Author review-bombs peers!

That must have been before my time.

 

Some of the things I would do if I were in her position:

1. Write a personal letter of apology to each of the authors I undermined.

2. Ask them what I may be able to do to make amends.

3. Do the things they ask of me to the best of my ability.

4. Do only one interview where I apologize.

5. State that 90% of royalties from my book, if I was forgiven and it became published, will go to some fund for writers or for some other cause.

6. Swear to never do it again.

I think these steps and perhaps others would be the first on the road to redemption for her.

 

Here is a recent interview with the author. It seems like she did suffer psychosis. She also targeted people of colour.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/author-cait-corrain-who-review-bombed-writers-of-color-im-not-racist

 

As said, she makes it difficult.
Note to self: When explaining wrong-doing, it is always best to give an exhaustive list of things that don't excuse such behaviour.
Second note to self: When apologising for causing harm to others, always make reference to the greater harm to myself.
Third note to self: When apologising for causing harm to others, maybe leave it a little while before emerging as champion for those others.

 

she'll probably get back to that dream sooner or later.
change her name to separate herself from all the controversy.

Theres an author who writes murder mysteries. she herself murdered her best friend's family and was institutionalized i believe, for most of her teen and early adult life.
got out, and now she writes under a pseudonym.

 

The way I feel someday when I wake up, I make Methuselah look like a youngen

 

Blame it on everything but oneself.

 

Yeah, this is the interview in question.

Like Moose, I’m skeptical. The review-bombing scheme was fairly involved, and so was the attempted cover-up. To me, it all screams insecurity over her own book leading her to try and sabotage the competition.

 

When I suffered my episode I could barely read. So yeah doing some scheme like this in such a way...
Maybe she is being less than truthful about things.
Though, I can't really say, episodes can be very different.

Something that caught my eye in the interview was how she wanted to open a discussion about mental health. Like she was deflecting.

 

that and her ending sentiment of "publishers need to do more to uplift authors of color"


while I agree with the sentiment... it did sound like she was trying to pass the buck

 

The only thing that should matter about an author, is the quality of their work.

 

i agree... but unfortunately, its not like that

 

Oh well. If society can forgive murderers after ten years of imprisonment, perhaps society can forgive this after... 5 years worth of writing?

 

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I am inclined to give compassion to people when something bad happens to them ... that isn't their own fault. A mugging, an assault, burglary -- something like that.

This woman brought it all on herself, and then tried to blame it on anything and everything except her own stupidity. I have no sympathy whatsoever. Sorry!

Now, I'm sure some people will say, "Well, Rath, you gotta get off your high horse, son--" NO. Should any of us lower our standards, just so this lying POS can get a free ride, while the rest of us work our butts off for years, and get there honestly?

Sorry!

 

Another fun tidbit: in the interview she states that she wants to apologize to all the author affected by her negative reviews, but she's blocked and doesn't know how to reach them. Turns out at least one author hadn't blocked her and hadn't received an apology, so it shows how much effort she went into it.

 

A couple of things I'll finish with.

Her conduct was reprehensible. Unequivocally. Within it, I also see a human tragedy, of sorts (no-one died?). Sure she can write under a pseudonym, get herself back to where she was. New agent with a new publishing deal with a new publishing house. All of us here know how easy they are to get.

The interview was dreadful, compounding the first transgression. It's like she took advice from a lawyer when she needed a wise friend.

When talking to people about bad things they've done, they will often mention a bunch of things, drugs, alcohol, mental health, disability, stress, whatever suits the circumstances. They will categorically state that those things neither justify nor explain their behaviour. In the interview, she mentions a lot of things that she explicitly says aren't the cause of her behaviour. So why mention them? Because, subtext, they are presented as plausible explanations with built-in deniability, a not so subtle attempt to paint herself as victim of that whole range of circumstances. The interview should have challenged that. If it's not those things, then let's not waste time talking about them and talk instead about the actual reasons she did what she did. Her technique is exactly that thing of telling someone not to think about an elephant in their bed. What about the deliberate, nasty strategy to promote her own book? Hardly mentioned, if I remember the interview correctly.

To add insult to injury, she then mentions race bias in publishing houses as a means of deflecting attention from the circumstance (could it really be coincidence) that her targets were predominantly non-white authors. This is a pathetic attempt to push herself forward as someone of relevance in the publishing world. It is so poorly judged that it is painful to read. There's no honest contrition in the entire thing.

All told, I can't see this having anything less than a disastrous impact on her writing career, though the notoriety could get her a few gigs on talk shows with less that robust hosts.

These kinds of things are, I guess, a big deal for those of us honestly trying our best. The whole thing does put me in mind of the end of that art heist movie with Pierce Brosnan and Renee Russo when the Denis Leary character explains exactly why he doesn't care enough to bring them to justice. Just for perspective.

 

I'd just like to say how amused I am by this.

Just wondering: is this the same kind of thinking as "Sovereign Citizens"? I haven't yet come across anyone claiming to be a "Sovereign Citizen" in real life, but I've read about them now and then. They're the kind that try to pull a fast one by claiming "I am not a citizen of this country, therefore your rules don't apply to me! Ha ha ha ha!" =P

(But of course, once they renounce their citizenship, they also renounce that citizenship's protections. They're basically outlaws. So, theoretically, anyone can do anything to them and get away with it. Not recommending that, of course - that's why I said 'theoretically')

 

Was he a sailor moon?

 

*raises eyebrow*

You may call me thick if you like (even "as thick as a yard of lard"), but ... what the heck is a "star seed"? I'm confused.

 

I believe it's a Native American term for some kind of spiritual person. Also a song by Our Lady Peace.

Spoiler: Click it!

Here's what I just dug up about it:

• Starseeds are individuals who come from different planets, stars, and realms with the goal of healing humanity and encouraging spiritual growth.
• Starseeds are often intrigued by the stars, astronomy, and astrology. They might feel like they belong somewhere beyond Earth and are usually very empathetic and intuitive.
• There are various types of Starseeds, including Sirian, Pleiadian, and Orion. Each hails from a different place in the universe and may have slightly different traits and goals.

 

*googles the term, and finds ...*

... I see. Possibly through the use of mushrooms or other hallucinogenic drugs, I presume? Also see the obligatory wiki-article.

They're also known as "indigo children", which the wiki-article calls a "pseudoscientific" term. Personally, I prefer calling anyone who uses this term a "full-blown wackaloon".

If your child has learning difficulties or disabilities, don't label them "indigo children" or "star children". Please consider pediatric treatment or a psychiatric diagnosis. Life's hard enough for them, even without their parents denying them the chance of getting help.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. I know pediatricians and psychologists might be too expensive for some people. Perhaps government departments might be able to help. But even if they can't, it's better than labelling one's own children.

Anyway, sorry to rant and digress. Back to our usual programming