Author Antics

[Mabinogia]

Come on, in his defense there is that ONE female writer above him! Damn women taking what should rightfully belong to the white man! Though thinking about it, it must really burn his britches that said female made more money off 7 books than he has off the half a million books he has his minions churning out in his dungeon on a weekly basis. 

I am so glad I am not a fan of his. What an out of touch moron. 

ETA: In case anyone thinks I was actually defending him, no, nope, not even one iota. There is no defense, and I really think he's just pissed that a woman beat him. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Mabinogia
clarification

[BlackberryJam]

So happy to have not read any of his books.

[DearEvette]

51 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Come on, in his defense there is that ONE female writer above him! Damn women taking what should rightfully belong to the white man!

Someone did an analysis of the USA Today bestseller list on the day he did that quote.  USA Today publishes a list with 150 spots.  About 50 of the spots were taken by white men, most of whom were over the age of 50 several of whom are dead.  James Patterson himself took up two spots.  Colleen Hoover apparently took 20! spots on the list all by herself.  Out of the people on the list, 9 were POC. 4 were WOC (one of whom was Viola Davis) and 5 were men. 

[MadyGirl1987]

It’s funny hearing that from James Patterson. I work in a library and can confirm that he is not hurting for money. His works take up three shelves in our mystery section and one in our regular fiction. Also, I have no respect for authors who use ghost writers and pass their work off as their own, although he doesn’t hide it at least and his ghostwriters get their name on the cover unlike others(sure Danielle Steel, you don’t use ghost writers for your 6-9 books a year).

[babyhouseman]

https://deadline.com/2022/06/james-patterson-white-men-racism-1235044554/

He apologized. I imagine he got a talking to.

[Tom Holmberg]

20 hours ago, babyhouseman said:

https://deadline.com/2022/06/james-patterson-white-men-racism-1235044554/

He apologized. I imagine he got a talking to.

And now he'll be able to publish more than his usual 10-12 books a month.  Hooray! 😈

[blackwing]

On 6/13/2022 at 7:44 PM, Annber03 said:

Reading up on the Patterson thing and yeeeeeeeeeeeah, I'm just gonna leave this tweet here:

Clive Cussler died over two years ago.  But the rest of the list... it's interesting to me that Stephanie Meyer is on this, she wrote the Twilight books and really not much else (I think), so wow, those three books were gold for her.  I'm kind of surprised that John Grisham isn't higher.

I have long disliked James Patterson for his use of co-authors.  I get it, an unknown struggling writer has a tough road to make it big.  If they sign with James Patterson and allow him to put his name on it, it's a guaranteed best seller.  I'm curious about 1) what percentage of the profits do they have to surrender to him, and 2) are they under some kind of contract which prevents them from releasing books under their own names individually?

Chris Grabenstein is a children's author whose great success is the Mr. Lemoncello's Library series.  But I believe before he made it big on his own, he was the "co-author" of the Treasure Hunters series of children's novels.  So I am curious as to how he was able to release books under his own individual name if he had already signed his publishing life away to James Patterson?  Maybe he was able to modify the contract.

Maxine Paetro is the co-author of the highly successful Women's Murder Club series.  I bet that if she released a new series under her own name, she would be successful.  But I've never seen a recent work.  I do have to believe that she is not allowed to.

It seems pretty obvious that Patterson likely doesn't write a single word of the multitudes of "his" books that he has on the shelves.  At best, he probably just outlines a story and lets the actual author do the writing and fill the rest in.  Or maybe for some he has zero involvement at all.

I understand that his brand guarantees sales.  But I would find the whole thing less unsavory if he made it clear that he doesn't write any of the books.  "Women's Murder Club #30" by Maxine Paetro from the House of James Patterson would probably sell just as much without claiming that he is the "world's most prolific author".

In order to be the "world's most prolific author" that implies that he actually writes the books, which he clearly does not.  It's the lie and deception that rubs me the wrong way.

When Tom Clancy's Op Center came out back in the 90s / 2000s (?) they made it very clear that he was not the author.  The books still sold because of his name.  When Clive Cussler started using multiple co-authors on his multiple series, it seemed obvious that he probably did not write the books.

Not sure why Patterson continues to insist that he is an actual co-author.  It'd be great if we could get more transparency on the process.

Edited June 17, 2022 by blackwing

[Ohiopirate02]

15 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Not sure why Patterson continues to insist that he is an actual co-author.  It'd be great if we could get more transparency on the process.

He does it to keep his books together on physical shelves (both bookstore and library) and on Amazon.  If the books were to be published under the co-author's name, then they would be spread out on the shelves and on different author pages online, and sales would go down. As a librarian, it is a pain in the ass when different books in the same series are on different shelves.  The average reader is not going to keep up with it, and we will eventually have to group them all together in their own spot so patrons can find the books.  Far easier to manage our records when all the Alex Cross books are under Patterson.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I believe this is the thread @DearEvette is referencing, very interesting:

This tweet:

Edited June 17, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[DearEvette]

Well dang.  I saw discussion about this on twitter this morning. 

Apparently it was announced two years ago that a romance author, Susan Meachan, had committed suicide, partly due to online harassment and bullying by other authors.

However, yesterday she posted on her facebook saying that she was really still alive and that the fake death notice was done by her family who felt she needed to step away.

WTF?  Who even does that?  Also I have never heard of her before today or ever read any of her work so I feel like a dispassionate bystander.  But man...

Here is an article about it.

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, DearEvette said:

Well dang.  I saw discussion about this on twitter this morning. 

Apparently it was announced two years ago that a romance author, Susan Meachan, had committed suicide, partly due to online harassment and bullying by other authors.

However, yesterday she posted on her facebook saying that she was really still alive and that the fake death notice was done by her family who felt she needed to step away.

WTF?  Who even does that?  Also I have never heard of her before today or ever read any of her work so I feel like a dispassionate bystander.  But man...

Here is an article about it.

That is all kinds of crazy.  😵

[OtterMommy]

17 hours ago, DearEvette said:

However, yesterday she posted on her facebook saying that she was really still alive and that the fake death notice was done by her family who felt she needed to step away.

I find it hard to believe that someone's faked death could have been done without the person who "fake died" being involved.  Just sayin'.

[OtterMommy]

The New York Times published a story about Susan Meachan today which is interesting (I'll link below, but I'm not sure if it is behind a paywall).  It sounds like she actually did try to commit suicide.  Her daughter found her in time to save her and Meachan's husband at that time told their daughter to post that Susan Meachan had died.

Faking a death* is just ridiculous and she should not have done it.  However, it's not as clear as someone or someones doing a really stupid thing.  Ms Meachan suffers from Bipolar disorder and her writing career was incredibly detrimental to her mental health. There is definitely a toxicity present in the Romance writing community.  It may not be everywhere, but it does exist.  While Meachan was a victim of it, she was also an active participant in it, which is now being blamed on her mental illness.

After reading this, my feelings are wavering.  On the one hand, I'm sympathetic towards Meachan because she clearly needed more help with her mental illness than she was getting.  She also did receive some "brutal" treatment from fans and other writers, which is just another inexcusable example of bad online behavior.

On the other hand, she did play into the toxicity--and, yes, her mental illness may have made it harder for her to recognize the toxicity for what it was, but still.  Also, SHE DECIDED TO COME BACK TO ROMANCE WRITING!

Look, Bipolar Disorder just doesn't "go away."  It can be treated and managed, but not cured.  And the online culture hasn't changed, so why would she think it isn't going to have the same effect now?  Plus, she is now facing even more hostility (probably more correct than toxic) over the whole fake death thing.

All I can say is...what a mess!

A Fake Death in Romancelandia

* By faking a death, I do not mean the suicide attempt.  I mean the decision afterwards to publicly say she was dead when she was not.  

 

[Guest]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:12 PM, OtterMommy said:

The New York Times published a story about Susan Meachan today which is interesting (I'll link below, but I'm not sure if it is behind a paywall).  It sounds like she actually did try to commit suicide.  Her daughter found her in time to save her and Meachan's husband at that time told their daughter to post that Susan Meachan had died.

Faking a death* is just ridiculous and she should not have done it.  However, it's not as clear as someone or someones doing a really stupid thing.  Ms Meachan suffers from Bipolar disorder and her writing career was incredibly detrimental to her mental health. There is definitely a toxicity present in the Romance writing community.  It may not be everywhere, but it does exist.  While Meachan was a victim of it, she was also an active participant in it, which is now being blamed on her mental illness.

After reading this, my feelings are wavering.  On the one hand, I'm sympathetic towards Meachan because she clearly needed more help with her mental illness than she was getting.  She also did receive some "brutal" treatment from fans and other writers, which is just another inexcusable example of bad online behavior.

On the other hand, she did play into the toxicity--and, yes, her mental illness may have made it harder for her to recognize the toxicity for what it was, but still.  Also, SHE DECIDED TO COME BACK TO ROMANCE WRITING!

Look, Bipolar Disorder just doesn't "go away."  It can be treated and managed, but not cured.  And the online culture hasn't changed, so why would she think it isn't going to have the same effect now?  Plus, she is now facing even more hostility (probably more correct than toxic) over the whole fake death thing.

All I can say is...what a mess!

A Fake Death in Romancelandia

* By faking a death, I do not mean the suicide attempt.  I mean the decision afterwards to publicly say she was dead when she was not.  

 

The article is behind a paywall for me. Did she address the donations that were made for her funeral and to get her final book published?

[OtterMommy]

6 hours ago, Dani said:

The article is behind a paywall for me. Did she address the donations that were made for her funeral and to get her final book published?

I just re-Read the article to check and it is kind of strange.  There are vague references to “financial donations” and it does say that some angry fans and other authors have reported her for cyber crimes.  However, for Meacham’s part, all it says is that she claims that she did not receive “substantial donations” and that she has given authorities access to her financial accounts.

I am guessing that the fact that so little is said about it may mean that it is under investigation?

[Guest]

15 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I just re-Read the article to check and it is kind of strange.  There are vague references to “financial donations” and it does say that some angry fans and other authors have reported her for cyber crimes.  However, for Meacham’s part, all it says is that she claims that she did not receive “substantial donations” and that she has given authorities access to her financial accounts.

I am guessing that the fact that so little is said about it may mean that it is under investigation?

Thank you. 

It’s bizarre but I can almost understand the initial announcement as an act of desperation from her family members. It’s the continued interaction by her family or (more likely) her posing as her family that is harder to come up with any benign explanation. 

The most generous interpretation I can think of is her family thought they were acting out of her best interests and then she choose to exploit the situation. Sounds like she really should be out of that world entirely because that’s just not healthy. 

[Anela]

On 6/13/2022 at 8:44 PM, Annber03 said:

Reading up on the Patterson thing and yeeeeeeeeeeeah, I'm just gonna leave this tweet here:

But I'm sorry, Patterson, you were busy saying something monumentally dumb, do go on...

LOL, that's great. I also got a good laugh from someone who said, "I hope his ghostwriter is already working on his apology." XD. 

My mum used to read his books, but I hardly read any of them, and now I'm glad. I hate it, whenever I walk into a bookstore, and see a wall of his books. 

I'm just here, because it was linked from the Harry Potter thread, about the movies. I used to want HBO to do a series, one season for each book. I thought that, when the movies first came out. Of course, now they're looking into it, when I have no interest in doing anything to help JK Rowling increase her wealth, since I've seen what she's financially supporting, as well as vocally, on twitter. Also other things that were discussed, when the game came out. 

[Anduin]

I'm a bit surprised that neither GRRM or Brandon Sanderson are on that list. GRRM should have all that TV money, and Sanderson had both Wheel of Time and a seriously good Kickstarter.

[BetterButter]

 

[Zella]

Every time an author does this or their author friends gang up on someone for them, all it does is ensure I will never read one of their books. It also significantly lessens the likelihood I will recommend them to patrons at the library where I work when I do readers' advisory requests. 

[MadyGirl1987]

Why do authors do this? It never changes any minds, and just bursts their image. Also; the fact that she keeps mentioning being a comedian gives me “it was just a joke, gosh! Can’t you take a joke?” vibes.

[Zella]

25 minutes ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Why do authors do this? It never changes any minds, and just bursts their image. Also; the fact that she keeps mentioning being a comedian gives me “it was just a joke, gosh! Can’t you take a joke?” vibes.

I hadn't realized until just now that this was the author's debut, and based on this going down with an ARC, the novel has been pulled (by what ended up being a vanity publisher). Karma, it's a bitch! 

Also apparently the author thinks another publisher will pick it up. 🙄

Edited June 3, 2023 by Zella

[DearEvette]

The hubris of people!  She is mad because one person gave her a 4-star review and therefore messed up her perfect five star average.  What the hell.  This ain't the Dean's List.  You aren't trying to graduate Summa cum laude.  And as people rightly pointed out, there are superb literary classics that don't have a perfect five star average.

What an idiot.

[Zella]

21 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

And as people rightly pointed out, there are superb literary classics that don't have a perfect five star average.

Other folks were also pointing out that if you don't want to look like you paid for all your reviews a 4-star one helps legitimize the reviews!  

I am fairly generous with 5 stars on Goodreads and also post a lot of 4-star reviews on there for books I've genuinely enjoyed. (3 stars is also positive from me.) If some author wanted to come at me for a 4-star review wherein I otherwise gushed about their book after identifying a nitpick, I would be so livid. 

[Irlandesa]

On 6/3/2023 at 5:20 PM, Zella said:

Other folks were also pointing out that if you don't want to look like you paid for all your reviews a 4-star one helps legitimize the reviews!  

That's exactly what I'd think if I saw a perfect 5-star average---all of the reviewers were either friends, family, or paid.

Unless the review count is really really low, I don't trust any book that doesn't have at least one 3 star DNF review, a sensible 4-star review, and a 1-star review that's either agenda based or comes with a review that sounds like they're talking about another book but didn't pay attention to where they were posting.

It's just the nature of Goodreads chaos.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

The reason why this pops up at least once a quarter is how Amazon's algorithm works and Amazon owns Goodreads and there is a possibility that GR ratings factor into the Amazon algorithm.  Amazon prioritizes the books rating when listing search results, so higher rated similar titles will appear before the book you want plus the sponsored posts.  It's a mess when you are looking for a specific book.  I am looking to purchase the kindle edition of a book in a series, so I type in the series name into Amazon and select looking in the Kindle store.  The book I want to buy which is the 4th book in the series is the 19th result when sorting by "featured."  

I was just curious and looked up my least favorite book to find in any catalog or database, It by Stephen King.  I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was the first result when searching the Kindle Store for It.  That may change in an hour though.  Authors are just trying to game the algorithm any way then can.  Amazon using GR ratings in the storefront algorithm has long been rumored in the book world, but Amazon has not confirmed this.  This leaves some authors and agents to believe that they do, and we see the latest author to flame out over a 4 star review. 

There's also some overlap with this and the fan fiction world.  I know some fan fiction websites discourage critical reviews which has led to a generation of writers who cannot handle constructive criticism of their work.  Even if the latest author bashing a 3 or 4 star review never published fan fiction, they may have been a part of a fandom where CC never happened.  

 

[Zella]

15 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Even if the latest author bashing a 3 or 4 star review never published fan fiction, they may have been a part of a fandom where CC never happened.  

 

And some authors/writers can be incredibly sensitive about criticism regardless of background. I took several creative writing classes in college, and there were always people floating around the classes who wanted you to respond like their mom did to their work instead of within the context of constructive criticism. They like the idea of being a writer more than the actual hard work of being a writer, which means having tough skin for a lot of rejection. 

When I work as a freelance editor, I almost always do a sample first. I frame it as "this is to see if I'm a good fit for you" but it is also totally from the standpoint that I want to see if they can handle constructive criticism. Because if they can't, they're in the wrong line of work, and I'm not wasting my time on them. And I'm actually a very polite editor who makes an effort to word my feedback in a way that is not inflammatory or hurtful. Authors who've made it to being published and having a national platform who can't handle constructive criticism have been done a real disservice. That or they bulldozed through anyone who tried to help. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Zella

[Ohiopirate02]

14 minutes ago, Zella said:

And some authors/writers can be incredibly sensitive about criticism regardless of background. I took several creative writing classes in college, and there were always people floating around the classes who wanted you to respond like their mom did to their work instead of within the context of constructive criticism. They like the idea of being a writer more than the actual hard work of being a writer, which means having tough skin for a lot of rejection. 

I am aware that not all sensitive authors came out of the fanfiction world and that not all authors who came out of the fanfiction world are sensitive to criticism.  I was just make an observation about the culture that surrounds fanfiction.  I used to read fanfiction as a young adult, but found an environment where the only acceptable criticism was fawning adoration was too cloying and frankly bullshit.  I need to be able to be critical about the stories I read, pointing out what worked for me and what did not also pointing out where the narrative or characterization can be improved, etc.  Constructive criticism is supportive, it means you do like what the author is doing for the most part.  You can never grow as a writer if you never hear anything critical.  I will agree that negative reviews serve little purpose for authors, but criticism does not always equal negative.  I save my scathing reviews and comments for my online book friends one one very specific website that while it is there for authors to read, they know better than to wade into the comment section.  

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I save my scathing reviews and comments for my online book friends one one very specific website that while it is there for authors to read, they know better than to wade into the comment section.  

Yes I've posted some really scathing reviews online in my time (on Goodreads), but it's never directed at the author. If they go looking for those reviews and get offended, that's their fault. 

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yes I've posted some really scathing reviews online in my time (on Goodreads), but it's never directed at the author. If they go looking for those reviews and get offended, that's their fault. 

I do take comfort in knowing the current author who's work I just cannot stand is not online at all.  No Twitter or Instagram accounts, she wouldn't be caught dead on TikTok, etc.  I can rant to my heart's content and she will never know.  

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I do take comfort in knowing the current author who's work I just cannot stand is not online at all.  No Twitter or Instagram accounts, she wouldn't be caught dead on TikTok, etc.  I can rant to my heart's content and she will never know.  

My most scathing reviews tend to be my longest because I provide lots of ammunition. If they stumble across one, they won't have any questions about why I disliked it. 😂😂😂😂

 

[Bethany]

An author I followed had a FB group that I ended up leaving because the person running it kept urging us to go to amazon and goodreads and leave 5 star super positive reviews each time a new book was released.  We weren't supposed to be honest we were supposed to help sell the books.  

There was no way I was going to post fake 5 star reviews!  

Edited June 5, 2023 by Bethany

[andromeda331]

Four Stars is pretty good. I usually go between three or four stars for my good reviews. It usually doesn't mean anything bad but I just always save Five Stars perfect, outstanding books or ones that blew me away.  She had a good review but is still complaining about it.

I've written scathing reviews which does make me nervous as I get closer to finishing the book I'm going to publish. It's not going to be fun to read negative reviews. But not everyone is going to like a book. Some are going to hate it and post reviews about it. And some books are just terrible. It's never directed at the author but just how much I disliked the book; plot, characters or problems I had with them. I'm sure Stephanie Meyers didn't like my review of Twilight. I really didn't like Bella or Edward or most of the Cullens. When you publish a book  (or put out art, movie, etc)people are going to tell you want they think of it.  

 

[Annber03]

Yeah, nobody likes hearing negative comments about something they put out there, understandably so - I still get nervous anytime I post some fic online and all that, so I totally get that fear in and of itself.

But there's a good way to handle that kind of situation, and a bad way. I would never dream of reacting the way some of the authors in this thread have acted, and if for whatever reason, I did act that way, my family and friends would be well within their rights to literally slap some sense into me if need be :p. And I would hope they would tell me to get over myself. 

[andromeda331]

50 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Yeah, nobody likes hearing negative comments about something they put out there, understandably so - I still get nervous anytime I post some fic online and all that, so I totally get that fear in and of itself.

But there's a good way to handle that kind of situation, and a bad way. I would never dream of reacting the way some of the authors in this thread have acted, and if for whatever reason, I did act that way, my family and friends would be well within their rights to literally slap some sense into me if need be :p. And I would hope they would tell me to get over myself. 

That made me think of how badly Frasier handled it in the Focus Group episode. All but one person liked the show but he focused on the one who didn't. Poor, poor man he harassed and accidently burned down his news stand. That was definitely a bad way to handle it.  

[DearEvette]

In yet another example of how to fumble the bag:

Author Cait Corrain has a debut for a fantasy novel coming in 2024 and a two book deal with Del Ray publishing.  Well I should say had a debut novel and a deal because her book has been removed from the release schedule for 2024 and both her agent and her publisher has dropped and and she's lost a lucrative deal with Illumicrate, a boutique book subscription service.

Gizmodo has a good write up about it, but highlights.... Cait created a whole bunch of sock puppet accounts in Goodreads and proceed to one-star bomb other authors who were debuting around the same time as her in the same genre who she perceived as possible rivals.  Most if not all were POC.  Meanwhile her book was being reviewed with 5-star raves by these fake accounts.

An Eagle eyed reader noticed and started gathering the receipts. Cait was confronted with it behind the scenes and was offered the quiet opportunity by to explain and fix it.  But instead she decided to create a fictitious person named 'Lily' to blame on who did all of this (complete with fabricated screen shot conversations with 'Lily' where innocent Cait confronts superfan "Lily' about what "she" did and claiming that Cait did not really know "Lily" they were just friends through the Reylo Discord fandom).  This all blew up on Twitter this past weekend.

Her house of lies came tumbling down when a) people immediately got suspicious of the screen shot conversations because they did not read as if two people were talking to each other and b)the Reylo fandom chimed in that they had never heard of this Lilly person in the fandom and there was no history of any chats or of her presence on Discord.

And finally came the admission complete with  explanations of  depression, mental breakdowns and meds..

The irony of course is... her book was getting good word of mouth and there was going to be a major marketing push for the book.  She didn't need to do all that.  This is the type of stuff new authors dream of and she piddled it away out of unwarranted envy.

 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

In yet another example of how to fumble the bag:

Author Cait Corrain has a debut for a fantasy novel coming in 2024 and a two book deal with Del Ray publishing.  Well I should say had a debut novel and a deal because her book has been removed from the release schedule for 2024 and both her agent and her publisher has dropped and and she's lost a lucrative deal with Illumicrate, a boutique book subscription service.

Gizmodo has a good write up about it, but highlights.... Cait created a whole bunch of sock puppet accounts in Goodreads and proceed to one-star bomb other authors who were debuting around the same time as her in the same genre who she perceived as possible rivals.  Most if not all were POC.  Meanwhile her book was being reviewed with 5-star raves by these fake accounts.

An Eagle eyed reader noticed and started gathering the receipts. Cait was confronted with it behind the scenes and was offered the quiet opportunity by to explain and fix it.  But instead she decided to create a fictitious person named 'Lily' to blame on who did all of this (complete with fabricated screen shot conversations with 'Lily' where innocent Cait confronts superfan "Lily' about what "she" did and claiming that Cait did not really know "Lily" they were just friends through the Reylo Discord fandom).  This all blew up on Twitter this past weekend.

Her house of lies came tumbling down when a) people immediately got suspicious of the screen shot conversations because they did not read as if two people were talking to each other and b)the Reylo fandom chimed in that they had never heard of this Lilly person in the fandom and there was no history of any chats or of her presence on Discord.

And finally came the admission complete with  explanations of  depression, mental breakdowns and meds..

The irony of course is... her book was getting good word of mouth and there was going to be a major marketing push for the book.  She didn't need to do all that.  This is the type of stuff new authors dream of and she piddled it away out of unwarranted envy.

 

Thanks for posting this--I've been following it and it's a mess! The entire time I was reading about it, I kept thinking it was like R.F. Kuang's Yellowface come to life.

I saw today where one of the authors she targeted really tore into the apology, noting that the timeline Corrain uses for explaining her behavior does not really match her actions. She was apparently posting these bad reviews months before she acknowledged in the apology. 

In the apology, Corrain also claims she wasn't sober while doing this--that I can believe--and she says she's going to rehab. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Zella

[Spartan Girl]

The stupidity of the human race never ceases to amaze me.

I’ve been trying to get an agent for years and to see this idiot just throw away her big break all so that she could review bomb other debit authors on Goodreads is just infuriating.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Spartan Girl

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

The stupidity of the human race never ceases to amaze me.

Seriously, setting aside the sheer WTF-ery of even doing something like this in the first place, I truly do not get how people pull these kinds of stunts and seem to think they'll never be caught. In this day and age? With social media being what it is, and tech-savvy people all over the place? Come on. 

But yeah. Wow. That...that is a special kind of asshole behavior there, that is. Just starts bad and gets worse the farther along you go. 

[andromeda331]

Wow, that was so incredibly stupid.

[akiss]

Plus, all the authors she targeted are POC.

[Ohiopirate02]

21 hours ago, Zella said:

In the apology, Corrain also claims she wasn't sober while doing this--that I can believe--and she says she's going to rehab. 

The replies to her apology tweet before she locked her account are hilarious.  Many a "what drugs make you a racist."

[Spartan Girl]

Seriously, someone please publish me. I swear I’d never troll any of my fellow debut writers. I’m not on social media and I hardly ever do goodreads reviews!

Edited December 13, 2023 by Spartan Girl

[Zella]

11 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The replies to her apology tweet before she locked her account are hilarious.  Many a "what drugs make you a racist."

Yeah while I can easily believe she wasn't sober while doing it, I don't think it's really the excuse she thinks it is.

My favorite part of this is she went through the effort to make so many different accounts to cover her tracks but then made sure to like her own book and friend herself with each one. LMAO Like, you don't really have to be Columbo to put that together, but I am sure she thought she was really slick!

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Zella said:

Yeah while I can easily believe she wasn't sober while doing it, I don't think it's really the excuse she thinks it is.

My favorite part of this is she went through the effort to make so many different accounts to cover her tracks but then made sure to like her own book and friend herself with each one. LMAO Like, you don't really have to be Columbo to put that together, but I am sure she thought she was really slick!

I love that she was apparently drunk at the time but while drunk managed to create so many different accounts.

[Anduin]

I have a feeling I brought up this story or one very similar before, but I can't find it now. Anyway, someone thought he could bop out a sequel to Lord of the Rings and get it published. Amazon and the Tolkien estate disagreed. It went to court, he lost.

It's been tried before. It didn't work then, it didn't work this time, it won't work next time either. Some people refuse to learn from the past. If you do have an idea based on an existing property, you bloody ship of Theseus it until it's something different. Sure you can say 'it's inspired by X' or 'I wondered what Y did next.' I'll accept that. Big media companies and their lawyers will accept that. But no, that isn't enough for some people.

You fly too close to the sun, you get your wings melted. Icarus is a cautionary tale, not aspirational!

[JustHereForFood]

13 hours ago, Anduin said:

I have a feeling I brought up this story or one very similar before, but I can't find it now. Anyway, someone thought he could bop out a sequel to Lord of the Rings and get it published. Amazon and the Tolkien estate disagreed. It went to court, he lost.

It's been tried before. It didn't work then, it didn't work this time, it won't work next time either. Some people refuse to learn from the past. If you do have an idea based on an existing property, you bloody ship of Theseus it until it's something different. Sure you can say 'it's inspired by X' or 'I wondered what Y did next.' I'll accept that. Big media companies and their lawyers will accept that. But no, that isn't enough for some people.

You fly too close to the sun, you get your wings melted. Icarus is a cautionary tale, not aspirational!

Lol, I mean that is what fanfiction is for. If you want your fanfiction published, you have to pick a story that is already in the public domain or wait until it is. It's still going to be fanfiction, whether it's a millionth take on some mythology or adding zombies to some classic literature. That's ok, fanfiction is a great thing, but getting it published doesn't change what it is.

[proserpina65]

On 12/19/2023 at 9:30 AM, JustHereForFood said:

Lol, I mean that is what fanfiction is for. If you want your fanfiction published, you have to pick a story that is already in the public domain or wait until it is. It's still going to be fanfiction, whether it's a millionth take on some mythology or adding zombies to some classic literature. That's ok, fanfiction is a great thing, but getting it published doesn't change what it is.

Or change enough things that it's no longer clear what the inspiration was.  (See E.L. James for an example.  Or better yet, don't, because her writing sucks.)

[Guest]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:09 AM, proserpina65 said:

Or change enough things that it's no longer clear what the inspiration was.  (See E.L. James for an example.  Or better yet, don't, because her writing sucks.)

Yep. Goodreads has a list of Reylo fanfic that has been published. Several of the covers make it blatantly obvious. 

[Spartan Girl]

55 minutes ago, Dani said:

Yep. Goodreads has a list of Reylo fanfic that has been published. Several of the covers make it blatantly obvious. 

Seriously?! Ew.