I blogged recently about scathing comments of relatives toward reviewer Carol Buchanan, who wasn’t fond of John Lacombe’s Winter Games.

The situation was used to highlight a trend I’ve noticed with authors like Alice Hoffman who take reviewer bashing to a whole new level. I also reminded authors in How Big Is Your EGO? to tell relatives not to be destructive in comments toward reviewers who were just not into their work.

Being the freelancer that I am, I retooled the post – with short highlights of the Hoffman and Lacombe situations – for the St. Louis Book Marketing Examiner. (For those who don’t know, freelancers often retool one article to fit several different markets. It is not unusual.)

It did not take fans of Lacombe long to target me in their comments. One using the same name – who left nearly the same comment at Self Publishing Review, as well as POD People and the Examiner page – accused me of launching an Internet attack on the author, reporting falsely that the author asked his relatives to leave the comments and demanded an apology. (You can read the pieces for yourself to see if you agree with his accusations.)

Today the author guest blogged at Self Publishing Review in response to the controversy surrounding the post. He had some really terrific things to say that authors should take to heart.

Yesterday, Buchanan and another reviewer, Steven Reynolds (who liked the book), talked about why reviewers have differing opinions. Henry Baum, who runs Self Publishing Review, promises the reviewer interview would be part of a series.

Check these out. Also, the post at POD People also has good things to say about reviewer bashing – and about reviewers.

This week, Alice Hoffman didn't take too kindly to a lukewarm review of her latest, The Story Sisters, from Roberta Silman of the Boston Globe.

Hoffman fired off at the author, calling her a "moron" and an "idiot." She said she was angry that too much plot was given away, then criticized her hometown newspapers. She said as a woman, she had the right to act like a Twitter brat because someone just wasn't that into her writing. (Her Twitter account has been deleted, but Gawker.com was kind enough to take screen shots before someone deleted it.)

The worst part? Hoffman posted Silman's telephone number and e-mail address, and urged readers to call the reviewer and tell her she was stupid.

Obviously, Hoffman didn't read my May 25 post, How to Respond to Bad Reviews. Otherwise, she would have known such foolishness on a tight-knit, public network like Twitter would backfire. Her lack of understanding with how book reviews work today is evident in this tweet:

"Now any idiot can be a critic. Writers used to review writers. My second novel was reviewed by Ann Tyler. So who is Roberta Silman?"

Let me break this down into pieces:

1. Book reviewers come in all shapes and forms – including readers. Right now, her book has 18 reviews on Amazon – and seven of them aren't meant to flatter her ego. If you check these reviews with Silman's review, you will find several consistencies ion criticism. Alice, babe, sometimes reviewers just aren't that into you, or your work simply isn't up to the standard fans and reviewers expect.
2. Uhm, Alice, did you bother to figure out who Silman is BEFORE you posted? Based on this bio at RobertaSilman.com, I think she has some experience.
3. Writers many times don't want to review other writers. They don't want to have to give a bad review for crappy work for someone in their genre. It makes for bad business in the tight-knit publishing community. I don't blame them.
4. Why should I give a cat's patootie if Ann Tyler reviewed your second book? Who the heck is Ann Tyler? And how old is this book? Why should I can about the second novel, when all I want to know about is this one?

Hoffman's idiocy caused quite a stir on Twitter, where the #alicehoffman hashtag became popular fast. Many Tweeters criticized the author for having an ego the size of Boston. The L.A. Times picked up on the story, printing Hoffman's poorly-executed PR Damage Control – nothing remotely apologetic as it should have been. (Also read the Boston Globe's article on the Hoffman debacle.)

I'm not saying that Silman's review was the best written review I've ever seen – it isn't. But Hoffman's out-of-control response to lukewarm press was cyber road rage at its worst. Hoffman's thoughts were better shared with friends during a vent session at home or in a quiet room at the back of a restaurant. They were NOT appropriate for public viewing.

As a book reviewer, I was apalled and frustrated that an author of Hoffman's caliber would feel it necessary to publicly defame someone for not liking her work. I just wanted to sit down with Hoffman with a good cup of coffee and say, "Honey, Silman just wasn't that into you this time, but she did mention other books of yours she liked. Get. Over. It! And focus on your next book instead of creating a PR nightmare that could permanently damage your standing in the literary world."