Monday, January 9, 2012

Jane Litte vs Jamie McGuire on Twitter

This is not strictly a GoodReads folly, but we just recently read this entire exchange on Twitter and our respect went up for Jamie McGuire and down for Jane Litte of DearAuthor. We think we've got the entire exchange:


***

Jane: I'm posting my review on Sat of ur book & it contains everything that you seem to hate and despise in a review.

Jane: so if your google alert pops up with a link to a site called DearAuthor.com you probably don't want to read it.
Us: What was the point of this taunt?

Jamie: promises to fry me in her upcoming review on Dear Author. And that's okay.


Us: FWIW, we would have interpreted Jane's comment the same way Jamie did.

Jane: I am not going to fry you at all but reading your blog post and tweets, I have committed every venal sin you hate act rvwrs.

Jane: My review was written last week before I even read your blog post or your tweets.

Jane: but I did mention my concern abt the portrayal; that the characters were in a potentially abusive relationship

Jane: I felt like it portrayed a very unhealthy relationship in a fairly positive light.

Jane: But I also said I liked it. I recommended it to other readers. I said your voice was strong and compelling.

Jane: But in light of what you've said about reviewers and reviews, shouldn't I be concerned?


Us: So Jane objects to Jamie responding to reviews and reviewers. Yet when
Jamie tries to disengage from Jane (a reviewer), Jane sends six more
tweets trying to start an argument.

Jamie: I've read your posts and I understand your viewpoint. I don't understand your anger, but you don't need me to.


Us: Jamie again tries to disengage from the conversation without arguing.

Jane: I have no anger toward you. It's a complete disappointment but it's not anger.

Jane: Just like your last glib tweet was a disappointment.


Us: So how does Jane want Jamie to respond? She's unprofessional
if she argues with reviewers and glib if she doesn't argue with them.

Jamie: I've read some disappointing things myself lately.

Jane: Let me be clear. My reviews about the book only. I don't "fry" any other and I take exception to the accusation that I would


Us: Then maybe NOT taunting the author would have been a better decision.

Jamie: So the warning about the Google alerts was meant as...?

Jane: You had interacted w me in the past. I wanted to give you heads up that my review contained all the things you hate. 


                                 Us: Pretty weak excuse.


                                                 ***


We do think that Jamie was wrong to criticize the reviewers personally in her blog post (see previous post), but we also remember what our Mom used to say: two wrongs don't make a right. 


2 comments:

  1. Let me get this straight.

    Jane lets Jamie know a review is going live that she probably won't want to read.

    Jamie says that's okay.

    Jane gets uppity and proceeds to tell Jamie all the things that are in the review that she wouldn't want to read, thus making her original tweet pointless and insincere. Jamie doesn't need to read the review now. Jane just tweeted her the summary.

    Then as you say, Jane tried to disengage again. She can't win with Jane either way. Some will say Jamie shouldn't have responded to the tweet at all. Which begs the question, who talks to someone without expecting the person to respond?

    Moving on. Jane closes saying that her only reason for contacting Jamie was to let her know not to read the review that she has now already summarized via tweet for her, because she is trying to protect Jamie from reading a review that has things Jamie hates. Which is why she tweeted Jamie the review.

    A shorter recap focusing on Jane's commentary would be...
    I wrote a review with all the things you hate so don't read it.
    These are the things you hate that I wrote in my review.
    I am just telling you this so you won't have to hear me review the things you hate.

    I...don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We thought this behavior of Jane's was very petty, too. She could have just posted the review with taunting Jamie on Twitter.

    ReplyDelete
http://goodreadsfollies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jane-litte-vs-jamie-mcguire-on-twitter.html
goodreadsfollies.blogspot.co.uk
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-34
73583
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:V2UW3TOANLUEP3T4CGVXI72J3BSKFZOT
<urn:uuid:0c11a26a-1234-4ce4-9731-f89741d14ad7>
2017-08-24T08:47:48Z
172.217.7.193
text/html
sha1:D5WUMHXJQDXSK64ZX6NGEOARHTNTGEFY
<urn:uuid:ed43199f-2252-4d67-904e-1adc94142e56>
http://goodreadsfollies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jane-litte-vs-jamie-mcguire-on-twitter.html
response
<urn:uuid:c021dfa4-cfc3-4fa9-84aa-63d9f78b24bd>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-145-167-122.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-34
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf