After the long-ass review, I decided to see what other people were saying about the book on Goodreads. I found some hilarious stuff.
For starters, far as I can tell, my review is the first one that shows up, and it’s at the top of page 2 of reviews. So you can’t even read a review by someone who READ THE MOTHERFUCKING BOOK until you go to the second page.
Part of this is because of the horribality of gif reviews:
In what I can only assume is an attempt to mimic Tumblr, Goodreads allows gif reviews. They’re fucking obnoxious. One gif, MAYBE two? Fine. But a hodgepodge of gifs with text that goes “I’m all like [gif] and then [gif] but THEN [gif]” is stupid. It’s like watching a Family Guy episode develop in someone’s head who thinks backwards, one non-sequitur at a time, instead of having any semblance of a story with a bunch of off-course tangents added in later. I try to be open-minded about new forms, but this…I don’t think I can get behind it, especially because it occupies a ton of vertical real-estate, more than a plain text review, meaning someone only sees the first few lines of an actually written review whereas they might see 6 gifs in a gif review. How does that make any fucking sense?
I’m sorry that words can’t describe your fury, but thanks for using words anyway?
Before looking through reviews for this book, I didn’t realize how many GR reviewers were amateur attorneys! Good for them! What an educated group! Though…I’m no Lance Ito, but I think to get in trouble for profiting from a crime, you’d have to be convicted of that crime? And…I feel compelled to make a weird point here.
Is the law about not profiting off a crime (by writing a book, for example), designed to, what, keep people from committing crimes for the purpose of having something to write about? And if you look into it, these Son of Sam laws have been successfully contested many times. While the original law was ruled unconstitutional, some states have laws regarding the ability of victims to sue perpetrators or for victims’ advocacy groups to go after perpetrators who are set to make a fair amount of money from media based on their crimes in civil court. I can sort of see not wanting to give Charles Manson tens of thousands of dollars for the rights to make a movie. But on the other hand, I suppose I see a very big difference between selling the rights to a story, doing nothing further other than saying ok, versus writing something up in a digestible format.
I saw a gif thread of Citizen Kane. I give the movie two stars.
Also, pet peeve: there is a correct number of dots when you use ellipses. It is three. When you’re indicating that you’re trailing off, it’s always three, no spaces before or after. If it indicates omission in a quote, it’s three when in the middle of a sentence, four if it’s at the end. More to the point, it’s NEVER FIVE with a fuckin’ space at the end. It’s never that. Not only is this an error, it’s not even close. Ellipses are not meant to indicate an amount of time passing by adding more dots. That’s not a thing.
It’s a sad state when not reading a book is taking a stand. Seriously? I didn’t read Trump’s book(s), so I guess I’m also a brave soldier in the battle of…stuff. But wait, I didn’t read Trevor Noah’s book either! So I’m a racist who stands with people who didn’t read that book, and an anti-Trump guy who stands with people who didn’t read that book.
C’mon, chum. If you’re scared to post a review because you think the author might see it and have something to say about it, then don’t. That’s pretty simple. It might take a modicum of courage to say something you really believe now and then. You might have to deal with someone who disagrees with you. What a tragedy! And what’s easier, for an author to ignore a shitty review, or for you to go ahead and not write it?
I see this one a lot too, reviews are for readers, not authors. Sounds like justification for being a dick. It’s not the person who wrote the review that has to answer for it, it’s the fault of the author for seeing it. Seems legit. I just love how these reviewers with like 5 friends on Goodreads (I count myself in that group) talk about the vast importance of their great works. Like a review with 6 gifs is the same work as writing a novel (I REALLY can’t get over this gif thing).
Seems like stretching the definition of “unsafe.” Hasn’t someone confronted real life consequences based on stuff from EVERY SITE!? Does nobody see the irony in using a Mean Girls gif to make a moral point about dickish behavior?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if people were actually afraid to post reviews on Goodreads, wouldn’t this book, which was written by one of the few people who confronted her reviewer, have ZERO reviews? At this point, if you give this book a crappy review, aren’t you sort of asking for trouble? If that was genuinely fearful, I have a very easy solution.
Is that flipping the script or watching a different movie? What if she was a murderous toad robot from the future with shoulder missiles? I agree, a guy probably would be taken more seriously as a stalker, but arguing that there’s a double-standard here isn’t a good argument for punishing someone more. And the appeal to the personal is also stupid. I don’t think a drunk driver who kills someone should get the chair. But if it was someone I knew personally, I would obviously have a less objective view of it. So, again, are we talking about a more accurate view of the situation or a less objective one? There’s also a huge difference between saying that what Hale did was okay and just walking away from it, not calling her out, as we’re all so fond of saying.
Another theme, that the book is a hilarious joke. I guess because of the title.
I don’t think Hale is joking at all. You’d know that if you read it. Lots of reviews are based on Hale’s perceived intent, which seems to be based entirely on reading the title. These Goodreads fuckers, man. You’d think a site populated by people reading and talking about books would involve more…….. . . … .. . .. … .. . . .. ….reading.