![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oh, humanity
Jun. 22nd, 2019 11:08 amYou know what we need? Book drama. That is a link to the Buzzfeed News ...thing... about Kathleen Hale where she's sorta (kinda) interviewed about her new book, which starts with her Guardian article in which she stalks a blogger and reveals that she doesn't understand the concept of catfishing. When people heard about that book, they wanted to know who the fuck would green-light it and also had Hale learned anything in the years since. The answers to those questions: Grove and of course no.
Anyway, the article is very, very long. Or maybe it just felt like it was very, very long because the author does some impressive back bends in trying not to say anything that might set Hale off or offend anyone and yet still keeps repeating that Hale didn't kill anyone, she just wrote one bad article. Which isn't remotely true beyond the lack of murder thing. People weren't so much mad about the article as they were about the fact that she admitted to some hardcore stalking and then could not understand why people were not joining her in "tee hee, so funny and relatable right" laughter. She STILL does not get this, btw. She's not sorry and is instead sure that the fallout from her Guardian article is some misogynistic takedown or something instead of people being fucking horrified at her actions and then her inability to see what she'd done wrong.
I have so many thoughts about this, and I know I've ranted about the initial story and even about her being able to publish this essay collection in the first place so we'll skip to the new part. Which is that when reading the Buzzfeed article, I had to keep scrolling down to the comments even though I know I shouldn't have, because I kept feeling like I was losing my mind the way certain things were being downplayed. And while in comment HELL, people kept having a very strange takeaway from the article:
They were outraged that you can leave reviews for books you haven't finished. Some kept going on about books that weren't even out yet but never (that I saw) clarified whether they realized that ARCs are a thing or not. Because if you mean reviewing a book before it's published but ARCs are circulating then you're a GD idiot. If you mean reviewing a book that might not even be written yet (where are you, Dresden novel) then yeah, I get that's stupid as hell.
But back to the thinking that one can't review a book one hasn't finished: Bitch, are you kidding me? If a book makes it to my DNF shelf (called "I just can't do it, Captain!" because why use normal tags) that is a fucking review right there. I rarely intentionally DNF a book so if it's bad enough that I have to walk away, you're damn right I'm going to say something. My inability to finish your work means I think it's so horrible that it's not worth my time. That's a review, dammit.
Sadly, Mums and I do not fully see eye-to-eye on this which is weird. She seems okay with the general idea but wants a notation at the start of the review that the reviewer did not finish the book. I don't care if it comes at the end or you rely on me to read your (hopefully festively fun) tags, just mention it somewhere. Which isn't usually a problem because people generally mention the fact that they just couldn't power through any more of a terrible book.
But really, you read a story about a woman who stalks another and then shows no remorse even years later (to say nothing of the obvious ploys for sympathy deployed throughout) and your takeaway is that people shouldn't leave reviews for books they haven't finished?
Head, meet desk.
Anyway, the article is very, very long. Or maybe it just felt like it was very, very long because the author does some impressive back bends in trying not to say anything that might set Hale off or offend anyone and yet still keeps repeating that Hale didn't kill anyone, she just wrote one bad article. Which isn't remotely true beyond the lack of murder thing. People weren't so much mad about the article as they were about the fact that she admitted to some hardcore stalking and then could not understand why people were not joining her in "tee hee, so funny and relatable right" laughter. She STILL does not get this, btw. She's not sorry and is instead sure that the fallout from her Guardian article is some misogynistic takedown or something instead of people being fucking horrified at her actions and then her inability to see what she'd done wrong.
I have so many thoughts about this, and I know I've ranted about the initial story and even about her being able to publish this essay collection in the first place so we'll skip to the new part. Which is that when reading the Buzzfeed article, I had to keep scrolling down to the comments even though I know I shouldn't have, because I kept feeling like I was losing my mind the way certain things were being downplayed. And while in comment HELL, people kept having a very strange takeaway from the article:
They were outraged that you can leave reviews for books you haven't finished. Some kept going on about books that weren't even out yet but never (that I saw) clarified whether they realized that ARCs are a thing or not. Because if you mean reviewing a book before it's published but ARCs are circulating then you're a GD idiot. If you mean reviewing a book that might not even be written yet (where are you, Dresden novel) then yeah, I get that's stupid as hell.
But back to the thinking that one can't review a book one hasn't finished: Bitch, are you kidding me? If a book makes it to my DNF shelf (called "I just can't do it, Captain!" because why use normal tags) that is a fucking review right there. I rarely intentionally DNF a book so if it's bad enough that I have to walk away, you're damn right I'm going to say something. My inability to finish your work means I think it's so horrible that it's not worth my time. That's a review, dammit.
Sadly, Mums and I do not fully see eye-to-eye on this which is weird. She seems okay with the general idea but wants a notation at the start of the review that the reviewer did not finish the book. I don't care if it comes at the end or you rely on me to read your (hopefully festively fun) tags, just mention it somewhere. Which isn't usually a problem because people generally mention the fact that they just couldn't power through any more of a terrible book.
But really, you read a story about a woman who stalks another and then shows no remorse even years later (to say nothing of the obvious ploys for sympathy deployed throughout) and your takeaway is that people shouldn't leave reviews for books they haven't finished?
Head, meet desk.