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

[prof-pangaea.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to deliberately twist your words; I'm saying what it looked like to me. "If I read it right"... and with clarification, I did not read it right.

sorry, didn't mean to be snappy with my comment there, but i was. apologies. but i was confused how anyone who had actually read the cot_tossed reviews could think that they were being used as a way to take out grudges on the authors. the reviews were all really fair, even the ones i didn't agree with.

i remember the post you made when cot_tosed first opened up, saying that the anonymous reviewers would be found out and there would be a wankstorm. the thing is, no one "outed" anyone, the people who were unveiled chose to reveal themselves, and at least half the cot_tossed reviewers are still anon and i don't see how they won't remain so. cotafterdark has never been unveiled, and has never had wank attached. and i don't think anyone's going to care about these new anon comms and who's "really" writing the reviews, because i doubt any big names are involved. so i just don't see it as the wank as an inevitable consequence of the anonymity -- i do think it was related almost entirely to previous grudges against a couple of the people involved. obviously we're just going to continue to disagree about that point.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

obviously we're just going to continue to disagree about that point.

Agreed. :)