The publishing arena is still buzzing with the Cait Corrain/Goodreads scandal. Del Ray Books was set to publish Crown of Starlight, Cait’s debut novel in 2024. But that is no longer happening.
Her career imploded when readers noticed that anonymous individuals had spent months leaving one-star reviews on Goodreads for upcoming 2024 releases books from first-time authors. A 31-page Google Document revealed evidence suggesting that the Goodreads accounts responsible for the negative reviews had a connecting thread.
Besides review-bombing writers like Kamilah Cole and Xiran Jay Zhao, they also praised Crown of Starlight as their favourite upcoming release. So naturally, suspicion fell on Cait, who initially rejected allegations that she had created fake accounts on Goodreads to attack her competition.
She blamed the false accounts on ‘Lilly’, her friend. But the public pressure would not relent, and eventually, Cait admitted the truth. Lilly did not exist. Cait was responsible for the false accounts. In an apology on X (formerly Twitter), she blamed her actions on depression and substance abuse.
Apparently, her mental breakdown heightened her fears over how well her debut novel would perform amid the stiff competition. Nonetheless, her publisher and agent dropped her. Crown of Starlight may never see the light of day. The Cait Corrain scandal has raised concerns over the prevalence of review-bombing in entertainment.
Review-bombing is not the same as leaving a negative review for a book you hate. The term refers to the act of negatively reviewing books you have not read because you have a bias against the author. It is a form of harassment. You want to bury the author’s novel under a wave of negativity because audiences gravitate toward books with glowing reviews.
You also understand that Google’s algorithm is unlikely to recommend books with poor ratings. Audiences are always blaming platforms like Goodreads for such incidents. They want the review website to protect its members from unearned criticism, some of which is loud enough to destroy the careers of aspiring authors.
Book Riot mentioned in November that Goodreads had introduced a system that briefly limits the submission of ratings when it observes unusually high activity surrounding a book. That is all well and good. However, the people celebrating the development have failed to ask an important question. Why are human beings so stupid?
Think about it; review-bombing works because most internet users refuse to think critically. That sounds like an insult, but it is true. Think about the number of times you have seen an inflammatory headline online. What did you find in the comment section? You probably saw a tidal wave of passionate opinions responding directly to the headline.
What did you find when you read the article? The article was not nearly as inflammatory as the headline suggested. In fact, it answered every question people raised in the comments, but no one read it before leaving a comment. Those incidents happen every day. How often have you fumed at a celebrity because someone told you they did something horrible, only for you to realize later that it was little more than a rumour?
Review-bombing takes advantage of people’s ignorance. Look at the drama surrounding Captain Marvel. Many people hate that film (without watching it) because someone told them Brie Larson sucks. Do they know what Brie did? No.
Would they honestly find her comments offensive if they heard them? They will never know. They prefer to let other people control their emotional reactions as opposed to doing the hard work of investigating the root of the scandals that control their purchasing decisions.
Review-bombing succeeds because people are lazy and potentially stupid. Why are we letting them off the hook?
katmic200@gmail.com
Source: The Observer
Share this content: