identity is different than posting under a pseudonym, which is just smart (on Goodreads I only use my first name, but I mostly interact with just my RL friends on there anyway.)

I don't really get why this blogger made up a different age, marital status and profession for herself, but she didn't seem to be doing it to get anything out of it. I'm sure you've heard stories about various fandom people who have pretended to be someone they're not in order to gain sympathy/attention/money - but this blogger doesn't appear to have done that kind of thing, as far as I can tell. Her blog seems to consist of only YA book reviews. So maybe she was just really paranoid about people figuring out who she was - and now it seems she was right to be, LOL!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I wondered whether she youth-i-fied herself because she was reviewing YA. There seems to be a bi-annual preachy post by people about adults reading YA. So I wonder whether she's distancing herself from that (much like folks do with romances).

Plus, I haven't looked because I don't care that much, but if she is a teacher of any kind, I can see her distancing herself from that as well because that might have real-life consequences too.

Her review did seem very incendiary, but I just keep thinking, it's good reads. People spout off about books they read. It happens. It's nothing personal.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

it was not catfishing

Yeah, as I understand it, catfishing is deliberately making up an online persona in order to gain money or sympathy. Yet it sounds like all this person did was come up with a slightly different background from her real one, but she certainly never did anything with it, so it was more likely just a way of protecting her identity from her online one. The way the author seemed so outraged at finding out that the reviewer wasn't using her real name was very puzzling to me, plenty of people review books under a pseudonym!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The thing is, it's goodreads. It's basically the equivalent of going to LJ and then complaining about screenames.

Tons of people online (and on Goodreads) have online screenames. (Want to find me on Goodreads, search shipperx. It's the screenname for all fannish activity. I certainly don't use my real name. Buffy fandom taught me that a decade ago.)

Pseudonyms are not not in and of themselves evidence of nefarious motives or ill intent. It can simply be caution for fear of having too much information about ones self on the internet... in which case, understanding that this author then tracked the good reads poster down to her home/work, still too much info was available!

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that author comes across as seriously unbalanced. Especially when she admits herself that the reviewer was never personally targeting or trolling her, she had a google alert on her own name. She seemed to be blaming all of the negative reviews on the original negative review, and decided that it was unfairly influencing the response to her book, but how did she reach that conclusion? Other reviewers simply agreeing with the points that the reviewer was was making hardly=a negative campaign.

And okay it is a little weird for the reviewer to have apparently made up a false identity as a teacher, and posted false pictures of her vacations, but using a false name online I can certainly understand. She was never under any obligation to share any personal info, and the author way overstepped her boundaries the moment decided that it was a good idea to show up at her house and peer in her windows?!? My mouth was hanging open at the part when she describes feeling nervous as a police car passes, because it's all described in such an "aww shucks, I know I'm overreacting, but wouldn't you be tempted to do the same in my place". That poor woman must have been so freaked-out when she got the call at work

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the 'tweeting' of the author basically boiled down to the stalker/author had google alerts for her name and Goodreads was googling the status updates of the reviewer, which is standard Goodreads.

And, yeah, having had a nutso show up at my work, yes the woman had to have freaked the hell out!

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

And it seemed like she switched straight into stalking, or ~investigative mode~ as soon as she read the negative updates. It wasn't like there was a long campaign of harassment and negative reviews, rather she admits herself that she immediately started looking into where else she could find that reviewer online as soon as she saw the less than favourable updates on her books. Not to mention her mother swiftly suggesting a background check, simply because someone was sharing negative thoughts on a freaking book

I can't believe she had the audacity to openly admit to all that, and still think that she somehow comes off as the reasonable one telling a cute antidote and being able to laugh at herself

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I wondered whether she youth-i-fied herself because she was reviewing YA. There seems to be a bi-annual preachy post by people about adults reading YA. So I wonder whether she's distancing herself from that (much like folks do with romances).

Plus, I haven't looked because I don't care that much, but if she is a teacher of any kind, I can see her distancing herself from that as well because that might have real-life consequences too.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Oops! The response I just wrote was too a different comment. My bad! :D

[silverusagi]

I can't believe she had the audacity to openly admit to all that, and still think that she somehow comes off as the reasonable one telling a cute antidote and being able to laugh at herself

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I read the author's original Guardian article feeling like I was reading one of those 'villain's story' stories, like when the Big Bad Wolf explains that he didn't *really* mean to destroy the Three Pigs' house, all he wanted to do was borrow a cup of sugar, and he just sneezed a lot that day, etc.

[brunettepet.livejournal.com]

How the hell is this behavior being applauded? The author is obviously the deranged one in this "relationship."

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

One of the articles linked also has an incident of another article the stalker-author wrote where she followed a young girl who had accused her (the author's?) parent of sexual abuse, into a theater where she publicly confronted and assaulted the girl by dousing her with (wtf?) peroxide.

Why did the Guardian print this author's stalkery account again?

And why were there people praising her for it rather than backing slowly away???

[typographer.livejournal.com]

I made the mistake of responding to a tweet tangential to this last week and got sucked into the crazy for a bit. But it only lasted as long as it did because I kept replying to one person, even after I knew I should stop. So, I certainly am no stranger to the impulse to tell a person I disagree with them when I should just roll my eyes and move on.

But I can't see any reason the Guardian could have to publish that story other than knowing that the clusterf--k would make excellent click-bait.

But, my main reason to comment days later is to thank you for the links to the Dear Author and Smart Bitches posts. ^_^