Screenshot of an author's take on the now-with-publishing-deal-to-crow-about-the-stalking writer who stalked a reviewer in real life at home and at work.  (not naming to avoid promoting or improving search engine standings but shows in screenshot).

As if, somehow, stalking is not doing harm. As if confronting someone could never lead to harm. As if the victim deciding to retreat from reviewing is not harm.

Silencing harms. Stalking harms. Being made afraid is harm. Victim did not set out to make writer's life miserable -- as if that excuses stalking; victim reviewed writer's book.

...in effect that we should all read it before judging.

(Source: http://www.bustle.com/p/author-kathleen-hale-admitted-to-stalking-a-goodreads-user-now-she-has-a-book-deal-about-it-15649240 , last paragraph)

Huh? WTF? Are they offering refunds if after reading it we still think the stalker detailing their crime in this book is a stalker?

What a load of marketing to get people to buy the book.

Next paycheck I'm making another donation of the book's price to http://victimsofcrime.org/about-us/support-our-work  -- mentioning the #HaleNo hashtag and in honor of Blythe.

I'm only boycotting this book.  I refuse to blame all of publisher Grove's authors for this stalker crap.  

I made this tweet today.

I almost never use Twitter other than during Deweys 24 Hour Readathon.  But #HaleNo is worth a look.

...the money better spent as a donation at http://victimsofcrime.org/about-us/support-our-work 

Help with stalking:  http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-information