Repeating Myself, with added eyerolling

[neadods]

There are now apparently six comms dedicated to critiquing the nominees for the Children of Time awards, so many run by sock puppets that the latest stakes its claim to fame specifically as the non-sock comm. (Why does CoT continue to soak up this nonsense? It's not like there are multiple comms SMOFing about calufrax recs.)


I'm going to take this opportunity to repeat myself: by openly posting reviews under my name, I have gotten work. Semi-professional work. (Reviewing the Evidence, I Love a Mystery Newsletter) Paying work. (Once Written, Firefox News) Even the stuff that doesn't pay in cash or goods (Unreality SF) is adding to my portfolio so I can get more work (and things are being negotiated for future lines).

Four years of negative reviews in Reviewing the Evidence, and I have yet to be spit on or run out of (or even shunned at) Malice Domestic or Bouchercon. It hasn't been six days since I looked a professional author right in the eyes and explained why I gave her next-to-latest book a partially negative review. Mary Stanton was amazingly cool about it. We had a long conversation about those points in her series and her plans.


So frankly y'all, I have LESS than no sympathy for anyone who thinks that they "have" to hide their identity to "honestly" give an opinion.

Comments

[biichan.livejournal.com]

after some of the cot_tossed reviewers put aside anonymity and were then attacked, sometimes viciously, for weeks on end (and are still often brought up negatively), i can't really blame them. or the people who stayed anon.

Word.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

All these years in fandom have taught me that the anonymity never lasts and that the fans are 10x angrier about revealed anons than they are about non-anons saying the exact same thing.