*sigh* ... I get so sick of the "...and that their purpose is to 'help the author improve', and "'helping' the author's 'writing skill' which of course is not their purpose at all..."
Certainly, an author can solicit that from beta readers if they choose to use those before publishing. Customer product opinions of books published, nothing to do with author needs.
Because she had a conversation with a reviewer doesn't mean the reviewer's one star review was bullying (clearly she couldn't be bothered to look into common definitions of bullying that at least require repeated acts of harassment -- a single review is not a repeated act or if it is that's a sockpuppet issue that should be reported to review sites to yank the fake accounts while maybe/maybe-not also bullying).
I have no idea if the 1- star review was retaliatory or a form of harassment, but 100% not bullying unless a part of other acts of bullying not apparent from the review. Contacting the reviewer's employer and posting repeatedly about the reviewer, on the other hand, could very well be deceptive trade practice, suppression of consumer speech, harassment and even privacy violations.
She doesn't appear to have gazillions of reviews on AMZ, but most of them do appear to be positive rather than negative. Her defenders have been active, however, on the negative reviews. Ick, ick, ick.
It just isn't a 5-star/unit ratings scale if you can only use 4 of the 5 ratings with no 1-stars allowed.
Why do people keep saying that only certain star ratings in the scale can be used? I'm tired of hearing that from the let's-be-nice-and supportive-with-our-ratings contingent and from those with a material,connection to product being rated.
If goodreads or any other site only wants glowing book promotions with 4- and 5-star ratings, they can change to something like a new two unit rating scale of "loved it" and "really lived it" instead of a scale saying "out of 5."
Terrorists and terrorism? Puh.-lease. I'm not sure ISIS and other groups are recruiting and concentrating their efforts to destroy other nations and belief systems by going after historical fiction authors self-published books (certainly if not on best seller lists or otherwise getting public attention outside of the drama author tries to kick up).
Not that I put anything past terrorists. But, getting a single 1-star review from someone does not make that someone a terrorist or mean you are now a target of terrorism.
My impression, after a conversation with the reviewer in question via GR PM, is that originally he'd been having conversations with her via her blog, because of their mutual interest. Due to her clear bias, and questionable historical accuracy, and his being an academic in the field, I would not be surprised if there were points of strong disagreement. And perhaps things didn't fizzle out on a friendly note. That's just me giving her a bit of benefit of the doubt that perhaps things weren't entirely pleasant between then at the end.
However, it makes complete sense to me this person would be interested in reading her book, and in giving his 2 cents about it in a review. His review is on the content, it is not a personal attack. Even if his motives were not 100% unbiased regarding her personally.
Yeah, that comment about 1 star ratings only having malicious purpose was ridiculous. If that were the case then Amazon wouldn't allow it as an option. And we wouldn't have a 5 star rating system.
I'm sick to death of authors trying to train readers to only post 4 or 5 star reviews.
Even if there was a single incident personal attack ... oh sheesh am I sick of that being called bullying.
I just can't take calling it terrorism remotely seriously. Oh, I suppose a political book could upset a terrorist group...or a book by someone already on their hate list (ya know, religious leaders, heads of state, activists, reformers, etc.).
Gee, I wonder if priest thinks ★☆☆☆☆ is demonic possession on the review sites with a scale of 5 to 1 (where 1=best, #1, top, A-1, First Place, Gold Medal and 5=worst, bottom, lowest grade, no medal)?
I'm in 100% agreement. And I have complete confidence in Ms M's expertise in this area. If she says it's not historically accurate, it's not.
And if you read more into this, and things Ms. Vidal says, it's obvious she has an agenda to re-paint Marie-Antoinette as a Catholic martyr. Which is why she's not going the "Eh, get over it, it's FICTION" route, but is determined to stand on her claims of historical accuracy.
One of the AMZ comments posted by Ms. M. included a quote about one-star reviewers being possessed by demons or some such nonsense "and I was told this by a priest." But now those comments aren't loading when I go back to quote it, so I'm wondering if Ms. M's review has been removed???? AMZ is so fucked up. . . . .Oh, it came back. Here's the quote:
The Just-About-Average Ms. M1 month ago
Report abuse
Folks, you probably should just ignore my review of this book and the others by this author, since I cannot be trusted, and apparently neither can another reviewer who doesn't care much for her work:
"I have come to the conclusion that their attacks have less to do with my actual writing and more to do with some form of either mental illness or diabolical possession or both. That is what a priest friend wrote to me."
I wonder what that priest's religion's official stance is on that? (Amusing myself thinking of The Vatican issuing an edict or papal bull that rules anything about online consumer reviews much less ruling that those leaving 1-star ratings are possessed -- hmmm, maybe a good writing prompt for her next book?)
Bullying, terrorism, demonic possession, using a legitimate choice on a rating scale ... doesn't sound like she's the brightest bulb in the box or has enough sense to be capable of decent research.
Yeah, that was one of the comments she made on her now deleted blog post. It's hilarious, some priest out there diagnosing demon possession through the claims of a third party regarding things posted on the internet.
Well, not just heard-about-through-a-third-party -- after all, he could clearly see the 1-star rating and since he claims 1-star ratings are sufficient proof of demonic possession ...
*ack* I can see priests and other religious leaders preaching being supportive, nice, etc. Demonic possession proved by giving a 1-star rating is what I have trouble swallowing.
I wonder what that priest thinks of half star ratings? Is this now a thing where I need to add a BBA shelf for BBA who think reviewers are possessed?
I meant - Ms.Vidal apparently talked about this to some priest, I doubt this priest bothered to look at the reviews himself, just diagnosed based on her say so. LOL
"...Demonic possession proved by giving a 1-star rating is what I have trouble swallowing."
Well, I doubt that's how Ms. Vidal presented it to him. More likely it was more along the lines of "bullying, harassment, trying to ruin me, personal vendetta" blah, blah, blah.
My friend went around and told people to 'dance, monkeys, dance,' in real life one day. She spent the next day telling people they'd be surprised at how often people would dance...
IMO her biggest issue with these two reviewers is the fact that both of them are academics with expertise in this area. And both were able to knowledgeably point out the historical inaccuracies
As she clearly has an agenda that is dependent upon her claims of historical accuracy this puts her in a bind.
She can't hand wave away what they say as simply as opinion stemming from ignorance of the topic. Therefore in order to try to hold on to credence to her premise she has to find other excuses by which to try to discredit these reviews.
LOL, She might say "discredit because bullying, terrorism, demonic possession, ... " but I say "suppression of consumer speech" "attacking reviewers" and "attempting to manipulate the ratings" Zero understanding of the book review sites (doesn't even seem to grasp that when they have a 5-star rating scale it means there are five possible rating) and a really warped idea of terrorism, possession and bullying.
I have never had so much fun in years! Been doing battle with Ms. Speshul Snowflake and her fangurls since 2012, and it just keeps getting better.
I appreciate Alexandria's support, and the rest of you guys who can call out a BBA with lightning speed and sharp wit. And now this Awethor has no where to hide, at least in the book review world.
Now, I could be entirely wrong on this, and obviously I haven't been following this the way you have, but . . . .
It appears Ms. Vidal's agenda is the beatification/canonization of the widow Capet. She has apparently -- because I haven't read the book -- put forth her case for this.
I am not Roman Catholic, but I believe there is such a thing commonly known as "devil's advocate," which is the person (or persons?) assigned by the Church to investigate claims of miracles, etc., that are put forth to promote the potential sainthood of any given individual.
If Ms. Vidal does indeed have such an agenda, then she's going to be confronted with this kind of challenge **from the Church.** If she thinks a negative review from a reader, academically qualified or not, is going to be tough, what does she think the Church's investigation would be like?
That makes me think her claim that some priest told her reviewers who don't like the book must be possessed by demons is a baptismal font load of bullshit. Unless, of course, she is a member of some renegade Roman Catholic sect (I believe there are some) and this is a similarly renegade priest.
Excellent points. I think her story about what a priest said to her is likely either BS, or she's misrepresenting what was said, or it was said based upon her complete misrepresentation of reality.
Suspicious that she just said priest without mentioning priest of which religion or sect (possibly someone who just ordained their own self on line and set up their very own religion ... modern times are a bit weird about "priesthood" and maybe they think that stance will gain them a large congregation of speshul snowflakes who are against consumer rights?) -- I would expect if were a priest of a more recognized religion a more reasoning author would specify or that the priest's church would be preaching that demonic possession Kool-aid where she could link to the sermons.
The whole thing is ridiculous. It'd be like a GP diagnosing a brain tumor over what someone claims about someone else over something said on the internet.
As I understand it demonic possession is something only specialized priests can determine, and there are only a few of them, and only after extensive investigation which rules out any other explanation. And the Catholic Church is extremely reluctant to come to this diagnosis.
If it was said at all, which is questionable, it was a throwaway comment to a clearly distraught woman, no doubt simply meant to give her a bit of comfort and support, and nothing more.
I just meant that if the priest was a Catholic one, she probably should have said "Catholic priest" or "Roman Catholic priest." Other religions have priests. Not taking the demonic possession or terrorism seriously as applies to customer product opinions of her book; calling a star rating bullying ( without additional context where reviewer was continually harassing author in other ways) just mocks bully prevention efforts and demeans those who have been targeted by bullies.
Not taking it seriously that there's a priest of a church like The High Holy Temple of the Butthurt Speshul Snowflakes -- but, not ruling out that such a church could be established the way some folk go way over board interpreting anything that isn't a promotion for their commercial products as evil.
Certainly, an author can solicit that from beta readers if they choose to use those before publishing. Customer product opinions of books published, nothing to do with author needs.
Because she had a conversation with a reviewer doesn't mean the reviewer's one star review was bullying (clearly she couldn't be bothered to look into common definitions of bullying that at least require repeated acts of harassment -- a single review is not a repeated act or if it is that's a sockpuppet issue that should be reported to review sites to yank the fake accounts while maybe/maybe-not also bullying).
I have no idea if the 1- star review was retaliatory or a form of harassment, but 100% not bullying unless a part of other acts of bullying not apparent from the review. Contacting the reviewer's employer and posting repeatedly about the reviewer, on the other hand, could very well be deceptive trade practice, suppression of consumer speech, harassment and even privacy violations.
Why do people keep saying that only certain star ratings in the scale can be used? I'm tired of hearing that from the let's-be-nice-and supportive-with-our-ratings contingent and from those with a material,connection to product being rated.
If goodreads or any other site only wants glowing book promotions with 4- and 5-star ratings, they can change to something like a new two unit rating scale of "loved it" and "really lived it" instead of a scale saying "out of 5."
Not that I put anything past terrorists. But, getting a single 1-star review from someone does not make that someone a terrorist or mean you are now a target of terrorism.
However, it makes complete sense to me this person would be interested in reading her book, and in giving his 2 cents about it in a review. His review is on the content, it is not a personal attack. Even if his motives were not 100% unbiased regarding her personally.
I'm sick to death of authors trying to train readers to only post 4 or 5 star reviews.
I just can't take calling it terrorism remotely seriously. Oh, I suppose a political book could upset a terrorist group...or a book by someone already on their hate list (ya know, religious leaders, heads of state, activists, reformers, etc.).
And if you read more into this, and things Ms. Vidal says, it's obvious she has an agenda to re-paint Marie-Antoinette as a Catholic martyr. Which is why she's not going the "Eh, get over it, it's FICTION" route, but is determined to stand on her claims of historical accuracy.
The Just-About-Average Ms. M1 month ago
Report abuse
Folks, you probably should just ignore my review of this book and the others by this author, since I cannot be trusted, and apparently neither can another reviewer who doesn't care much for her work:
"I have come to the conclusion that their attacks have less to do with my actual writing and more to do with some form of either mental illness or diabolical possession or both. That is what a priest friend wrote to me."
Be warned!
Bullying, terrorism, demonic possession, using a legitimate choice on a rating scale ... doesn't sound like she's the brightest bulb in the box or has enough sense to be capable of decent research.
*ack* I can see priests and other religious leaders preaching being supportive, nice, etc. Demonic possession proved by giving a 1-star rating is what I have trouble swallowing.
I wonder what that priest thinks of half star ratings? Is this now a thing where I need to add a BBA shelf for BBA who think reviewers are possessed?
Roflmao. These twinkies are almost amusing.
Regardless, it was pretty hilarious.
Well, I doubt that's how Ms. Vidal presented it to him. More likely it was more along the lines of "bullying, harassment, trying to ruin me, personal vendetta" blah, blah, blah.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a6LdwP5qmcAJ:teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2017/12/trolls-on-internet-and-negative-reviews.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
As they say, the internet is forever.
As she clearly has an agenda that is dependent upon her claims of historical accuracy this puts her in a bind.
She can't hand wave away what they say as simply as opinion stemming from ignorance of the topic. Therefore in order to try to hold on to credence to her premise she has to find other excuses by which to try to discredit these reviews.
I have never had so much fun in years! Been doing battle with Ms. Speshul Snowflake and her fangurls since 2012, and it just keeps getting better.
I appreciate Alexandria's support, and the rest of you guys who can call out a BBA with lightning speed and sharp wit. And now this Awethor has no where to hide, at least in the book review world.
It appears Ms. Vidal's agenda is the beatification/canonization of the widow Capet. She has apparently -- because I haven't read the book -- put forth her case for this.
I am not Roman Catholic, but I believe there is such a thing commonly known as "devil's advocate," which is the person (or persons?) assigned by the Church to investigate claims of miracles, etc., that are put forth to promote the potential sainthood of any given individual.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devil%27s%20advocate
If Ms. Vidal does indeed have such an agenda, then she's going to be confronted with this kind of challenge **from the Church.** If she thinks a negative review from a reader, academically qualified or not, is going to be tough, what does she think the Church's investigation would be like?
That makes me think her claim that some priest told her reviewers who don't like the book must be possessed by demons is a baptismal font load of bullshit. Unless, of course, she is a member of some renegade Roman Catholic sect (I believe there are some) and this is a similarly renegade priest.
But again, I could be totally wrong.
As I understand it demonic possession is something only specialized priests can determine, and there are only a few of them, and only after extensive investigation which rules out any other explanation. And the Catholic Church is extremely reluctant to come to this diagnosis.
If it was said at all, which is questionable, it was a throwaway comment to a clearly distraught woman, no doubt simply meant to give her a bit of comfort and support, and nothing more.
It's certainly not worthy of taking seriously.
Not taking it seriously that there's a priest of a church like The High Holy Temple of the Butthurt Speshul Snowflakes -- but, not ruling out that such a church could be established the way some folk go way over board interpreting anything that isn't a promotion for their commercial products as evil.