"the bloggers who are worried about this seem to want to have the freedom to write whatever reviews they want, negative or otherwise, but still be welcomed with open arms by the author/authors' friends/agents/whoever whose feelings they've hurt. "

I'm sorry, Dia, but I think this is missing the point almost entirely.

My problem with this comment, and with the way a lot of YA authors have chosen to engage with this subject, is that many of you seem to speak from a position that implies that the reviewers are the ones at fault - or at least, much more at fault than any of the authors. That they are the ones who need to learn 'the lesson', and thus you use their supposed 'pettiness' and 'delusions' as the focal point of the discussion as though this is where the issue begins and ends.

Authors tend to perpetuate the idea that negative reviews = petty and 'mean' reviews. And I think it's rather telling that when it comes to this issue of reviewing, authors seem more willing to point out the possible flaws of reviewers than they're willing to look at the darker side of their own community, as well as how authors among their own number seem content in throwing out implicit threats to would-be-authors that are already in a vulnerable position (and whose fear most likely stems out of this vulnerability) all for the sake of trying to stifle negative reviews (to avoid the damage it does to the ego).

So far I've seen a lot of reviewers in the midst of this humble themselves to make self-reflexive critique about their reviews. If only YA authors themselves can be as *self*-critical about themselves and the practices of their own community, and less belittling and dismissive of the real concerns reviewers/would-be-authors (who want to be published as badly as you once did) have.

And less dismissive of the power that a tight-nit group has over those on the outside.

A YA author might not be able to single-handedly ruins someone's career, but that's not the issue. The issue is, when a popular best-selling YA author comes onto someone's blog to tell them "by the way if you keep doing this it might hurt your chances of getting published, oh and I'm bffs with This Author and This Author whose work you'll be reviewing next I see, so try to 'Be Nice', kay?" that YA author is demonstrating their power to make that reviewer feel threatened - possibly threatened enough to stop being honest all together, and to only give dishonest, positive reviews or not review at all (which is precisely why such authors USE this power - to censor so that they don't have to deal with criticism). It's not about the ability to ruin someone's future career, but the ability to make that person FEAR for their future career - that's what we need to really talk about (a point missed by alot of the YA authors childishly tweeting or blogging about the #YAmafia in a patronising way).

No one's saying that cliques shouldn't form - cliques are inevitable, and are not in and of themselves bad. No one's saying that reviewers want to be 'accepted' by this clique. But the clique being responsible when engaging with those on the outside - that is what a lot of us concerned with.

>I'm sorry, Dia, but I think this is missing the point almost entirely.

>My problem with this comment, and with the way a lot of YA authors have chosen to engage with this subject, is that many of you seem to speak from a position that implies that the reviewers are the ones at fault - or at least, much more at fault than any of the authors.

I have zero interest in assigning blame to anyone for any perceived wrongs. How would you even divvy up something as nebulous as blame for a problem that's so widespread and has so many different facets? You say I missed the point, but there are many points--I focused on the one that was of interest to me. Namely, how some (note the word "some") bloggers feel there's a grand conspiracy by the "YA Mafia" to ruin their careers, a point that I still find hilarious.

>Authors tend to perpetuate the idea that negative reviews = petty and 'mean' reviews.

And who are these "authors" you speak of? I'm an author. Are you lumping me in with them, whoever "they" are? Because I assure you I do not "perpetuate ideas" about anything as uninteresting as a negative review.

I've seen both authors and bloggers behaving badly when it comes to bad reviews. The difference is when authors behave badly, it gets mucho attention. For me to write a blog post about how authors need to behave is unnecessary; most of us have already been warned by our agents or publishers to play nice online. And those of us who choose not to play nice almost always get caught in some flareup, such as the YA Mafia brouhaha, or even bigger brouhahas/trainwrecks like the Anne Rice, Laurell K. Hamilton, Alice Hoffman unpleasantnesses, as well as the Stephen King vs Stephenie Meyer affair.

When those bad-apple reviewers behave unprofessionally, though, no one cares. Other than the author whose work (and sometimes the author herself) is getting reamed. And when I say bad review, I don't mean "I didn't like this book because the plot was lacking in originality and the characters had nothing to say that hadn't been said a million times before" or "the characters lacked depth, and I spent the entire novel with no clear understanding of anyone's motivation) or even (this is the most dreadful book I've ever read and I won't be reading anything else by this author). All of that is fair. I'm referring to bad reviews like these: "only an idiot would ever pick up this book" or "this author is obviously into devil worship or she wouldn't have made a Christian the bad guy" or "if the author likes foreigners so much why doesn't she move to Russia?"

But that stuff doesn't get addressed or turned into some huge Candace Sams style scandal because as I said before, only the author cares. Also the bloggers who review maliciously or idiotically are amateurs in most cases and unknown and so are therefore of no interest. If some random blogger tweets "Your books stink!" to John Green, nobody would care but John. But if John tweets back "You're the stinkiest person who ever lived!", everyone would care. And everyone would be all over John Green for being horrible and insentive to the poor blogger who was probably only teasing him so why can't he take a joke? That's how it goes.

But this bad behavior I've seen is GREATLY outweighed by the good, and I am not one to dwell on bad things. My own philosophy has been to not read reviews of my books, and that philosophy serves me very well. But that doesn't mean I don't empathize with other authors who feel maligned. (I'm not including authors who bitch and moan over normal and inevitable and perfectly acceptable negative reviews.)

>And I think it's rather telling that when it comes to this issue of reviewing, authors seem more willing to point out the possible flaws of reviewers than they're willing to look at the darker side of their own community,

Many authors do know about the dark side of the business and even the dark sides of people in the business, but why share that stuff in a public forum? Who does that? Do you tell all your dark secrets to anyone who will listen?

There's this insane idea that normal modes of behavior--keeping mum about bad things, putting on a good face for public consumption--are denied to a person just because she's become a writer. Ilona Andrews wrote a brilliant post on how once you publish a book, you stop being a person. That you become "a collection of books and entertaining status updates" and so if you are no longer a person, you aren't allowed to have your feelings hurt or get angry or be discreet or react in any normal "person" sort of way.

>as well as how authors among their own number seem content in throwing out implicit threats to would-be-authors that are already in a vulnerable position (and whose fear most likely stems out of this vulnerability)

I know plenty of authors who are quite vulnerable (can't get a second book written, let alone sold; wrote a book that didn't sell well; wrote a third book that sold even worse; lost an agent or an editor; it goes on and on). Getting published doesn't make a person suddenly invincible, and certainly not more or less vulnerable than anyone else.

>all for the sake of trying to stifle negative reviews (to avoid the damage it does to the ego).

You're right there; people shouldn't censor other people.

>So far I've seen a lot of reviewers in the midst of this humble themselves to make self-reflexive critique about their reviews.

If bloggers are humbling themselves, that's their problem. Who asked them to? If a blogger is too weak to stand by her own reviews, then maybe that reviewer should find something else to do. Before I got published, people told me that my work was crap. My response? Screw em. And if people don't have the balls to say that, then that sucks for them.

>A YA author might not be able to single-handedly ruins someone's career, but that's not the issue. The issue is, when a popular best-selling YA author comes onto someone's blog to tell them "by the way if you keep doing this it might hurt your chances of getting published, oh and I'm bffs with This Author and This Author whose work you'll be reviewing next I see, so try to 'Be Nice', kay?" that YA author is demonstrating their power to make that reviewer feel threatened - possibly threatened enough to stop being honest all together, and to only give dishonest, positive reviews or not review at all (which is precisely why such authors USE this power - to censor so that they don't have to deal with criticism).

If Maggie Stiefvater is the issue, then why are you coming to me with this? But I'll give you some advice anyway, since you're here: If in the future an author--bestselling or self-published or prepublished or whatever--leaves a comment on your blog and makes you feel threatened or uncomfortable, tell her what Jennifer Connelly told David Bowie in Labyrinth: "You have no power over me." Or you can just tell her to piss off. Whichever way floats your boat.

>It's not about the ability to ruin someone's future career, but the ability to make that person FEAR for their future career - that's what we need to really talk about (a point missed by alot of the YA authors childishly tweeting or blogging about the #YAmafia in a patronising way).

>No one's saying that cliques shouldn't form - cliques are inevitable, and are not in and of themselves bad. No one's saying that reviewers want to be 'accepted' by this clique. But the clique being responsible when engaging with those on the outside - that is what a lot of us concerned with.

You want "cliques" to be responsible for their behavior? Cool. I want to win 10 million dollars and not have to work anymore, but I'm not holding my breath.

There are a handful of both bloggers and authors who are spending waaayyy too much time looking at each other's behavior and foolishly attempting to police it. For example, I would never waste my time going to your review blog (assuming you have one) to scold you about the kinds of reviews you write. What you write is none of my concern and you have the right to write whatever the hell you want. Likewise, I am absolutely positive you would never waste your time coming to my blog to scold me for writing childish and patronizing comments on Twitter or anywhere else.

I love conspiracy theories... they're so wacky.

Personally, I wanna see someone (Jasper Fforde maybe?), write a story about the YA mafia.

Josh wrote: "I love conspiracy theories... they're so wacky.

Personally, I wanna see someone (Jasper Fforde maybe?), write a story about the YA mafia."

Or Chuck Palahniuk. That would be dope. And everytime someone calls something "wacky" I think about Johnny the Homicidal Maniac and giggle.