Twitterfail: Let's Have it Out
July 02
Alice Hoffman is in the news for all the wrong reasons this week. When her new book, The Story Sisters, was given a less-than-flattering review in the Boston Globe last Sunday, Hoffman used her twitter page to lash out at fellow writer and critic, Roberta Silman. Of course authors have to vent their spleens every now and again, but Hoffman took it a step further. After calling Silman a ‘moron’ and an ‘idiot’ on her page, she also tweeted Silman’s phone number and email, urging fans to ‘tell her what u think of snarky critics’. (You can read the cached version of Hoffman’s account here).
The response from the twitterverse was huge – some fans rallied in support but most users didn’t think much of Hoffman’s online antics, calling her ‘thin-skinned’ and ‘foolish’. Gawker reported that Hoffman had ‘gone insane’ and Edward Champion blogged that she was ‘the most immature writer of her generation’.
The review in question, while lukewarm, was not completely damning. Silman begins by saying that one of her favourite books is Hoffman’s Illumination Night, which ‘amply displays her gifts of precise prose and the ability to create sympathetic characters’. She also praises some of the ‘wonderful passages’ at the close of The Story Sisters and Hoffman’s ability to create empathy for the damaged eldest child. Her worst comments (as far as I can tell) include stating that ‘this new novel lacks the spark of the earlier work’, that ‘too much of it is told rather than shown’ and that, in the end, the book ‘seems too coy, too contrived’.
After all the backlash, Hoffman has since deleted her twitter account and made this apology via her publisher, Crown:
‘I feel this whole situation has been completely blown out of proportion. Of course, I was dismayed by Roberta Silman’s review which gave away the plot of the novel, and in the heat of the moment I responded strongly and I wish I hadn’t. I’m sorry if I offended anyone.’
Drama aside, I’m more inclined to take interest in GalleyCat editor Ron Hogan’s comments:
‘In some ways the rise of online networking tools has changed the fundamental power dynamic between writers, reviewers, and readers. The relationships between writers and readers, and between reviewers and readers, have become more conversational; it’s only natural for the relationship between writers and reviewers to undergo a similar shift.’
Hoffman may well have got away with her reaction had she made a more formal, thought-out response. But the very nature of Twitter – instantaneous, of-the-moment social commentary – meant that she didn’t, and instead resorted to childish name-calling and misuse of her popularity by calling on her fans to gang-up on Silman. As Literary Saloon pointed out, Twitter is hardly the best vehicle for an intelligent retaliation, given the 140-character cap. And, like many of the commentators, my sympathies now largely go out to Hoffman’s publicist.
JA
Postscript: Apparently, what goes around comes around. Gawker is now reporting that Hoffman once said 'nasty things' about Richard Ford's writing in the New York Times, so when when Hoffman's next book came out, he (calmly) shot a hole in it and posted it to her. Crikey.
Our Friends
- Overland
- Alien Onion
- Ampersand Duck
- Andrew McDonald
- A Pair of Ragged Claws
- Arts Victoria
- Australia Council for the Arts
- Ben Eltham
- Bookshow blog
- CAL
- City of Tongues
- Crikey
- darkly wise, rudely great
- David Astle
- Elmo Keep Does Stuff
- The Ember
- Fly the Falcon blog
- Going Down Swinging
- Griffith Review
- Hackpacker
- Harvest
- HEAT
- Island
- Killings blog
- Literary Minded
- Lorraine Crescent
- Lynden Barber
- Mandy Ord
- Marcus Westbury
- Matilda
- Meanland
- Melbourne University Publishing
- Mel Campbell
- The Monthly
- Musings of an Inappropriate Woman
- Oslo Davis
- Paul Callaghan
- Read, Think, Write
- Sleepers Publishing
- Sorrow at Sills Bend
- SPLOG
- Tom Cho
- Virgule
- Wet Ink
- Wheeler Centre
Comments
02 Jul 09 at 10:38
The Hoffman incident was a debacle! Responding badly to a bad review is unprofessional at best, but providing personal contact details and inciting action against the review is just plain whacked.
It's definitely interesting to consider how authors should respond to reviews in this internet age. I think Tom Cho is a good example of a writer using online tools (twitter, his blog) to archive and respond to reviews of his work.
...02 Jul 09 at 10:54
I wish I had a book out there that reviewers could shoot holes in!
I prefer John Scalzi's approach to bad reviews. :)
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/04/24/mmmm-one-star-rific/
...02 Jul 09 at 11:48
That an amateur would respond in that way may not be surprising. That a professional with a dozen well-loved books under her belt would do so is mind-blowing. And how! Her reaction is more akin to what a thirteen year-old girl might try to incite against 'that bitch that stole my look'.
I think it is amusing though, that in this instance the ease of the technology has allowed readers to see more of their author than they might have liked. Would this have happened years ago when there was a discernible time between an action and its equal and opposite reaction? Probably not, because there were filters in place such as publicists, editors, friends that told you that your bilious rejoinder might not be such a grand idea.
...02 Jul 09 at 13:56
There's a lot to be said for a nice, calming walk around the block, or a big box of chocolates and a cry on the sofa.
...02 Jul 09 at 14:23
I would venture to suggest that Hoffman's (over)reaction is an indication how much she was hurt by the review and how much she cares. Professional or not, thick-skinned or not, we all let people get to us occasionally. And the review did give away the plot, right? Plus we don't know what's happening in Hoffman's personal life that might have lowered her usual tolerance of no-so-good reviews. I expect a professional writer to be good at her writing craft, not necessarily good at being magnanimous. If a mother strikes out with excessive force when her child is being attacked, we might be more inclined to be more sympathetic and to reserve judgement, no?
...06 Jul 09 at 14:53
Just read this in Salon magazine, which is a total laugh: 'Richard Ford had to wait two years after Colson Whitehead's negative New York Times review of 2002 novel "A Multitude of Sins" to spit on the him at a Poets & Writers party. But that's peanuts compared to what happened to another of Ford's critics. After a less than stellar write-up of his 1986 novel "The Sportswriter" appeared in the New York Times, Ford's wife took a pistol to a book the reviewer had written and blew a hole right through it. Ford later did the same honors with another copy of the same book.
Chilling though the message was, it didn't stop the critic from continuing to dole out opinions. Her name? Alice Hoffman.'
...