Tagging an author in a negative review is no longer a debate. The majority of us know it is poor form, but those who continue to do this are missing something. Tagging an author in a negative review is a form of open criticism. Open criticism is everywhere these days.
It used to be that people used the printed newspapers to lambaste thought opponents and those caught in immoral behavior. But in the age of independent news, where literally anyone can platform themselves and accumulate a following, open criticism has become a seeming part of internet culture.
There is nothing inherently wrong with open criticism. It may be necessary at times, and I believe it should be reserved for when someone has been conducted themselves unethically and needs to be held accountable. This often serves to bring the unethical behavior to light. It is the duty of friends to correct in private and praise in public, but not opponents. And certainly not when the behavior is harming others, for example: if a judge or politician was abusing his wife or children behind closed doors.
Whenever open criticism is made, the person, organization, or party being criticized is invited to respond publicly. On a web platform, this invitation usually comes by way of a tag. This loops that party into the conversation, much like including a stamped, return addressed envelope in a snail mailed letter of criticism.
Tagging an author in a positive review invites them in to warm and glowing public praise.
Tagging an author in a negative review asks for a response to open criticism of their work. However, the author is in a tight spot, because it is socially unacceptable for the author to respond publicly to criticism of their work. Because there is no need for them to respond, there is no need for them to be included or notified of the open criticism.
Tagging an author in a negative review is like inviting to your house someone who baked a cake that you didn’t enjoy eating, but also inviting all of your neighbors and friends to that same event. At the event, you’ll all be discussing how this person’s cake just wasn’t great and why you didn’t have fun eating it. It is socially unacceptable for the baker to speak up or attend, but everyone knows that they received your invitation.
I think now you can see how tagging an author in a positive review of their work invites them to celebrate with you. It is acceptable because you are expressing gratitude and thanks for what they worked hard to put out in the world. I truly wish that open criticism was less commonplace in the world. But negativity garners more attention on the internet than positivity.
It has never been about your right to having a negative opinion. The consensus on tagging an author in a negative review is based upon the rules of open criticism and the unspoken constraint upon authors that does not allow them to respond.
A positive review is a compliment. A negative review is valid, but so is your thought that Sally’s bangs are childish and Robby’s laugh is obnoxious. You can tell Ruby that her flower beds look amazing and you’re so proud of all the hard work she put into them, and you can say it in front of anyone. But voicing a negative opinion to someone’s face, or criticizing their work to the company or department and cc’ing them in the group email has always been poor form.
If you’re like, “Hold up. Books are products and the customer has a right to share their negative experience with a product or seller,” YES. As a customer, you absolutely have the right to publish your negative review with a piece of entertainment or a product. And you may do so on the bookseller’s platform where the author or content creator MAY see that review. But it is highly insensitive to prompt the content creator to respond to your negative experience by cc’ing them.
It’s not very different from writing an author a personal letter letting them know what you disliked about their work. And where fan-mail comes from people wanting to tell an author how much they loved their book, the kind of mail coming from people telling an author how much they did not enjoy the book has only one term, currently. Hate-mail.
Hate mail is the antonym for fan-mail. Hate mail consists of messages sent from critics, antagonists, or anyone opposed to the work or creator of the work. Unsolicited “constructive-criticism” falls under the hate mail umbrella.
So remember, the next time you’re tagging an author in a negative review, you’re sending a new form of hate-mail, but publicly. Which is arguably worse than sending a private letter. Save your open criticism for moral issues.
Remember, just because someone admirable from the past, such as C S Lewis, offered public criticism of his peer’s work, that doesn’t mean it’s something we must consider admirable or even permissible today. We must not use one great person’s fault as license to practice it in our own lives, or else I must ask you, “If C S Lewis jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?”
We should critique literature. And we should critique it thoroughly and in a way that invites discussion. And if we want to debate a peer, we may invite them privately to an open debate, to answer hard and constructively critical questions.
But let’s save our open criticism for authors caught exploiting minors, for publishing houses doing unethical things toward their authors, and remember that a book review is rarely ever serious enough to warrant sending hate-mail over. Publish your negative opinions as you please. And leave the author uninvited to your community book-roast.
About Laurisa Brandt
Independent Press and NYC Big Book Award Winning Author Laurisa Brandt writes immersive, character-focused speculative fiction balanced with rich world building and romantic subplot. While her novels embrace darker themes she aspires to offer readers hope and a bit of humor. Read More >>
