Subtitle: A response to the Buzzfeed article (sort of)
So here’s the thing. Unless I’m following a series, I tend to be really bad at remembering author’s names. In general, I try not to judge books based on their authors either. But, there is one exception: I don’t read anything by Kathleen Hale. Even if it’s just an article that looks interesting (I remember one on Slenderman that I almost clicked on), I don’t click.
As such, it’s probably no surprise that Buzzfeed’s latest article on her – Kathleen Hale Came For Her Goodreads Critic. Then The Internet Came For Her – made me uncomfortable. But what is a surprise (to me, at least), is that I’m still thinking about the article enough that 24 hours later, I’m writing my response to the piece.
It starts with minimising what Hale did
When talking about the stalking incident from five years ago, the article describes it as “not just about a singular personal disaster — it also speaks to the nature of criticism today, so-called cancel culture, and the growing power of Goodreads, especially for emerging genre writers.” and says that “[t]he reaction to the piece [in The Guardian] was both predictable and outsize”.
In fact, at one point in time, Buzzfeed says that “Hale, Brittain, and Kuklinski have remarkably little in common. Richard Brittain assaulted a teenager. Richard Kuklinski claimed to have killed hundreds of people.
Kathleen Hale wrote one bad essay.”
Yeah, that’s not how I remember it.
The only thing I did at that time was to post my participation in the Blogger Blackout, but I remember following this extremely intently. After all, I was a book blogger, even if I was far, far away from all the authors over in America (yay for oceans?). But by all accounts, Hale massively overreacted by carrying on a months-long stalking campaign on negative status updates (not actually a review) by a Goodreads user. If you’re interested, Dear Author and The Digital Reader, among other places, have good reviews on why it’s basically a stalking issue. Even now, reading it makes me scared.
And this was during the time Stop the GR Bullies, an ironically named site that bullied reviewers for ‘bad’ reviews, was active, which is probably why I remember this so clearly – Kathleen Hale seemed to be the worst case scenario of STGRB.
Reading the Buzzfeed article was almost like reading Hale’s article – it seemed to be presenting things from her point of view and minimising her actions, which was the first reason it made me uncomfortable. And let’s not forget that the Buzzfeed article quotes someone as saying that “I felt there was a streak of misogyny in some of the negative responses [toward’s Hale]” and writes that the response to Hale’s piece was “disproportionate in a way that male writers rarely experience”. Yeah, Hale stalked a reviewer and tried to doxx her – people reacted because her actions were horrifying. I don’t recall the reactions to this as being worse than when a male author (Richard Brittain) attacked a reviewer with a wine bottle a year later – both are terrible.
By the way, I don’t read Richard Brittain either. But I don’t have to actively avoid him like I do Hale, because he’s not writing at all. Plus, he was actually convicted of his assault and didn’t have people making excuses about how terrible the reviewer was and that his actions weren’t that bad (which I saw a lot during after the Kathleen Hale piece).
Reviews are not about authors, they are about books
The author of this piece talks about how upsetting negative reviews can be and that “after two conversations with Katheen Hale, it’s clear that she still feels wronged, not just by Blythe Harris specifically, but by a culture that accommodates anonymous vitriol. ” And then she doesn’t clarify that reviews are targetted at the book, not the author.
Hey, I get it. I’ve gotten negative reviews before. Yes, it’s sad that not everyone likes your book, but it was pretty obvious that people didn’t like the book. It wasn’t a problem with me.
The problem with this part, even though the author does try to draw a line by saying that when it comes to essays, reviews can feel a little more personal (even if it’s not), is that this is something I saw over, and over again when people were defending Hale. They talk about how terrible it is people can give a terrible review anonymously (while forgetting that lots of authors were pseudonymous, like Lewis Carol. Even Jane Austen just wrote as “A Lady” rather than under her name) but forget that there are plenty of valid reasons a review might want to be anonymous. And more importantly, they don’t draw the distinction between a critical review and an attack on the author. Sometimes, negative reviews do contain personal attacks, especially with controversial authors, but I think 90% of the negative reviews I read focus on the book. It’s all about the book and what the reviewer didn’t like or disagreed. I’m sure that authors don’t agree with all their characters (particularly villains) so surely we can agree that if a reviewer didn’t like a book (or the author’s favourite character), it doesn’t mean that they didn’t like the author.
A note on cancel culture
Ally Writes Things recently wrote a really great piece on cancel culture in the book community. And since it was also in the BuzzFeed article, I wanted to address it here too.
In general, if you don’t know me, I’m not a fan of cancel culture as it is today. Sometimes, people try to cancel things because they don’t like a diversity of worldviews, sometimes it’s because they don’t believe people can change, and in general, I’m all for letting authors write whatever they want and not be cancelled. But do you know why I’m still uncomfortable with Kathleen Hale?
Because she doesn’t recognise that what she did was wrong
Correct me if I’m wrong, but has Hale apologised to the reviewer in question? I don’t remember that happening. Her other actions also make me think that she still doesn’t realise that what she did was wrong.
If she did, she wouldn’t claim her article caused outrage because she was “exploring the ways in which face-to-face interaction, non-anonymous interaction of any kind in modern society, has become increasingly and inherently confrontational or aggressive.”
She wouldn’t blame all the pushback to her article as coming from trolls (as bad as those on 4Chan)
She wouldn’t still feel wronged
And she wouldn’t republish the piece.
That’s why I’m still uncomfortable with Kathleen Hale (and with the Buzzfeed piece) and why I’m still not going to be reading what she writes.
I am like you; unless it is a series, I don’t remember authors’ names. So I googled her name to see who you were writing about…
Well, I remember I liked her book! As per the stalking story, I think it was all calculated to later write a book about it. She got a new book deal because of it! And what does that say in general? Hmmmm… we know who is not reading that new book, right? 😉 Nope, I am not supporting.
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to support her. I think she was going for ‘authentic’ and ‘vulnerable’, but really all I see is ‘stalker’
Eustacia, this is such a fantastic and well-written post! I didn’t learn about Kathleen Hale until last year when her new book was being published, but the whole situation is so crazy. Like you said, what gets me is the minimization of what she did. Like, she literally went to a random person’s house because that person left *one bad comment* on something Hale wrote? How is that okay? Also the fact that she refuses to own up to it and acknowledge how wrong it was. If she was like “hey, I’m so sorry for this, it was way out of line and I should have never done it, and I’m sorry for not realising that at the time”, I would honestly probably give her a second chance. But she keeps spinning it into this funny, wacky story and make the bloggers that reacted negatively the bad guys. Like, Kathleen, be an adult and admit you’re wrong, and you’ll get farther.
Also, thank you for sharing my post! <3
Thank you, Ally!
Yes, her lack of apology (any apology) is a huge thing! I would be way more inclined to read her if she had sincerely apologised then (or even now).
But sadly, it seems like her family is well-connected so she’ll get published no matter way 😪
Your post was great!! It was one of the first things I thought about when I was trying to figure out why I was uncomfortable with her despite my usual stance on cancel culture 😊
You have so many good points here! A review is about the book and for readers. Probably authors shouldn’t even be reading GR reviews to avoid exactly what happened here–she saw something bad, then got obsessed about stopping it. I don’t agree with cancel culture, either. But the appropriate response is NOT to use your contacts to find out where a reviewer lives, learn about their children, call them, and show up at their house.
I don’t agree the responses were about her being a woman. Rather, I think Hale is being defended because she’s a (traditionally pretty white) woman. If a man did all these, people would be terrified. But some random woman shows up at your house? Oh, that’s just cute and quirky.
And, I agree. Hale has shown no remorse. Rather’s, she’s trying to make money off the incident. Why should readers support her making money off the fear she created?
The arguments that she is being attacked because she is a white woman really made me eye-roll. I agree that if genders were reversed, Hale would have been shut down so hard (despite what the article argues)
There is really no reason for us to support her comeback.
I’m really confused she has so many defenders. It’s often framed as some sort of comeuppance for reviewers daring to give a negative review. But…our society revolves around online reviews! I can’t imagine someone saying, “I sent this dress back for poor stitching and thin fabric,” then having the designer show up at their house to confront them, and then having people applaud the designer! If people thought that was normal and okay, no one would leave feedback anywhere!
But book bloggers get a lot of backlash for daring to review because “they are not professionals.” Their opinions apparently don’t count. (But mine would suddenly count if someone hired me to do it, even though I am the same person.) But, again, our whole Internet sales system is built on the “average” person giving their opinion and no one finds it out of line that someone would review a power tool even if they aren’t a professional carpenter or some paint even if they aren’t a professional interior designer. But when it comes to book bloggers, how dare they! And hurrah for someone “standing up” to their criticism of a book! It’s so bizarre!
The analogy of an online review for a dress is perfect!
I also saw a lot of people (mostly on author sites) claiming that book bloggers must be bitter unhappy people (who are also amateurs) because we give negative reviews. When… it’s just that we didn’t like the book? Sigh
Yes, I am continually baffled and amused by what some people think of book bloggers! We’re just normal people! And many are actually teachers/librarians/publishing professionals, so if people want that sort of thing for credibility, it’s there!
I just read the Buzzfeed article in full and it was not as sympathetic to Hale as I was lead to believe it was. I think maybe book bloggers wanted to see Hale roundly condemned without sympathy, and I guess the author came across a little too nuanced for some. (Though the author does note she’s afraid to cross Hale or her powerful industry connections, so readers should keep that in mind.)
What was most interesting to me is that Hale still doesn’t seem to realize that what she did was stalking and that it is wrong. She notes first that the information is publicly available. Yes, but we have a tacit social agreement that we don’t hire private investigators to dig up this stuff so we can show up at strangers’ houses. She then argues she didn’t actually ring the bell. Yes, but “ringing the doorbell” isn’t the definition of stalking; it’s following or pursuing someone in such a way that a reasonable person might feel fear. Ringing or not ringing the bell has nothing to do with it. It’s the total lack of empathy or regret on Hale’s part that makes the new book so distasteful, along with the idea that she’s trying to make money off an incident that caused harm to another person (as well as to the book blogging community).
The article/Hale seems to suggest there’s some personal animosity (and sexism) at work here, and that her career as a writer is over, but I kind of suspect that had Hale just published some book (not YA) that didn’t reference her past behavior, the YA community would have largely ignored it. After all, she’s still writing now for magazines and such and no one’s suggested that anyone’s trying to stop her. Framing Hale as a victim for getting backlash for an ill-conceived book/title that she didn’t have to write at all just doesn’t seem valid.
The article was confusing to me. Parts of it read sympathetically (the minimising) but it does seem like the author attempted to be fair for other parts. On the whole though, I got the sense that the article was pretty redemptive towards Hale, which was why I was so uncomfortable with it (I will also freely admit that I expected stronger condemnation of Hale, or at least a truth account of the events).
I have also heard that she did not get the interview with the blogger quoted right (at least, this is what I saw on Twitter), which is another thing that caused me concern.
I’m sorry if I made the article sound less fair than it was – this was very hard to write and it is my fault if I didn’t convey things correctly. My emotions were definitely very strong while writing and perhaps they shouldn’t have been.
Yes, I’ve kinda known that Hale was still writing (I would see her name pop up in bylines), but I just ignored it. If I didn’t know she was trying to republish the article & still not admit that what she did was terrifying, I probably wouldn’t have said anything either.
Oh, I meant in general the book blogging community tends to get riled up over anything to do with Hale! (Which is pretty fair, I have to admit.) I didn’t mean to suggest you portrayed the article inaccurately! I think, too, you bring up a good point I hadn’t considered. I’ve read The Guardian article and know that Hale called this woman’s work, found out she had children, did all this concerning stuff. But the Buzzfeed article doesn’t mention a lot of that stuff, just returning to the fact that she showed up outside the blogger’s home. Without those details, readers may indeed think, along with Hale, “Hm, well she went overboard, showed up the house, then left without doing anything.” They don’t realize the lengths Hale went to track and discredit this blogger. They don’t understand how fearful the blogger must have been, knowing a strange woman was following her at home and at work, knowing her family could also be in danger. So excellent point there. And there’s really no reason in hiding all this since Hale herself already put it all out there (at least her version of it).
But, yeah, I’m sure Twitter is seething right now, but the one thing maybe they can keep in mind is that Hale is pretty powerful in the industry, or at least surrounded by powerful family members in the publishing industry. The writer of the Buzzfeed article admits she fears for her career writing about Hale at all as a result of this. So if the article is sympathetic in parts (which I agree with. It does sometimes drop a sentence saying she was wrong, but never fully examines all her actions), I think we can consider that writing about Hale makes people afraid. That is, after all, a good deal of why people got upset in the first place; her reaction to a negative review made bloggers afraid to review books (or at least hers), lest an angry author show up at their doors. So I guess I feel a little for the Buzzfeed writer. She’s probably lying in bed hoping the article was nuanced enough that no one shows up at HER door/ends her career.
That is a good point. If the author doesn’t want to anger Hale’s family (especially if she has aspirations of publishing in the future), then she has to tread a very fine line.
So a few disclaimers: I was a book blogger around this time (and for a lot of previous blow-ups about author-blogger interactions, and the many many discussions about the power imbalance between authors and bloggers), and am friends with both Kayleigh and Paige who were both interviewed for the article.
As someone who was there and thus witness to all of this, it’s painful to see Hale’s attempts at rewriting history (both in the updated essay and in interviews such as this) with people refusing to call her out on her behaviour and lies.
Blythe Harris started off enjoying the book. 33% of the way later she decided to stop reading, citing graphic animal deaths, slut-shaming, mocked mental health issues, and homophobic and ableist slurs; she also mentioned statutory rape (something that Hale really was upset about in particular).
In response, Hale lied to another blogger to gain Blythe’s address, paid for a background check, drove to her house and left something on her doorstep, and phoned her at work.
And then she used a major newspaper to kick Blythe while she was down. Years later, she is doing it again, and using the incident as the selling point of her book, and an example of her “quirkiness”. To bring this back to my disclaimer, Paige now features in the essay, and her experience of harassment by an author has been twisted by Hale to make Paige out to be the villain. And as a well-connected author, Paige is struggling to make people believe. Despite presenting evidence, Buzzfeed wouldn’t mention this in the article, nor Grove make any corrections to the essay.
So the short of it is: you’re right. Hale doesn’t recognise what she did wrong. She blames reviewers for her second book’s failing, not recognising that of course people don’t want to provide unpaid labour to someone who might attack them! She presents lies to her audience, who in turn believe her and turn and attack bloggers and reviewers. I’ve seen too many “I don’t agree with what Hale did but…” No, no buts. Don’t excuse her. She stalked and harassed someone, and now is doing it again and profiting from it.
Back when #HaleNo was a thing, I remember saying her book should be called “No One Else Will Read You”. Alas, it did not stay that way.
(It’s only available through the Wayback Machine, but Alex Hurst did an excellent recap of the whole thing back when it happened: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://alex-hurst.com/2014/10/21/kathleen-hale-vs-blythe-harris/)
Your account of this is what I remember too – and so different from Hale and the Buzzfeed’s account of the whole thing!
After writing this, I checked twitter and found out that the author of the Buzzfeed article didn’t quote Paige properly (or rather, ignored a lot of the interview).
It is sad that we are repeatedly ignored when we bring up the facts of how things went down, with the result that Hale is repeatedly allowed to get away with stalking Blythe and harassing her off the internet.
One line that really bugged me in the buzzfeed article was “What’s at the heart of all this is that I almost rang another woman’s doorbell. But I didn’t. I almost rang her doorbell and I think that really, really frightens people.” The way the article makes it sound is that we are overreacting because we are afraid it can happen to us. Like its not really a big deal because she didn’t ring the doorbell. The article plays it off like its nothing, but it is scary and it is a big deal.
I don’t like that you can rate a book without reading it, or at least attempting to read it. And I get that false negative reviews are awful. But that doesn’t excuse what she did, and like you said she still doesn’t get that she was wrong!
Great post! I didn’t know about any of this and I find it super interesting.
Yes! What she did was scary and hugely invasive but up till now, she and her defenders act like we’re the ones at fault for reacting to her actions.
There are definitely flaws with the Goodreads system, but as far as I can tell, the reviewer she hunted down was using the system the way Goodreads designed.
I had forgotten all about Hale and this fiasco. She definitely was WAAAAY out of line, and she definitely deserves a lot of flack for her actions — potentially even court-related flack and having to pay damages she caused. Canceling an artist is often a very personal and individual choice. There are some artists I am not comfortable with anymore — first one comes to mind is Roman Polanski. But me canceling a person’s body of work is solely on how they handle themselves during the crisis, after the crisis, and what the crisis was in the first place But their response to it is often my main decider. Roman Polanski was being accused of sexually abusing a child, his response? He became a fugitive. He fled the US before being able to answer for his crime (or prove his innocence). And he’s been avoiding custody and answering to those charges ever since. And that’s been over 30 years. It’s ridiculous. And he gets incredulous whenever it comes up, like he’s being persecuted. And maybe he is… but using your wealth to get you out of having to answer is disgusting. Plus, if he did do it… all the more. A poor man would have had to answer and show up at court. A poor man wouldn’t have had the resources to run off and continue his film career like nothing happened. So, even if he is innocent, I cannot stand the man. After Iearned that about him, I made a decision to stop watching anything he directed.
But anyway… ranting… it sounds like Hale is trying similar things. Trying to play victim here, when in reality she was the one that was waaaaaay out of line.
Aside from all that, Goodreads to me has always kind of been a scary place. That platform can be used for abuse too easy. And it seems Amazon doesn’t care enough to make massive changes to their system to fix it. I’ve pretty much avoided it since the early bad uses of it. Both as a user and an author. If my readers want to use it and leave reviews on my work, if they show up there, that’s their business. And I won’t judge. But I won’t be going out of my way for Goodreads until they make massive changes.
I should have maybe clarified, but I do believe Polanski is guilty. But that’s just a hunch based on his absurd behavior after it came out. Most innocent people don’t go to such extreme lengths to avoid having to give an answer like he has.
I agree with your opinion on Polanski – if I knew he was behind a work I was intending to watch, I wouldn’t watch it. There are so many more choices availale.
I use Goodreads mainly as a reader, it’s been very helpful to me for keeping track of what I wrote. I don’t really use it as an author (and I probably won’t unless I decide to go for promos and they suddenly require a certain number of reviews on Goodreads)
I get ya. Goodreads is a great idea and great platform, but also a horrible platform. And since you read so much, you gots to have a way to track — totally understand that.
I read that Buzzfeed article, and I agree, it took her side of the issue. So much so that I actually got a hold of her book and read it. After reading her Catfish essay and blogging about it, I read the rest of her book. In several of her essays she describes some other horrible behavior and in no instance does she show any regret. As a memoirist, I believe the whole point of writing personal essays is to get *personal*. To take some time to get introspective and think about how your behavior fits into the world around you. Hale doesn’t do this at all. I found her to have an engaging voice, and her writing was good, but many essays left me feeling icky. I’m done with her.
I have heard that the incident in the Catfish article wasn’t the only one, but it’s so sad (though not surprising) that this lack of introspection is present in other incidents.
Yes, I agree that a memoir is to get personal and not just to record/justify your actions but to evaluate them.