AnimeJune's All-Natural, All-Positive Alternative Reviewing Method

Things have been getting very stressful on the internet lately. I've noticed a lot of conflict, a lot of name-calling, a lot of negative energy. Especially surrounding authors and bloggers of negative reviews.

Negative energy can be a very destructive force to the delicate creative constitutions of authors. The slightest stiff breeze of criticism can wilt a lovely novelist in the bud! Dozens of authors have cried foul (and just plain cried - salty, literary tears onto their university editions of Jane Eyre) over being "assaulted" and "bullied" by the pure non-positiveness of the internet. Who could have guessed that the internet would become so positivity-challenged, the complete opposite of how the real world is?

Since bullying in schools has now reached the point where children are killing each other and themselves because of it, you can tell how seriously these authors feel when they appropriate this word to describe their emotions when they voluntarily read words on a screen.

I used to be one of those careless people producing that negative energy that is so destructive to creative freedom. But I've seen the light, I've learned from my errors, and I've changed my ways.

I've now become an Alternative Reviewer. Alternative Reviewers use positive and symbolic reinforcement to convey an opinion on a novel that encapsulates one's reaction to it while still protecting the delicate membrane of sensitivity that protects an Author from Bad Feels.

Let me show you some examples of my new Alternative Method:

My positivity-challenged review for Can't Hurry Love by Christie Ridgway was a D. Such a thoughtless, negative letter - and a hard consonant to boot! Hard consonants bruise! Using my new Alternative Reviewing Method, my verdict is now Pineapple.

Can't Hurry Love was a totally pineapple book. You can tell from the obvious symbolic connotations of pineapple what I think of this novel. It is really so pineapple - it's practically a kumquat. Part pine, part apple. It says it all, really - and everything is conveyed without any nasty negative energy.

Or how about my review of Jackson Pearce's Fathomless? I originally gave it a C-. Such an ineffective reviewing method! So unnecessarily and painfully exact! I lived fast and hard back in ... May 2013. I was running with a rough crowd, throwing bolded letters at people with no regard to how hurtful alphabetical symbols in emphasized fonts could be. Truly, letter grades are the flaming bags of dog poo on the front porch of the soul.

Now, as a newly-licensed Alternative Reviewer, I can confidently grade Fathomless with a Downward Facing Dog.

Opinions can be prickly and hurtful and wrong - especially when over-enthusiastic, wickedly articulate, and predominantly female bloggers without Master's Degrees in Literature have them.

So Alternative Reviewing is not so much about expressing an opinion, as expressing a visual feeling. And if you squint a little, you can pretend you got an A. Oh, wait - letter grades! Crap! Does this mean I have to retake that online Alternative Reviewer Course? Aw man, the last time I took it I clicked the wrong link and became an ordained minister... Never mind! Time and place, AnimeJune, time and place!

Remember, when you read a novel that represents women, LGBT individuals, or racial minorities in careless or offensive ways, responding to that with negative energy solves nothing. Okay, so their words might pass blanket judgements on whole swaths of diverse people, but angry capslock is not the answer!  Do you have any idea the emotional toll all-caps arguments have wrought upon the author community? It's gotten to the point where some authors can't even handle acronyms anymore - all they can read are e. e. cummings and ruth weiss! A capitalized letter is not a toy! 

I've learned from my mistakes, and after studying the calming, conflict-free ways of Alternative Reviewing and the Ancient Eastern art of Stock Photos, I changed my review of Jennifer Rush's Altered from a D+ to a Weird Fucking Moustache, instead.

Isn't this better for everyone? Isn't this a much more wholesome, positive, and author-friendly way to talk about facial hai-- I mean books? It's so easy.

Why, even Judith McNaught's Whitney, My Love can be reviewed with this method. It now rates an Elephant Sitting on a Slide. Why?

Because it goes nowhere and it's full of shit! Waka Waka! 

AnimeJune's Alternative Reviewing Method - Placating Entitled, Privileged Whiners with "Artistic" Temperaments Since 2013. 

I'm over at the Booksmugglers today!

I'm over at The Booksmugglers today for their annual Smugglivus celebration - whereupon I reveal myself as the President of the Secret Society of Evil Ladies Bent on World LadyDomination! 

Go forth and read, minions! 

Return to Neverland: Bullies, Stalkers and the Huffington Post

I know it seems that, to those of us in BookBloglandia, every day for the past couple of weeks has brought a new crop of hair-pulling, foot-stomping rage. A new self-congratulatory post from the Stop The Good Reads Bullies page will arrive, patting itself on the back on how selflessly it devotes itself to Internet!Justice. Or several smug and obsequious comments from one of the owner's many sockpuppets will pop up like new mushrooms out of the pile of - well, what people commonly put on mushrooms. Or an intelligent Dear Author post will develop a comments section that slowly spirals down into the pits of madness over whether or not reviews "should" use dirty words like - well, what people commonly put on mushrooms.

Today, blogland exploded when the Huffington Post Books page posted an anonymous Op-Ed article from the Stop The Good Reads Bullies Page - giving STGRB national coverage and validation. Bloggers flew to their keyboards to vent their simultaneous, vitriolic outrage that the Huffington Post would so irresponsibly drive traffic to a website that's endangering and stalking women. It then posted a somewhat troubling apology that admitted they'd solicited an interview with the site weeks ago - and yet somehow never picked up on STGRB's blatant, acidic language and stalking behaviour. While the magnificent Foz Meadows wrote a stirring response that was posted on the Huffington Post Books blog afterward, I discovered something wrong on the Stop the Good Reads Bullies site.

Now, we already know that the STGRB, like a crazed Pocahontas, paints with all the colours of the wrong. But now they've stepped in it. In their comments section of their latest post, an anonymous commenter asked:

  

"The claims the posters are making in the comments of that article [meaning the HuffPo one] are untrue. This site is not posting personal information about people. Do you see any names and addresses? I don't."

 

This prompted Site Administrator "Peter Pan" to reply (the orange emphasis is mine):

 As you can see, "Peter Pan" openly declares that the reviewers who've opposed this site are dishonest, and have made "stuff up without any evidence" and are, moreover, "pretending" to be stalked in order to to "play the victim."

Gee, that's awful! What a horrendous lie! Most especially since now that one peruses the site, there is a remarkable absence of the damning personal information we reviewers have been raging about. Sure, the insults are still there, but we're all for free speech, aren't we? See, STGRB is all about discussing bullying, and the bully culture, and demonstrating slightly out-of-context situations of bad reviews. Clearly, the Mean Girl Reviewer Bullies just made up all that stuff about being stalked and having their privacy invaded because they were afraid of STGRB exposing their evil.

Except nothing completely disappears on the internet. Even stuff that you thought you removed.

 For instance, I conveniently took a couple of screenshots of the times STGRB administrators admitted to stalking people (orange emphasis mine):

Such as here:

And here:

Those are just silly off-the-cuff remarks, right? STGRB wasn't doing the stalking.

Except other people took screen caps, too. 

Note the use of Real Name and Location. The orange squares to the right of the screen indicate the date this cap was taken - proven not only by the calendar but by the existence of the anti-bullying organization banners - meaning this stuff was up before each and every one of those Anti-Bullying organizations demanded the removal of their banners.

But would you look at that same page today:

Where did the Real Name and Location go? 

And it wasn't just for Kat Kennedy. Take this screencap of their old page on The Holy Terror:

Her personal information has been obscured, but it's still perfectly clear how much they posted about her (such as her name, her husband's name, her favourite restaurant, and where she can be found at certain times of day) for everyone to read. The orange squares highlight pertinent phrases and evidence of the post's date. The pink square indicates irony. 

And look at her page now:

As well, there is this page on Lucy:

 Note they indicate her real name, her location, and also where she works in real life, to earn a living.

Here is where they indicate their active search for even more personal real-life information on Lucy:

Once again, the pink is for irony.

Here is their old page for Ridley:

Note how they give her real location and note how they are actively searching for her real name in order to post it on the website. 

Here's how it looks now:

And here is a cap of the STGRB folks commenting about Ridley being concerned about her personal information being posted:

Here is a screencap of their interview with Kenya Wright of Two Fantasy Floozies, in which Kenya asks them about their outing practices:

Here, Kenya asks STGRB about whether they're concerned about the possible dangers that come from being outed:

As you can see, the evidence speaks for itself. No snark or bad language required.

However, you might ask: why bother getting angry, and posting these screencaps, now that the STGRB website has removed the dangerous information? Isn't this what you wanted?

For that, I'll direct you back to the first screencap on my post - you know, the one where Site Administrator "Peter Pan" claims that STGRB never posted personal information, and accused the bloggers victimized on the website of fabricating the fear and unrest and harassment they endured for attention and sympathy. 

This proves beyond a doubt that the removal of this information wasn't an olive branch gesture and it wasn't due to the site administrators suddenly realizing what they were doing was wrong. It was a deliberate posterior-covering measure - likely in preparation for the flood of traffic gained by the Huffington Post article. 

STGRB stalked four women (at least) and posted their personal information online with an admitted disregard for their personal safety - and once the Huffington Post Books article opened the website to more scrutiny, they edited their posts, lied about it, and blamed the bloggers for it. They have offered no apology and demonstrated no remorse.

I'll leave it up you to tell me if you think these are the actions of an honest, righteous organization that is motivated only by a desire for a safe, friendly reading community for all.

My deepest thanks go out to the several awesome people (who shall remain anonymous, unless they let me know otherwise) who took the greater part of these screencaps.

In All Seriousness...

Let's talk about negative reviews. And authors' reactions to negative reviews.

I'm sure by now most of you have heard of the Stop The GoodReads Bullies website and how it's been stalking and terrorizing bloggers known for writing snarky reviews, under the misguided belief that bloggers of that stripe are bullies and harass innocent authors.

Now, while the Stop The Good Reads Bully site is run by one woman and her stable of sockpuppets (not unlike an angry, unstable, literary-minded Sherry Lewis), she is not the only author with this sort of opinion about GoodReads.

And they insist over and over again that their anger is not simply about negative reviews. Oh no! We know how things are! Everyone is entitled to their opinion! We respect negative reviews so long as they're professional!

So, what are these authors really complaining about, if it's not simply negative reviews? Well, from what I can gather, their main problems are with:

1) Snark 
Now, I can sort of get this argument. It's hurtful enough to get a bad review, but one that reviews your book negatively in a comedic way can pour salt on a wound. But just because a review is funny, doesn't mean the reader wasn't paying attention to your book. Bloggers are writers, too. That's the difference between a blogger and the average reader, because when we're done a book, we're compelled to write about it. And for many of us (myself included), it's not enough to write something that covers all the basic points - it also has to be entertaining and easy to read.

I, myself, prefer blogs with a lively and entertaining writing style - not just ones that mirror my particular taste. I have to want to read what they've written, otherwise I just skim to the rating at the end, taking in the relevant bits along the way. Just like authors, we have to be honest to our writing style because that's what makes us want to write. We don't write like that to be mean, it's not a personal attack on you, we write like that to express ourselves.

I do think that snark can be taken too far - but everyone has their own snark saturation point, so it's unfair to set some sort of arbitrary standard for it. If you find it hurtful, STOP READING IT AND AVOID THEIR BLOG. It's that easy.

2) Freedom of Speech
Well, isn't that interesting! Authors complaining about freedom of speech! Specifically, I'm referencing the arguments made on the Bully site and elsewhere that authors have a right to comment on their reviews. Authors are readers, too, you know, and it's not fair that they should be "silenced" and "treated like second-class citizens" while their precious babies are being dragged to the literary pillory.

And, as a matter of fact, they do have that right. However, the general belief that "authors shouldn't comment on their reviews" doesn't come from the idea that they aren't allowed to do so, but rather from the fact that it won't make a difference. The book is already read. The opinion has already been formed. There's no way to retroactively change a person's opinion. So when we say that authors shouldn't comment on reviews, we say it for their own benefit, because at best it will waste their time and energy and at worst will tarnish their public image and damage their fanbase.

Authors shouldn't comment on their reviews, even if the blogger allegedly gets something wrong in their review. Yes, even then. Why? Because "getting something wrong" is so incredibly subjective that you'll be stepping in a minefield just by bringing it up. To paraphrase Joss Whedon, one of my favourite screenwriters - your writing isn't your pet, it's your kid. It's going to grow up and start talking back to you. Meaning - people are always going to get things out of your story that you didn't expect or intend. 

Now, while these two points bring up common author complaints, neither of them constitutes bullying. Bullying constitutes being continually harassed, in such a way that you feel unsafe and cannot escape.

Which is why these first two reasons are bullshit - firstly, the internet is such a vast place, that it's a fairly easy thing to avoid the blogs that don't like your stuff. This blog hated your book? Don't visit it again! This tumblr negatively reviewed your novel? Blacklist it! Block it! Block the users! It's that easy!

Secondly, how in HELL does a bad review or snarky remark on GoodReads make you feel physically unsafe? How in HELL do negative words make you feel "assaulted"? I'd love to see you mosey on down to a battered women's shelter and explain how assaulted and harassed you felt when you voluntarily read a hurtful book review on the internet.

Now comes the third part:

3) Fan Response
Book bloggers, as a whole, are an expressive bunch. Now, as bloggers like Katiebabs have pointed out, when an author misbehaves and the story of this behaviour goes public, bloggers tend to react quickly and furiously and the author often finds herself with an avalanche of negative feedback that may or may not be proportional to the inappropriateness of her behaviour.

This, I think, is where the idea of "blogger bullying" comes from. The author feels like she's being ganged up on. She thinks she's only expressed her own opinion, or tried to correct a misconception about her book, or simply tried to point out with helpful links that other people reacted positively to her novel - and the result is a bunch of harshly-worded comments on GoodReads by complete strangers who then vow never to read her books.

Some authors have interpreted this as harassment and mob mentality, when really, the reason for this reaction is that bloggers are still considered (and even consider themselves) to be lower on the literary foodchain than authors. Authors are high on the literary foodchain - they're the creators, the shapers, those who can fashion sophisticated stories from the raw materials of their imaginations. Without authors, there would be no books to blog about.

So when an author bitches out a blogger, to other bloggers, that's the equivalent of a 200-pound-wrestler picking on a 90-pound weakling. That's a person in a superior position picking on someone in an inferior position, which gives bloggers an urge to defend their own. And that's why we react this way. Now, is this professional? Probably not. And two weeks ago I would have said that an author can't really do anything to a blogger except spew bad words, and bad words are easily blocked, deleted, or ignored, which would be the more mature response (that, and never buying the author's books again).

But the creator of the Stop the GR Bullies website demonstrated a desire to cross the line of professionalism into downright crazy and illegal.

So while I will commiserate with authors that the bottom of a sweaty, martini-drenched book blogger pile-on is probably a shitty place to be, bloggers are in no way restricting their rights, singling them out for punishment because they didn't like their book, or making them feel physically unsafe in their homes.

But despite all the GR Bullybashers' protestations, deep down at the heart of things, it really is all about negative reviews. You don't see authors getting mad at people giving them five-star reviews despite not reading their book (some of them do just that with sockpuppet reviews). You don't see authors bitching out five-star reviews that said their hero was a pirate when he was clearly a privateer. I've yet to see an author question the professionalism, education, upbringing, or literary success of a reviewer who gives her a good review.

Honestly, authors? You will lose more readers through acting like a jackass on the internet than by getting a negative review on the internet.  Danielle Steel's books have been critically pissed on for years and yet she still sells enough books to afford the ballgowns in which she poses on their back covers. Why? Because her fans love her. And last time I checked, there were about 150 million blogs on the internet. One negative review is a drop in the fucking ocean.

Are there examples of blogger misbehaviour? Sure. Reviews that insult the author's personal life are unprofessional. Reviews made without reading the book (or that aren't transparent about not finishing a book) are unethical. Ironically, a blogger who was targeted by the GR Bully Site for inciting "lynch mobs" against authors by publicizing their misbehaviour also broke the news on blogger misbehaviour - specifically, the story of the blogger who got in a snit about an author's misinterpreted Tweet and proceeded to give her book a scathing one-star rating without actually reviewing the book or finishing it. That's dishonest, and the worst thing a blogger can do is be dishonest, because our business is all about opinions and the readers who trust ours.

So yeah, if you're a blogger who gives five-star reviews because you're being compensated for it, or you're giving one-star reviews without reading the book because of a personal grudge against an author, you're not a blogger I want to know or associate with. 

But even so, the very worst a blogger can do is spew bad words. Sticks and stones.What do you think? Are there ways in which bloggers have been unprofessional? Are there ways in which authors can respectfully respond to reviews without criticism? Please discuss in the comments!

The Importance of Being Nice

One thing I noticed being discussed at BEA Book Blogger Convention this year was keynote speaker Jennifer Weiner's statement that bloggers should focus our energies on "sprinkling fairy dust" on what we do like instead of blogging about what we don't like.

Given all the spats and arguments on GoodReads and Amazon, and the flamboyant author accusations of the existence of a YA Mafia or YA Opus Dei or the secret secret cliques of "Mean Girl" Bloggers ("her swag bag is so big because it's full of SECRETS"), a lot of people have been given to wonder about the relevance of everyone's mother's favourite saying, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

Should bloggers all take a deep breath and just focus on being nice?

To that, I have to say: no. If as a blogger, you personally choose to only publish reviews of books you enjoyed, that's definitely your call, but I don't believe that's the mindset all bloggers should have to work by.

1. Book Bloggers are Critics, Not Promoters
This fact was definitely on my mind for much of the blogger convention, since a lot of what was presented in the speeches and panels I was present for dealt with how bloggers can serve publishers. Two of the authors who came to my table at the Networking Breakfast acted under the impression that if we liked how they pitched their books, we'd put them up on our websites. Amy Sohn (whose book I will, amusingly, be reviewing next) actually ranted about those "damn reviewers getting her book wrong" - entirely oblivious to the fact that she was speaking to a table of reviewers.

Because that's what book bloggers are. The cost-effective, positive promotion that publishers want from bloggers is only a by-product of what we actually do. If we like a book, we'll say so - and people will read that and take our recommendations accordingly (by the by, have you read anything by Cecilia Grant or Rose Lerner lately? Please do!). But I don't blog to promote books. I blog to read and review books - and if my positive reviews serve as free publicity, than it's a delightful happenstance! 

I know there are other book bloggers out there who do cover reveals and contests and memes now for books, even ones they haven't read, which can explain the confusion. There probably are bloggers out there who feel they are book promoters rather than critics. I can only say that from my personal experience as a blogger, who reads other book blogs, and who's discussed this matter with a fair number of other book bloggers, that the majority of us got into blogging to review and discuss books, not promote them. And honest reviews and discussions will naturally produce reactions both positive and negative.

2. Honesty Trumps Positivity
One concern I've heard come up in discussions with book bloggers is the notion of integrity and honesty. There was that whole kerfuffle in the U.S. a couple of years ago about whether bloggers should explicitly mention in their book reviews where and how they received the book - based on the readers' worry that a blogger would be more inclined to write a positive review of a book they received for free than a book they paid for themselves.

Now there's an interesting situation - readers distrusting a positive review! But shouldn't all bloggers just want to bake a cake with rainbows and sunshine in it so that we can all eat it and be happy? What about Jennifer Weiner's fairy dust?

Authors and publishers may worry about negative reviews, but to bloggers and, more importantly, to readers, their main worry is dishonest reviews. Did this blogger really like this book, or are they being paid to like it?

While I've read and enjoyed some "positive reviews only" publications (Locus magazine is one), I've noticed that readers and other bloggers tend to distrust them unless the blogger explicitly mentions that they choose not to review books they didn't like. I like to call this the "Paula Adbul Effect." That delightfully kooky former American Idol judge couldn't give a coherently negative critique to save her life - she was always sunshiney and supportive of all the performers. But because of that, her positive critiques had no impact on the audience or the voters. You could never tell if she really was physically incapable of disliking something, or if she was just too afraid of audience censure to really admit what she felt.

Simon Cowell, on the other hand, despite being kind of a prick, always gave really detailed critiques of the singers - so on those occasions when he did give an effusive response, you could tell that he meant it. Viewers felt they could trust that his opinions were honest.

That's not to say you have to be cruel to be kind - after all, Randy Jackson was far less of an ass than Simon Cowell, but his remarks still carried weight because he pointed out both the positive and the negative aspects of a competitor's performance.

What I'm saying is, positive promotion only works if the readers trust the source. There's a reason people fast-forward through the commercials on their DVRs - commercials and advertisements are nothing but positive. However, they're made by people with a financial stake in the product's success, and viewers know that. No one in the world likes every book they've ever read. Just like every contestant on American Idol isn't going to be a shining beacon of musical enlightenment. If you want to promote your book effectively, it's better to gamble on a positive review from a blogger known for their honest reactions to what they read than to hedge your bets with a literary cheerleader.

Well, then, you may ask, what's wrong with every blogger simply being transparent about only writing reviews of books they like? Why not just not post reviews of books you don't like, and let the utter lack of press speak for itself? See my final point:

3. There's No Such Thing As Bad Press
This is the kicker - even if someone is giving your book a negative review, they are also reminding people that your book exists. Its name gets brought up, its cover is revealed, it sticks in the human memory and consciousness, which translates to what jumps out at you when you go to bookstores. If no one is talking about your book at all, and no one knows about it, good or bad, how is anyone supposed to find it?

I can also ask you, as a fellow writer, which is better after submitting something to a publisher - a rejection in the form of absolutely no response, a standard "not for us" rejection letter, or a detailed letter explaining what didn't work for them? I can tell you I would rather have people telling me what they didn't like about my book than not talking about it at all and leaving me wondering whether they received it or even read it.

One of my personal rules of Blogger Etiquette is that if I accept an offer of a free ARC, I will review the book. Even if it's negative - because it demonstrates that I took the time to read the book cover to cover, took the time to analyze it, and spend hours thinking about it and writing about it. Even if I dislike the book, I respect the work that went into making that book, and I demonstrate that by crafting a detailed review of it.

It takes time and effort to write a review, even a negative one. It takes no effort at all to say nothing. So really, which response is less respectful?

This is my take on it. I'm not going to stop writing negative reviews, and I don't think you should, either. We blog because we like expressing how we feel about books. And some books are going to make us screaming, hopping, hair-pullingly mad - so we're going to express that. To Snark or Not To Snark is a different argument for a different time, but for now, let your Lit-Nit-Picking Freak Flag fly.

So Your Favourite Blogger's A Plagiarist

As you may or may not have heard, the book blogosphere exploded of late when it was discovered that a massively popular YA book blogger had plagiarized six posts from a group of style bloggers. I'm not going to recap the situation, since those involved in the situation, Dear Author, and the Smart Bitches have already done pretty excellent jobs at that already.

No, this post comes from reading the comments and arguments that erupted in the comments section of this plagiarist's apology post. I found there were an overwhelming amount of uninformed or else willfully blind opinions on the exact nature of plagiarism and how bad it is, and I realized a little educational session was in order, and that perhaps the super-fans of this blogger need to be invited to my Internet Counsellor's Office for helpful words and pamphlets.

Listen up, my fragile, hurt ducklings:

1. Plagiarism is wrong. I know it sounds like this should be obvious to everybody but clearly a few people need a little more education. It's okay to like or have liked this blogger (you can actually count me in that group), but that doesn't mean you should sugar-coat or ignore the implications of what happened. She willingly plagiarized another person's work and if she had been doing so in any professional field she would have been fired.

I've seen commenters frantically hand-waving it by saying, "Oh, well, she just copied Blog Tips and Tricks - none of those are original to begin with." Um, she didn't just copy tips and tricks - she also copied the format, the page design and also the sentence structure and syntax - things which naturally tend to vary from person to person and are what differentiates one writer's style from another's.

2. Plagiarism is a BIG wrong. Intellectual property is ephemeral and incorporeal, but that doesn't mean it isn't important to those who toiled to create it. It's easy to hand-wave it when it comes to bloggers, who do their writing for free, because it doesn't feel as though you're taking someone's livelihood away - but you would be wrong. From my own personal experiences as a writer, and I'm sure thousands of others' experiences, my writing and my ideas MATTER to me and whether or not I'm getting paid for them is irrelevant.

3. Plagiarism is not less wrong if "everybody does it." Do I really need to bring the "if everyone jumped off a cliff" argument out of my grandmother's handbag? Really?

4. Plagiarism is not less wrong if "it happens to lots of people." I particularly enjoyed the "Well, that's Chinatown" argument, as if Bloggerville was some lawless pioneer town on the unexplored frontier of the internet. You know what happens to a lot of people? Poverty, murder, torture, famine - those happen to millions of people. Does that make these things less wrong? Does the fact that they happen to a lot of people lessen how awful they are?

5. Plagiarism is not less wrong if the blogger apologizes. Don't get me wrong, apologies are great and absolutely necessary when someone has committed an error. And to forgive is divine and all that - but that doesn't mean a person is freed from the consequences of their actions. This wasn't a "victimless crime" (which is one of my LEAST favourite terms, right next to "diet cheese"). Other people were injured in this case. They had their rights infringed upon. They had their content displayed by someone else under that someone else's name. While the blogger may have apologized, that doesn't make the consequences of her actions go away.

While reading the comments section following the blogger's apology, I noticed the argument "not everyone would own up to plagiarism" was tossed around in her defense. Congratulations, you owned up to a mistake you made four months after it happened and only once your actions were publicly outed, instead of continuing to deny the allegations. You're a special snowflake.

6. Plagiarism isn't something that "could happen to anyone." It's not like farting in an elevator, where if you don't clench hard enough or you sneeze, you end up accidentally blowing stolen content onto your blog posts. Plagiarism requires intent and agency. Nothing happens to a plagiarist. In the act of plagiarism, they are not the ones acted upon. They are making an active decision. So really, plagiarism isn't something that strikes you when you aren't paying attention - it's an active decision that requires intent and action.

And let us all remember that not all mistakes are the same. "Mistake" is a pretty convenient umbrella term that some of the commenters are using that allows them to play up idea-theft as if it's no big deal. But consider the word "mistake." Leaving your umbrella at home during a rainstorm is a mistake. Having a few beers too many and deciding to drive is also a mistake. The difference between these two mistakes are the consequences. With one, you get wet. With another, you hurt (or risk hurting) other people.

Not all mistakes are created equal. You forgetting your umbrella does not put you on equal moral terms with someone who steals other blogs' content - and vice versa!

7. Plagiarism is not less wrong than BRINGING UP PLAGIARISM. Clearly, this blogger tried to go the "silent but deadly" route but misjudged the amount of clenching required to pass a bubble of rights-infringing flatulence. But the ones who smelt it are not the ones who dealt it. But tell that to this commenter on the blogger's "Apology" post:

This, dear readers, is what is known as victim blaming. The people who had their CREATIVE CONTENT STOLEN are depicted as being hostile and unreasonable when the plagiarist "gave them what they wanted so they demanded more" - more being the demand to have their rightful creative content, which had been taken without their permission, off the website. What divas!

Worse, this commenter flogs the plagiarist's victims for being so unclassy as to "create drama." It's bad enough you were so ungrateful as to be angry when a popular blogger stole from you - but you had to make a stink about it, too? Why can't victims just shut up and be quiet? Why do they have to speak up and make us think about bad things when we'd rather be thinking about Hugh Jackman on a unicorn?

I could go on about how the completely heinous victim-blaming is not only RUDE but 100% inaccurate, but the stylish chick at Grit and Glamour gives her own (and far better) explanation.

It's not like I don't get it. I used to be a huge fan of this blog. I don't want to think about her having done something so awful and monumentally wrong. But attacking the people SHE HURT for making YOU realize that someone you admire did something wrong does not make that fact go away. Sending hate e-mails (I wish I was kidding) to people who had the gall to protect their rightful intellectual property doesn't do you or your favourite blogger any favours.

You're all going to have to deal with this in different ways. I can't tell you to not go to her blog or to stop reading her posts, obviously. But the comments section made it pretty clear that people need to be educated on why plagiarism matters, and why it doesn't suddenly not matter when it's perpetrated by someone you admire and care about.

The Unwashed Blogger Masses: A Rant

I am AnimeJune.

And I am one of the unwashed blogger masses.

Let me explain. One of the most glorious things about the internet, is that is has given everyone a voice. Virtually anyone can start up a blog, give it a title, and start writing about whatever they please. Out of this has grown a thriving reviewer community - not just for books, but for about every product on the planet - plays, videogames, TV shows, movies, you name it.

Now, most artists and authors see bloggers as an untapped, budget-friendly goldmine. Give a few free ARCs away, have a reviewer give a positive review, and then another twelve bloggers will read that post and try the book themselves and realize they love it, and then that's twelve more reviews, with thirty bloggers reading those blogs and deciding to try the book themselves. And so on and so forth

The thing is, some authors have not learned how to deal with negative reviews. Writing takes an absurdly puffed-up sense of confidence - believe me, I've had it. So a scathing review out of nowhere can pop that bubble pretty damn fast, and some authors just can't cope. And, unfortunately, it is far easier to take out your rage on an "amateur" reviewer than it is a seasoned journalist who says the same thing.

There was an episode of Saturday Night Live recently, where Daniel Radcliffe plays an oblivious internet artist who "went to a school with no grades" and just assumes that everyone loves him. In the sketch, he attempts to draw Chinese calligraphy while simultaneously doing an Irish gig, and when he sits down, he blithely says, "I tried, and therefore no one can criticize me!"

I fear that there are a lot of authors who secretly feel that way - who feel, I actually wrote a BOOK, and therefore no one can criticize me! Who somehow believe that making it past the thorny tangle of agents and editors and slushpiles to join the ranks of the Printed Word renders one exempt from opinion. They have SURVIVED submissions. They have ENDURED revisions. Their experience with negativity is henceforth over, and they and their book lived happily ever after! I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.

Now, there have been quite a few kerfuffles recently in the YA and Romance communities about negative reviews, and I've even posted about the inevitable pattern these responses to negativity take. In a nutshell, these replies always follow along the same lines:

• "You're personally attacking me!"
• "You're a stupid loser poo-poo head who writes in her basement!"
• "How many books have YOU had published? Thought not!"
• "You're just jealous!"
• "You have no idea how much work goes into writing a book!"
• "All these other people on Amazon liked it!"
• "Nobody reads your blog anyway!"

But what I've recently taken the most exception towards is Maggie Steifvater's post about what makes a review a review. It starts off reasonably enough, stating that bloggers should never make reviews personal (as in, make personal remarks about the author - their sexuality, personal life, number of cats, education, etc. etc.). That is 100% correct.

But then she starts to veer off:

A review is an unbiased, careful look at a book — basically it is a little academic paper. It involves an itty-bitty thesis on your opinion of the book, surrounded by tiny supporting sentences describing the strengths and weaknesses of said book. Every month, dozens upon dozens of these reviews come out in professional journals. Because they're fair and thorough, they're prized and respected in the publishing world. Authors celebrate positive pro reviews. They sigh and learn from negative pro reviews. Publishing houses bend over backward to send review copies to these journals in time for a timely review, because good reviews can make or break a book's success with libraries and booksellers.

By now you'll have noticed the neat, little words she drops - "academic," "professional." Nice, clean, bland picket-fence words - so pretty and nice as they clearly separate "us" (the nose-picking, skinned-knee, orphan urchin bloggers) from "them" (the fair, thorough, prized and respected academic few, consuming their tea and cucumber sandwiches). And then, she goes on to condescendingly explain to us that we are not, in fact, true reviewers:

Let's talk about the negative "reviews" that authors have been lashing out at. They often involve animated gifs, swearing, and snark. They're often quite funny. But here's the thing, though. When a blogger writes a biased, hilarious, snarky rundown of a book they despised, he/ she is not writing a review. They are writing a post about a book. I'm not saying that bloggers shouldn't write biased, hilarious, snarky rundowns of books. I'm saying that those rundowns are not reviews. Bloggers who regularly write them cannot expect to garner the same respect and treatment from authors that pro reviewers or non-pro reviewers do. They can't expect authors to read their posts and learn something from them. And they cannot expect authors to not take it personally. They've made it personal.

You'll notice that this paragraph only mentions the negative blogger reviews as being "not reviews" - by the very nature of them being negative. No one ever takes issue with the "professionalism" of someone who writes a positive review. No one ever accuses them of being unqualified, or jealous, or tells them they write for a dinky little quarterly that nobody reads.

This post may be swaddled with reasonable-sounding rhetoric but at the heart of it is yet another author who reacts to negative reviewers by attacking their qualifications.

And have I mentioned how much I love it when authors accuse a book review of being biased? "How dare this reviewer express an opinion about a book in their book review! Opinions have no place in reviews!" A book review is the explanation of a bias - by reading the book, you become biased for or against, and a review is simply an explanation of how you got to that point.

Because of the Internet, everyone has a voice. But because anyone can do it, it allows people to diminish the voices of those they don't like. Just because we live in a society where everyone has the opportunity to perform a certain action, doesn't mean the action is meaningless.

Do you want to tell the new mother and her day-old infant that she's hasn't done anything that special? That literally billions of people, rich and poor, since the dawn of time have done the same thing a billion times over? Does that really diminish the importance? Or your child learning to read for the first time? Again - it's been done before. The vast majority of people in North America can already do it. That's not really an achievement or a special gift, now is it?

So I'm afraid author comments that the members of the blogger community are simply representatives of the unwashed, uneducated, common masses because we don't have the same literary gatekeepers doesn't hold a lot of water with me. We're the ones who do it for free. We're the ones who do it on top of our day jobs, in spite of our day jobs, staying up late, because we love it. Because we are passionate about books and reading. So who are you to say our voices don't matter - unless they say something that you like?

The Preconception Dilemma

I've dealt with preconceptions about book stories before. There have been times, in the past, when reading the back cover blurb and the excerpt of a story have made my eyes bug out in true WTF fashion. In the last case where a story made me go "oh HELL naw," I checked the book out from the library to find out for myself, for as much as the story repulsed me, it also intrigued me enough to read how it would turn out.

Well, it's happened again, and with an author I've read before:
The backcover blurb (according to Book Binge:)
Pia was your typical popular girl in high school – she made friends easily, cheered on the squad, and had her share of dates with the school jocks. But she’s always had a hard time committing to something, or someone.

So when her best friend Crystal succumbs to cancer, Pia is devastated, but also shocked by the inheritance her friend has left her – her frozen embryos! Pia’s in a quandary. It’s not like she can just throw them away. But is she really capable of being responsible for another human being?

For once, Pia throws caution to the wind and decides to embrace Crystal’s legacy. But as she struggles with her decision, another complication arises that Pia is totally unprepared for. She finally meets the man of her dreams…and her life becomes more confusing than she ever thought possible.

The story made me go NO NO NO WRONG WRONG WRONG almost immediately, for a number of reasons.

First of all, I should say that my disgust at this storyline goes far, far beyond my own personal beliefs regarding abortion, whether life begins at conception, and artificial reproduction. I find I can read just about anything in a book if it's written well enough - no, the idea of someone willing someone frozen embryos after they're dead makes me squicky in so many different, equally heinous ways.

Reason the First: While I'll admit that it's a pretty unique and complicated take on the "Unattached Person Suddenly Inherits Children" storyline (see: Raising Helen), the embryo situation makes it so much creepier and more invasive. I mean, Pia is not just tasked with raising kids, but with being impregnated with kids - three kids, to be exact - meaning she's taking on the health risks and the physical toll, too. I'm sorry, but Crystal would have to be a serious life-saving, ass-kicking friend on the level of, say, Buffy Summers, to have the sheer, unmitigated balls to feel entitled to all that.

Reason the Second: Pregnancy issues aside, Pia is an unmarried, single woman with a life and a successful career - and her dead friend Crystal presumably knew that. Soooo, Super-Bestest But Unfortunately Dead Friend Who Clearly Hopes To Compete for Heaven's Dead Mother Of the Year: you're not exactly helping your friend by making her give up her livelihood for your kids, and neither are you giving your unborn children the best future by bequeathing their babysicle selves to a person who has not been in any way prepared for them. What's your deal?

Oh wait, maybe I'm judging too harshly - this is presumably something Crystal and Pia would have discussed, as it is something that intimately concerns both Crystal's and Pia's health and reproductive futures. Pia probably just never assumed Crystal would die so suddenly and thus thought nothing of it until it was too late.

Reason the Third: What's that, Dead-of-Cancer-Crystal? Oh, you didn't tell Pia in advance of your plans? In fact, you PURPOSEFULLY CHOSE TO NOT WARN HER because you KNEW she wouldn't want to do it? Um, look around you, Crystal - is it warm where you are? Are there little red men in capes and pitchforks around you?

WHAT. THE. EFF. I haven't read an action that seemed so unbelievably selfish, manipulative and cruel for a long time.

That's right - selfish. You're dead. Your husband's dead. You are not going to be AROUND to raise any kids, thanks to a severe cancer-kick in the groin by Fate. Why the hell do you want kids so badly? It can't be for you - you'll be DEAD. Is it the immortality thing? The continuation of the line? What's the point?

I mean, I believe the kids should be born, because I've personally been raised in the belief that life starts at conception - but people who believe in artificial insemination and in-vitro, in general, don't tend to share that opinion. So I ask you yet again, what is YOUR FUCKING DEAL?

I mean, if this had been some long-held pact between Crystal and Pia that Pia had accepted without taking seriously, I could have handled that. That could have been a good story. But I read the chapter one excerpt and it makes it really clear that Crystal's character intentionally decided to bequeath her kids to Pia without giving her advance notice to prepare or refuse consent.

Am I the only one who finds that decision inherently cruel and unethical? Pia is given something of a choice over her body, but a heavily manipulated choice. Yeah, you could raise the three babies your friend gave you - or you could be a selfish dried-up shrew and Worst Friend Ever and let them DIE in a freezer. You wouldn't do that to your poor, poor, saintly, bestest-friend, cancer-victim Crystal, would you? WOULD YOU?

ARGH! Just thinking about that storyline fills me with rage. But you guys already know what that means.

Yup.

I'm going to have to read this entire book to figure it out for myself, aren't I?

RWA 2010 Day One: New Jersey's Seven Circles of Hell

Hello, dear readers, I have returned from Florida and am back in the land where humidity does not exist outside of a shower stall and air conditioning is optional. I'm still really tired from the trip, so only one blog post for today, but it's still a doozy.

Last year, when I went to D.C., I fell in love with airports. I liked the efficiency and organization, and while the plane rides could get boring at times I always felt like I was in good hands. After all, airport staff are used to herding large groups of stupid people all over the world, so I never have to worry about asking a stupid or unnecessary question.

I did not have a good trip coming into Orlando. No, my trip to Orlando effectively stomped on my schoolgirl admiration of airports and love of flying in general. I'm not saying the conference wasn't worth the trip, for it most certainly was, but that this particular trip from Edmonton to Orlando wasn't one of the worst travelling experiences I'd ever had - it was one of the worst experiences of my life, period.

It started out harmlessly enough. I'd planned sleep through a red-eye Air Canada 1:15 am flight from Edmonton to Montreal, and from there to Orlando, arriving at around noon, Florida time. There I would sleep for a few hours, and wake up refreshed for some socializing and sightseeing.

Let me enumerate the ways that this trip went horribly, horribly awry:

1) A Lightning Storm in Edmonton
I took a taxi to the airport, and noticed the repeated flashes of light outside. At first I thought it might be fireworks, or some other event, for the flashes of light seemed to come too swiftly and too close together to be lightning. Or so I thought.

It turned out to be an epic (and admittedly spectacular) lightning storm. Which meant my 1:15 am flight ended up delayed for an hour and a half.

2) As it turns out, I am neither young enough nor old enough to fall asleep anywhere
...including on a plane. Alright, I figured, I'll sleep in a bit more when I arrive in Orlando. So I watched Date Night on the TV screen in front of my seat and shifted at regular intervals to dull the tightening pain in my back and neck. Date Night's actually not a bad movie, I'd even recommend it.

3) Thanks to the delay, I miss my connecting flight to Montreal
I rushed off the plane and through security and ended up making it to the gate just in time - only, whoops, Air Canada had heard about my first plane's delay and had thoughtfully not put my suitcase on the flight - meaning even though I'd arrived in the nick of time, I was not allowed to board and this was the only direct flight to Orlando for the rest of the day. I didn't know what to do - would I be stuck at the airport for hours? I started to get a little upset - I was travelling by myself, I'd missed my flight, I didn't want to be stuck at an airport with no one to talk to.

However, the ever so prepared and efficient in-training Air Canada employee rescheduled me on a Continental flight to Newark in an hour's time, and from there to Orlando. Okay, I thought, So I lose a couple of hours. It's not the end of the world. She prints me out what I think are boarding passes and directs me to the Continental gate, telling me to let them know that Air Canada had rebooked me.

4) The Shiny Happy Brand-New Air Canada Employee Is an Idiot
I arrive at the Continental gate for the 10:30 a.m. flight to Newark, only to be told by a Continental employee that I need a paper ticket, and the printed thingees the in-training Air Canada employee gave me are not the tickets I'm supposed to have. I start shaking by this point - are they not going to let me on the Newark flight? The only other flight to Orlando was through a 6:00 p.m. flight to Toronto, and from there to Orlando.

The Continental guy gets on the phone to talk to the Air Canada people, and I stand there at the desk through what seems like the longest phone conversation in history, trying not to cry. I'm travelling by myself. I don't know what tickets I'm supposed to have, I only had what the Miss Air Canada Mouth Breather gave me. How was I supposed to know that wasn't enough?

Finally, after an interminable (to me) wait, the Continental Employees print out two more (of what I think are) boarding passes and let me on to the flight to Newark.

5) The Continental Employees Make the Shiny Happy Brand-New Air Canada Employee Look Like Stephen Hawking
I arrive in New Jersey and head for the gate to the 1:30 p.m.Continental Flight to Orlando, and try not to sigh over the fact that, if not for a lightning storm, I would have been sipping raspberry daquiris by the pool at the Swan and Dolphin hotel by now. I take out my business cards. I even start looking around for women I think look "authorish" - who knows who I might end up sitting next to? When the boarding call comes, I go up to the gate and hand them my boarding pass.

And am told that I need a paper ticket. Yes, the EXACT SAME THING the Continental people in Montreal said I needed to board the Newark flight was the EXACT SAME THING they FORGOT TO GIVE ME for the Orlando flight. And because I did not have my paper ticket (or "fim"), I would not be allowed on the flight.

This was the part where I burst into tears. I'd had no sleep - I'd left the house the day before at 10:30 pm to take the 1:15 am flight. I'd had nothing to eat. I was supposed to be in Orlando an hour ago and I started crying in public in front of a deservedly-embarrassed Continental employee. This wasn't fair. How was I to know what papers to ask for? I was going to be stranded in New Jersey because some 2.0-grade-point-average, shit-for-brains Continental employee who should go die in a fire thought, "Hurrrr, this woman needed a FIM to get on my flight, shouldn't I give her a FIM for the next one? Duh, nope!"

6) In order to get the proper ticket for the next flight to Orlando, I have to run the Obstacle Course of Hell
Okay, so the Continental guy reschedules me for the next flight to Orlando - the 2:30 flight. One hour away. Which is all well and good, except - in order to be allowed on that flight, I need to go all the way across the Newark airport (requiring the use of a shuttle), leave the secure area of the airport to get to the Air Canada Ticketing booth to have them issue me the proper FIM, go through US Airport Security for a second time, and find my gate - and all in one hour, or else I'll miss my flight and end up shit out of luck AGAIN.

I can practically hear the ticking noise of the clock in my head as I take off running, as my heart aches with a newfound sympathy for Jack Bauer of 24. I dash across the airport and hold back my tears and try not to hyperventilate as they issue me a FIM. I take off almost immediately, only to learn there's no gate number on my FIM. Where do I go? What do I do? I have less than an hour and I don't know where to go! I get to Airport security and there's a huge line, although the security guys must have some rule in their handbook for Hysterically Sobbing Canadian Women With Impractically Timed Connecting Flights because they let me skip the line, doff my sandals, and reveal all my electronics and carry-on liquids for the second time.

But still! Where is my gate? Where do I go? Tick-tick-tick-tick-Happiest-Place-on-Earth-MY-ASS!

7) The Employees of the Newark International Airport Can All Go Die of Repeated Spider Bites, Thank You Very Much
Because I have no gate number on my FIM, I ask several employees where to go, and then keep running. By this point rage and terror are eating a hole through the bottom of my stomach, my mouth is so dry I can barely swallow, my legs hurt and hurt because I am so tired of running, I'm so out of breath, but I can't miss this flight, I just can't, none of this is my fault, why do stupid people exist and WHY DO THEY ALL HAVE TO BE WORKING AT THE SAME AIRPORT TODAY?

I get to the gate - huh, funny, it's the same gate as my botched 1:30 Orlando flight. Well, GUESS WHAT? That's the gate departing to BERLIN. I'm at the WRONG FUCKING GATE, a gate that more than one MENSA-qualifying Newark Airport Employee directed me to.

I can't keep running, it's so painful by this point, I'm hyperventilating and crying and swearing. I'm running on fumes and nut-free granola bars and 24 hours without sleep. But I can't just stop running when I have a plane to catch, so I run-canter-limp over to a Customer Services booth. There, an elderly female employee gives me the right gate, staring at my bedraggled appearance over the tops of her glasses like I'm the world's biggest idiot for not knowing already.

I make it to the gate with 20 minutes to spare. I hand my FIM over to the employee, my face red and burning-hot, my lips sticky with dehydration, my breaths emerging in quick gasps. She looks at my FIM and goes "Um," causing me to launch into a fervent declaration that I'll buy another fucking ticket, I'll pay anything to get on this plane, I have my credit card right here, even as inwardly I promise that if I don't make this flight I'm going to hang myself in an airport bathroom with a duty-free silk scarf after scrawling the lengthy list of my woes on the mirror with my lipstick.

It turns out it's not necessary. My FIM goes through. I sit down at the gate as my legs turn to jelly and I chug down water, so much water, even as the horror of my experience continues to gnaw at the bottom of my belly like an ulcer. I spend the flight shaky and wired, eager to relax while at the same time desperate to remain alert for whatever else that's going to go wrong. Maybe the plane will crash before reaching Disneyworld - maybe the plane will crash in Disneyworld, taking the Magic Kingdom castle down with it in some sort of grotesque cosmic joke - See! AnimeJune did make it to the Magic Kingdom! Ha ha ha!

But my flight arrives in Orlando without a hitch and, even more surprisingly, so does my luggage. I was sure after all those detours and reroutes it was bound to turn up in Albuquerque or thereabouts. I get my shuttle tickets and step out into the wall of Floridian heat and humidity, which I find oddly relaxing and soothing after the chill artificial neutrality of airport atmosphere. I even meet some romance authors on the shuttle. I take pictures as the shuttle passes by Downtown Disney, and I make it to the Swan and Dolphin by 7:00pm. Seven o'clock, instead of noon, after taking a one a.m. flight. Arriving too late to make dinner with SuperWendy, Rosie and KristieJ, I nevertheless meet Keira Soleore at the checkout for the first time.

I wander the hotel to get my bearings - it's a big place, and in the evening full of parents hauling luggage and limp, browned children. I eventually make it down to the Fountain, a burger-bar place in the Dolphin, and a place where they actually ask you if you want your hamburger rare (the answer, by the way, should ALWAYS BE NO - food poisoning, hello), and I order a greasy burger, chips, and cream soda. From there, I take my food and limp to SuperWendy's room, where reuniting with her and KristieJ and Rosie goes a long way towards recharging my emotional batteries.

Okay, so I didn't die. I didn't miss anything, either - I'd never planned to attend the parks on Monday - and I still have Tuesday and Wednesday to sight see. I'm in Orlando in time for RWA 2010, and that's what counts.

And hey, at Newark I got to see the Empire State building.

Miss Manners vs. AnimeJune

Truly, folks, there's nothing like waking up in the morning, having a cup of tea, and discovering that someone with only the very best of intentions has left a helpful, polite, and thoroughly wrong-headed and patronizing post on your blog. Aaaaaaah, I love the smell of veiled contempt in the morning

The lovely Miss Manners chose to comment on a certain D+ review on my blog, and not even a recent one - Erica Ridley's Too Wicked To Kiss. Now, I've posted before on how inappropriate responses to negative reviews tend to fall within a certain pattern, and this example is no exception.

Ball's in my court now, Miss Manners. Let's go over your response piece by piece.

I wish you great success in your publishing endeavors and wanted to drop you a quick note in hopes of helping you better your future-self. It would be really easy for me to say that I hope someone treats you as you have treated other writers that you trash in your blog every day.

Um, well, first of all I should say that I don't trash authors in my blog every day. I don't even post every day. In fact, I don't trash authors at all. This part of your post is a perfect violation of my first rule of the Author's Attitude:

DO NOT TAKE THE REVIEW PERSONALLY.

I do not trash authors on my blog, Miss Manners, and I never have. I trash books, bad ones, ones that are poorly written and give me headaches and portray men and women and vampires and Dukes and circus performers in an unrealistic and offensive manner. If you will read my review of Too Wicked To Kiss, not once do I make personal reference to Erica Ridley herself except in the context of the book she has written.

Actually, no, I stand corrected - I personally mentioned Erica Ridley once, and I shall quote the exact passage because this also applies to your concerns about how I treat authors (as opposed to their books):

First of all, I would like to thank Erica Ridley, who offered me a free ARC of her debut novel, Too Wicked to Kiss . To return the favour, I would like to advise that she not read this review. I didn't enjoy your novel, Ms. Ridley, but I'm sure other people will.That being said, unless you're in the mind for some constructive (and some not-so-constructive) criticism, this review might not send you to your happy place.

Wow, I'm such a bitch, aren't I? The nerve of me, offering polite thanks and letting her know that my opinion, while negative, is subjective.

Continuing with Miss Manners:

I would never wish for your work to be torn apart as you do to others, and the thought barely enters my mind. That's mainly because I can imagine the amount of work you've put into it, and the hours you’ve spent plotting, editing, revising and making your work the best it can be.

Hey! Another Rule!

DO NOT REFERENCE THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU HAVE PUT INTO YOUR BOOK.

Sorry, Miss Manners, but the amount of work put into a novel has absolutely nothing to do with a review. It's completely irrelevant. Every author puts an enormous amount of work into a book, myself included. My task as a reviewer isn't to evaluate the amount of work put into a book. My task as a reviewer is to review the finished product. As I mentioned in my Author's Attitude post - I'm sure the caterers and sound crew and lighting technicians worked their asses off to make Gigli, but that doesn't mean the movie didn't suck.

Continuing on:

With that in mind, I wish you nothing but success in the future but would like to make a suggestion to you, in an effort to further your personal growth. You’re twenty-four years old. You’re old enough to know right from wrong. And what you’re doing with your reviews is wrong. Children learn early on why it’s bad to ridicule others. Evidently, your education in that area was lacking. I hope, for your sake, that you can find a way to show your dislike for a book without belittling authors who worked just as hard on their book as you did on your prospective book.

You're right, I am twenty-four years old. Twenty-four young, desperately hot and nubile years old. Pardon me while I go dance in my white underwear in the rain and look awesome doing it.

Ahem. Back on topic - you are once again taking my reviews personally. I do not ridicule authors. I ridicule the books, the non-thinking, non-feeling, inanimate artistic creations that are separate from their authors. Nowhere in my review of Too Wicked To Kiss do I ridicule Erica Ridley. What I do ridicule are the elements of the narrative that I found lacking. I ridiculed the characterization. I ridiculed the pacing. I ridiculed the complete lack of paranormal development or realism. I did not ridicule Erica Ridley. I ridiculed the specific aspects of the specific book.

Why? Because that's what reviewers do - their job is to evaluate specific, independent books and articulately express the reasons why they like or dislike them. I like to think I'm articulate. I use turns of phrase and metaphors and pop culture references. I get creative. You evidently take issue with that, but the fact remains that I have said nothing whatsoever negative against Erica Ridley herself. Other people (like the Romance Dish) absolutely loved her book, so feel free to click there and get a second opinion.

There have been incidents on my blog where other commenters have made inappropriate comments that personally insult authors and I have always taken them down because that is wrong.

Oh, but Miss Manners only gets better:

The key there is “prospective.” You’ve not sold a novel. When you have a few best-sellers under your belt, you might have enough “street cred” to offer your opinion and have it be taken seriously.

Ah, that old saw. A staple in the Response to a Negative Review, violating yet another rule of the Author's Attitude:

DO NOT REFERENCE THE CRITIC'S LACK OF PUBLISHING CREDITS TO IMPLY THEY ARE UNQUALIFIED TO REVIEW YOUR WORK.

Yes, of course, the old "oh, you're good enough to buy my novel and send me royalties but not good enough to tell other people you didn't like it" excuse.

Opinions are like fantasies of Hugh Jackman on a unicorn, Miss Manners - every gal has one. Let me introduce you to the Internet, the Roman Colosseum for gladiatorial bloggers, commentators, armchair pundits and columnists to duke it out for the attention of the wandering websurfer's eye. On this magical Net of the Inter, street cred comes from two aspects: how easy your website is to find and how easy it is to read.

The only difference between a good critic and a bad critic is their command of the English language. Readers take me seriously because I make sure that my reviews are well-written, my points are clearly established, and that some goofball humour is squeezed in for good measure. I have street-cred because I care deeply about what I do and what I read and I put that across in my writing. Not to toot my horn - who am I kidding? I love my horn! *toot! toot!* - but my readers respond to the passion I put forward in my writing and in return, keep reading. Do I always agree with all the opinions of my other awesome blogger friends like Wendy the SuperLibrarian or Katiebabs? No - but I still respect their opinions because they express them in an articulate manner.

To continue:

I sincerely hope that when you begin to submit the 120K word fantasy novel you just finished to editors and/or agents, that they don’t see each of your pithy comments and realize what a risk you could be as a client. Being media-genic is a large portion of marketing one’s self as a writer and your history of negativity could hamper those efforts, particularly since it’s so easy to match your writer-self ... to this animated character of AnimeJune who spews negativity like a fountain.

History of negativity? I have a history of negativity? Let's do some math, shall we?

I shall count my positive reviews as anything meriting a B- or higher. C+ or lower are my negative reviews.

Positive Reviews: 102 - 72%
Negative Reviews: 39 - 28%

In the words of Oscar Wilde, "Epic Math FAIL." So it turns out I'm not a spewing fountain of negativity so much as a leaky drainpipe of negativity. Tomato-Tomahto, I guess.

Anyhow, when or if agents, publishers, or editors choose to come to my blog, it's entirely possible they might miss the obvious fact that I'm a festering pustule on the ass of literary commentary and instead notice that I make an obvious effort to make my reviews elucidating, witty, and fun to read (~*toot! toot!*~).

But thank you for taking the time out of your day to rap my e-knuckles with your little e-ruler.

HAVE A NICE DAY!