Barks and Bites

I know STGRB has done a post about this, but I read some of the comments from this post on Bullylikes by "Barks and Bites" and read the post itself and I have a few cents in my pocket to throw into the kitty. So here they are:

"Barks and Bites" is a "Bullylikes" member, and apparently, from her post, she is growing tired of "Thin-skinned" authors. (But in this post, we see how "thin-skinned" the bullies are.)

She starts it out with this. 

She claims to have reached her limit, and is tired of reading shitty books by shitty authors. But wait a tick, isn't that just a matter of "opinion"? I mean, what might be a shitty book to her could be a great book to others, correct? And sure, she has every right to say if she thinks it's shitty. No one is is trying to stop her from voicing her opinion of a BOOK. 

But this is classic bully behavior: to try and cloud the truth. The truth isn't that myself, or anyone else, especially Anne Rice, is trying to stop reviewers from expressing their love or hate for a book, because it's not about that, but instead, this is about bully reviewers attacking authors on a personal level. (Which is why I wanted to do this post, to show the hypocrisy of what "Barks and Bites" writes in her post as compared to what she and her bully friends comment below it.) So stay tuned. 

She, like her bully friends, continue to insult the intelligence of not only authors, but of the rest of the world by saying that their work, "It's not an effing baby". Well, duh, we all know this. Authors know this. They're just books. But again, it's not bad ratings of books or bad reviews that authors are complaining about, it's the personal attacks, fake ratings and fake reviews that authors are complaining about. A huge difference. Here is more of her post.

My first question to "Barks and Bites" is, how does reviewing under your real name affect your review as opposed to an anonymous name? It doesn't affect your ability to write an honest review. Many people write book reviews under their real identity. 

Her response is that if authors can write under an alias, then how come she and her bully friends can't review under an alias. Well, first of all, authors aren't attacking people in their books like bully reviewers attack authors in reviews. (And I struggle using the phrase "bully reviewers" because most bullies don't even read the books of authors they attack / bully.) 

Then "B&B" seems to think that reviewers will be placing themselves at some kind of risk if they "review" books under their real names. I have never heard of an author threatening a reviewer with any personal / physical harm for a negative review. Just saying. 

But she does admit that she can't separate a person from their work when it comes to authors. I want you to keep this in mind for later in this post. 

But in this next screenshot, she asks the question that if most of them (reviewers) stop sharing their thoughts, who would be left to review books?

Well, "B&B", I'm glad you asked that question. Here is a small sample of people who will be left to review books. 

The previous screenshot came from a reviewer who left this review on a Meg Cabot book on March 10th, 2014. This reviewer also left a two star rating. No one is complaining about this review. Nor is anyone threatening the reviewer who left it. 

This next screenshot is of many readers posting their thoughts on a Stephen King novel. Pay special attention to the dates they left these. All of them in March of 2014. (This year) 

So you see, "B&B", there are plenty of people out there still rating and reviewing books. The only difference is, they are not bullies. They are not attacking the authors. They are not leaving books in nasty or hateful book shelves. Unlike this bully, who put one of Anne Rice's books in a bookshelf that real readers and reviewers would never do. (And all because she (Anne Rice) stands against bullying of authors) 

Are you wrapping your head around that, "B&B"? No? Well, let's continue then, shall we?

"B&B" concludes the previous screenshot of her post with: 'Every time she opens her email, another author is spewing their shit all over the internet. First of all, your email isn't "all over the internet". Secondly, what kind of shit are they spewing? I would certainly like to know. But hey, if you don't think an author is "cool", that's fine, but to take to your blogs and or the book reviews of the authors you deem "uncool" to attack that author is uncool of you, and you spewing your shit all over the internet. I mean, isn't someone being "cool" nothing more than a matter of your opinion? So my next question for "B&B" is: what makes your opinion more valuable than the opinion of someone who doesn't think the same as you? And why do you think that your opinion of an authors "behavior" is a matter of interest to others where the value of the book they wrote is concerned? Oh yeah, that's because you can no longer separate the book from the person who wrote it. (Keep this in mind still as I am not done with her statement.) 

Now to this point, the bullies continue to lay claim that it's all about the reviews, when in fact we have "B&B" on record saying that she can no longer separate the work from the person. So apparently, that in itself is a conflict, yes? Or hypocrisy, yes? But now we start to get into some real hypocrisy as we take a look at some comments. This first screenshot comes to us by way of one of my personal stalkers who is well documented on this blog, along with her husband. Take a look.

"B&B" hits it on the head. She is pointing the finger now at Anne Rice as having "blown it all up". But I am confused, if the bullies don't think they are doing anything wrong by attacking authors because they can no longer separate the work from the person who did the work, then why are they so upset at Anne Rice? To my knowledge, Anne Rice has NEVER mentioned a name, or singled out any one individual from the bully side of the argument. With this being a truth, then how does "B&B" and the other bullies know that she is personally talking about them? I don't get it. Or is it a guilty conscience of "B&B" coming into play here? Something to think about for sure. 

But before I end this post with the zinger of all zingers, I want to share some more comments from "B&B's" Bullylikes post. 

Authors complaining about being personally attacked is getting toxic?

First of all, I think this is wrong. I don't think a teacher's job should be at risk just because of what he or she writes as an author. I wanted to go on record with that. But, let's set up my zinger by reminding everyone what "B&B" said earlier in her post: "I can no longer separate the work from the person who did it." - Now, if "B&B" can't separate the work from the person who wrote it, then why would she (or the other bullies who believe as she does) blame an education system who didn't separate the teachers work from her? While I am against a teacher for being fired just because he or she wrote erotic novels, the bullies, especially "B&B", just committed a huge hypocrisy of their own words. 

And Sonya ends her comment with a very good question: "How come readers aren't allowed that?" (To be able to comment anonymously if writers can use pen names?) 

Well, Sonya, because as I stated earlier, authors don't attack readers / reviewers on a personal basis in their books. Studies have already shown that 80 percent of personal attacks on authors come from anonymous posters in their reviews. 

In this next screenshot, a comment by "E". 

Again, another complaint against reviewers using their real identities. Well, "E", I already explained why, and showed proof that people can still use their real names and review books without any fear. Only a bully would fear using their real name because what a bully does is not review a book, but rather, reviews the person who wrote the book. If you're not doing anything wrong by reviewing a book, then using your real identity wouldn't matter. 

Then "B&B" says this. (Don't worry, the zinger is coming up.)

Nobody ever said you had to support anyone you don't want to support, "B&B". But again, just because you think an author is an asshole doesn't mean that they are. Others might feel differently. But to go onto your blog and say that someone is an asshole is indeed proving that you are honest when you say you can no longer separate the work from the person who wrote it. However, when a school system holds a teachers work against them for their work, you have a problem with that? Make up your mind. Are you wrapping your head around that yet? And who made you and your fellow bullies "judges, juries, and executioners" of authors and their behavior anyway? Because again, what you might find as "bad behavior", not everyone else will. It's all subjected to interpretation or opinion. But instead of deciding that an author is "badly behaving" and posting about it online, why can't you just keep that opinion to yourself? Or simply among your friends in private conversations and or emails? I mean, if you feel you have a right to announce to the world on the internet that you think an author is an asshole, then why is it not okay for that author to take to that same internet and defend themselves publicly from your public opinion? It goes both ways. Maybe the author finds your behavior "bad". But to hear you and your bully friends talk, it's okay for you to personally attack authors but it's not okay for them to personally attack you? Someone needs to get her hypocrisy straight. Just remember, bullies, if you are going to judge others, then others will see it as their right to judge you in return. If you don't want to be judged, then maybe you should stop judging others. (You'll see what I mean shortly.)

And this "nutty" comment from "B&B".

Did you notice who responded to it? "Me Grimlock King". (Shoshana Bick) 

Well, I'll say this for "B&B", she is holding true to her "can't separate the work from those who wrote it" statement she made in her post. But wait! Now for the zinger. While "B&B" admits that she can't separate the work from the person who wrote it, she now has a real problem with it when the work, and the person who wrote it, (her) is held against her? Check it out. 

Yes, hypocrisy of the bullies in true form. You see, "B&B" gets upset because her husbands co-workers make snide and slimy comments about her work. (Her reviews) And she seems downright upset about it. Especially because those people at her husbands work are so "judgmental" and "nosy" as hell. (Maybe "B&B shouldn't be so "thin-skinned"?)

Let that sink it for a minute. 

In conclusion, "B&B" can't separate the work and the person who did the work yet she has a problem with it when others don't separate her work from her. Not to mention, she calls her husbands co-workers as being "judgmental" and "nosy" while never realizing how judgmental (and nosy) her and her bully friends are towards authors. 

Hey "B&B", if you don't like it when people judge you, then why are you and your bully friends being so judgmental to authors? Authors are people too, just like you. They have feelings too, just like you. And now you know how we feel when you and your friends judge us. And nosy into our personal lives. Especially our "online" lives. We're not always going to get along with everybody online either. But that doesn't make us assholes. Just like you're not going to get along with everyone online. But that doesn't make you an asshole either. But for authors, you and your bully friends hold it against us? You judge us? You also take to your blogs and book reviews to express how much you judge us. So thank you "B&B" for writing that post. I think you helped to show everyone who you and your friends really are and what you're really all about. It's not about the reviews, it's about your right to judge authors on a personal level while defending your right not to be judged in return. 

I have but one final question for "B&B" .... have you wrapped your mind around that yet?

I'm Carroll Bryant ... and this is The Looking Glass.