Stop the GR Bullies on In-Fighting

Stop the GR Bullies are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. They seem to have run out of instances of authors supposedly being bullied, and are now gleefully reporting that the GR “bullies” are turning on each other.  This idea is preposterous, because it’s based on the notion that the “bullies” are part of some conspiracy, all working together with the sole purpose to identify, target and attack poor authors. As though Kat Kennedy, The Holy Terror, Ridley, Lucy, Archer and Lissa et al. are some sort of homogenous group (or readersheep, as Stacia Kane so brilliantly put it). Frankly, it’s just bullshit. The reason I’m bringing it up is because STGRB take any sign of discord amongst these people as “cracks”, as though they’re achieving some kind of victory and are slowly bringing the group down. This is just more bullshit.

The TRUTH – which I know STGRB aren’t exactly on good terms with, but they need to face it – the TRUTH is, there is no organised, homogenous “group” or “gang”. There is a community of book bloggers and reviewers, sure. Many of them are friends, some run blogs together and some are even in relationships. That does not mean they agree with each other about everything. That does not mean they act together as a group or form and speak the same opinions about everything. Of course sometimes they may, say, add certain books at the same time, to similar shelves (eg: “to read”, “not in this life” or “I’d rather listen to Mariah Carey”), but this isn’t the result of some organised, premeditated action. It’s because Goodreads is a social networking site, and when your friend makes a comment or shelves a book, it shows up on your homepage. If your curiousity is piqued, you look further into it and may find you agree with your friend. You, as an individual, may then make a comment or shelve a book based on your own opinion. That’s right, folks, there is no conspiracy. It’s just freaking social networking.

But I want to point out that while some of the targeted reviewers are friends, not all of them are. OK, they may have shelves in common, because they’ve witnessed the same events (read: author meltdowns) or have mutual friends and have come across the same information. But just because you (I’m looking at you, STGRB) lump them together as “bullies”, it does not mean they are cohorts or even friends. It doesn’t mean they even like each other.

Now, it’s hard to provide evidence about the fact that there’s no conspiracy, because, well, when something doesn’t exist, it leaves no evidence. But anyone can see, for instance, that Ridley is not friends with Kat Kennedy or Archer on Goodreads – and wasn’t before STGRB appeared to accuse them of working together. And you need only look at the “evidence” provided by STGRB themselves to see that this is by no means a homogenous group. In fact, despite STGRB suggesting this shows they’re winning in some way, all it shows is just how wrong they are. It completely undermines their own assertion that these people are a gang of bullies who work together to target authors. It doesn’t prove they’re turning against each other – it simply shows they never were “together” in the first place, not in the sense that STGRB implies.

In closing, Conspiracy Keanu has something to say…

Advertisements

22 Comments on “Stop the GR Bullies on In-Fighting”

  1. Renee.M says:

    I think her behavior is becoming more disturbing as time goes on (imagine that). She is obsessed with certain reviewers. It started with Wendy but she has clearly moved on to people like Kat and Ridley. The amount of work that she puts in following the Twitter accounts, blogs, google alerts, and everything else must take hours a day. Plus, maintaining the fake personalities of her sockpuppets so that they seem like real people, has to be exhausting.

    Even if she clearly lives in her own fantasy world of hers, she is harming real people not just characters. It is not a game, or funny like she thinks.

    • You’re right. Doesn’t she have anything better to do?! And it’s hurting people, unfortunately.

      • There’s a lot of sexist imagery there, too. “Claws”—as in catfight, winkwink nudgenudge, aside from the fact that apparently women are not allowed to argue with one another. I find that especially offensive, because apparently once another woman disagrees with them, they leap eagerly into the fray, so certain are ‘they’ of having social backing for being the ‘good’ woman who only argues when it’s against those bad, bad, other women. Seems like the site owner there has been seething with rage at imagined slights and slurs her whole misbegotten life.

        • Stop the GR Bullies is full to the brim with implicit (and sometimes explicit) misogyny. Coming from the same people (or person) that’s posted a group of women’s personal details all in one place, and who have then accused one of those woman of lying about the subsequent real-life harassment she’s faced – it’s very, very disturbing.

          • Dammit, that long comment I just left was supposed to go here.

            The bullies remind me of those women who eagerly blame women for whatever befalls them, though they protest that lookie, they did condemn the man or men who attacked them. (When said condemnation is pro forma and without teeth.) I just had a tangle with one such woman, who piously condemned violence against women and girls but then said, basically, if only the silly little tramps wouldn’t get molested (by their dads!) or meet guys online they wouldn’t get kidnapped, raped, and buried alive in barrels with their dead best friends. If only those women would take their advice and be good, meek, obedient, humbled, quiet, and too scared to leave their houses or argue with women who give that kind of shitty advice……

            I’m hours past my bedtime so if any of this makes sense I’ll be glad.

            • You make perfect sense! Victim blaming is absolutely disgusting. And Stop the GR Bullies are guilty of it – their attitude in general is the bullies “brought this on themselves” and it’s “giving them a taste of their own medicine”. Except the “bullies” in question NEVER posted personal information or accused authors of being, for example, negligent mothers or alcoholics. Then they turn around and say Lucy must be lying when she says she’s received threatening phone calls as a result of their site. It’s reprehensible.

              • Yeah, there’s no logic there at all. There’s no honesty. None of the reviewers has done anything but criticize books in a very witty and sometimes extremely snarky way—-or criticize really bad author behavior, where they have tantrums and whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine about how meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannn the so-called ‘bullies’ are. Except they’re being mean at all. With the exception of that twit who wrote the horribly incredibly obviously racist book, these are all fairly young women, right?

                I have a BF who’s older than me—quite the accomplishment!—-and she’s been a nurse thirty six years. So you can imagine how ancient we both are. But she’s been dealing with this ongoing situation at her job, where people with much less seniority than her define her seniority rights—earned, mind you, by working incredibly hard for more than twice as long as most of them——as being unfair to them. Why? Because she gets to pick her vacations first, a hard and fast privilege earned by long years and decades at the job. The person closest to her in time at that job still has twenty years less than her. They’re twenty and thirty years younger than her. Some of the people whining and moaning about this—to her face, sometimes——are only as old as the period she’s worked at this one job.

                And their idea of fairness is that they want to be unfair to other people in order to get what they want, with no concern for what other people have earned. I mean, this is so astonishing to me I could write that hundreds of times and it wouldn’t sink in. (That’s how my parents raised me as well. If you have a job, for example, you have earned your place in society and are as good as the richest person out there, if you respect that job and work your ass off to do the best job you can. In fact, I think my dad hated rich people because as he said, “There’s no gettin’ that rich honestly.” Can I put parentheses inside parentheses? Because this is a subject I can go on about for days.)

                So what they want is to deny people their rights in order to, basically, claim them for themselves. And that long description doesn’t begin to describe how truly fucked up their world view is. Who cares about earning shit, amirite? It’s not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrr, because fair is defined as: what they want. And logical, reasonable consideration of fair is defined as: what I want, dammit. What benefits me. (It never gets old! They what?! Ahem.) They want to take away peoples’ rights—-that have been earned—–in order to, effectively, steal those rights.

                And they are angry that they’re not getting their way. They are very angry, and my friend has gotten to the point where she bought a notebook to document some of the verging-on-threats-stuff she’s been hearing. The concept of earning something is completely beyond them. I’ve been hearing about this vacation war for weeks now and it never gets old because it’s so utterly incomprehensible to me.

                I think it’s the same mindset. God, I’m old.

                • Oh, dear, sorry for the italics abuse. If you can picture me reading that aloud, my voice would be getting all astonished and squeaky, and then I still managed to forget “But…but….false equivalency, bitchez!”

                • I feel for your friend. That sucks. I agree, too many people now think they are entitled to, well, everything. It’s the same mindset that causes speshul snowflakes to be shocked that people don’t actually like their book or dare to criticise it. Stacia Kane captured this brilliantly in her Auntie Speshul Snowflake posts!

  2. Archer says:

    Apparently I had a meltdown…

    News to me lol

    • Are you a jealous, wannabe writer too? Anna Karenina (and her “sockpuppets”) apparently are.

    • Any sign of disagreement is one of impending doom and horrible rage and broken relationships and…doom, did I mention doom? They have a real freak out at the sight of women disagreeing. It’s fascinating to me.

      • While Archer is a man, Stop the GR Bullies do lump him together with Kat and Stephanie, who he blogs with, and I agree the situation in general can be viewed as an attack on women.

        • Archer says:

          It’s fine. I’m used to being misgendered in the eyes of the book community. It happens quite a lot lol

        • Yeah, I think I recently discovered that(about Archer). Given that this stuff seems to swirl around female Mary Sues, female authors (some of whom are apparently quite the Good Girls), Bad Boys, very obvious slut shaming in reviews, plots, and characters, and a lot of behavior policing—–the efforts by the STGRBs to label themselves as the ones beset by bullies would be almost amusing. The books seem all seem to have the Bad Boy Character That Only Our Bland Heroine Can Tame. (Quite a few of the books in question are former fanfic that rip off Twihard.) I’d say the big diff that strikes me between the reviewers and the STGRBs (Christ, is that fucking acronym annoying, because it’s so fucking long and I have to stop and think every frickin’ time) is that the reviews often seem to be better written and more imaginative than the books. We’re dealing with some truly crappy writers, and some truly entertaining reviewers. The resentment the buliies feel for women like Kat and Wendy and Ridley and the Holy Terror—-women who speak their mind sarcastically, wittily, and without self censorship—–is especially obvious in the way the initial posts targeted these women for their supposed failures as women, wives, and mothers. The bullies or their supporters have repeatedly denied that their exposure of these women will cause them any harm, as if the only villains that exist are uppity women who refuse to behave themselves.

          It’s fascinating.

          • Ginmar, you make an excellent point regarding the fact that the criticisms leveled at the “bullies” were often against their adequacy as women. And I totally agree that it’s about a crappy writer who is butthurt that these women are more popular and can write better than her – even if she is deluded enough to think that’s not what it’s about.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s