出版与作家生涯2014theguardian.com
一位作家与她的头号网络批评者正面交锋
An Author Confronts Her Number One Online Critic
导读
这篇讨论围绕《卫报》一篇长文：一位作者发现自己遭到 Goodreads 上头号差评者的持续攻击，并试图直面这位批评者。对写作者而言，它揭示了网络差评、书评社区生态与作者应对方式的现实问题。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
面对网络差评时，先判断其是否为'真实读者'的诚实评价——很多恶意差评根本没读过书，普通读者也能识别并忽略它们。
- 02
作者公开回应攻击者往往得不偿失，但同情她的处境：匿名攻击者几乎零成本，而作者承受真实伤害。
- 03
单一主题的书评社区容易形成小圈子和等级文化，作者应谨慎参与，把它当参考资料而非社交场所。
- 04
对恶意评论者，'不回应'本身就是一种策略——回应等于给了对方存在感的确认。
HN 评论精选
同情作者的过激回应：匿名攻击零成本、伤害真实，平台对此漠不关心。
很多评论在指责 Kathleen 的回应方式，但我同情她。互联网给了大众发声渠道，但像 Blythe 这样滥用话语权的人似乎成了开放网络世界的'必要代价'，不必承担任何后果。一个人在网上能造成的破坏是真实而巨大的：只需一个恶意者就能煽动人群去人肉、抹黑、毁掉一个人的事业，而参与者几乎零风险——匿名且无需担责。Kathleen 的回应或许过激，但我完全理解：她被一个拥有全世界话语权的人攻击，对方一心要毁掉她的作品，而平台利于制造暴民却不利于辩论。我可能也会那么做。我不知道解决方案是否存在，但这是真问题。
kyro查看英文原文
Many of the comments there are chastising Kathleen for how she responded, but I sympathize with her. As wonderful as the internet has proven to be with connectedness and giving the masses a voice, I struggle to accept that people like Blythe, who abuse their newfound reach, just happen to be the cost of an open online world, not having to bear any consequences for their actions. The potential damage that one person can now cause online is real and substantial. All it takes is one malicious individual to rile up the online troops to doxx, smear, and ruin a person and their career. And there's almost no risk involved in participating in such an act -- you are anonymous and not held accountable for anything you do. So while Kathleen's response might seem a bit excessive, I can certainly understand why she acted that way. She was being attacked by an individual who had all the voice and reach in the world, on a mission to destroy her literary work, using a platform that's frustratingly conducive to mob-creation but not debate. I might have done the same. I don't know what the solution is, or even if one exists, but this is a real problem. We saw the other week how Twitter was used to volley targeted death threats, and how the individual on the receiving end felt genuinely unsafe for her life. And yet Twitter, Reddit, et al. are very blasé about the severity of it all. You wouldn't want to hurt your growth rate, I guess.
喷子的动机是刷存在感，彻底不回应才是最有效的否定。
'我喷故我在'——一个奇怪却完全说得通的动机解释。这也是为什么存在 helbanning（影子封禁）。删除评论、封禁账号（或像文中那样拉黑）是一种回应，与'喂养'不同，但仍是回应。本质上拒绝回应，就是拒绝承认喷子的存在价值。
eksith查看英文原文
"I troll therefore, I am" : An odd, yet perfectly acceptable lesson on the motivation behind their actions. As an aside, this is why helbanning exists. To delete a comment or ban an account, (or in the case of the article, block an account) is a response, a different one to feeding, yet a response nonetheless. To deny a response in essence is to deny the troll validation of their existence.
单一主题书评社区易滋生小圈子文化，作者应只参考、不参与。
这事发生在 Goodreads 我毫不意外。我常用这个网站，但把它归入大多数单一主题'社区'一类——只当参考资料用，绝不参与互动。这类地方往往充满自己的习俗和等级体系，被超级用户和关系驱动的群体主导，正是作者遇到的那种。亚马逊终于也承认了 Goodreads 社区的毒性。我真正好奇的是：什么让社区变成这样？是管理失败，还是某些话题和人群天生更易受影响？
incision查看英文原文
That this started on Goodreads doesn't surprise me at all. I use the site regularly, but I put it in the same category as most single topic 'communities' - something I'll use (reference), but know better than to engage with. Basically, I find that such places tend to end up heavily steeped in their own customs and hierarchy which are dominated by the sort of super users and relationship-driven mobs that the author ran into. At least Amazon finally acknowledged the toxic elements of the Goodreads community [1]. It's surely a tough problem. What I really wonder is what exactly causes a community to end up that way? Every successful community has a struggle with growth and groupthink, but some get particularly bad. Is it a failure in moderation or are some topics and demographics just more susceptible? 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodreads#Criticism_and_controversy
恶意差评集中在个别平台且易被识别，作者本可以无视它们。
假设作者听从了所有有经验的人的建议，无视那些博客作者的聒噪，后果会怎样？这本书在亚马逊上的评价没问题，批评性评论大多理性而非喷子式的。据我搜索，激烈的负面情绪似乎只限于 Goodreads 和一些博客。看几条 Goodreads 差评，很明显它们不是'正当'评论——所谓正当，是指评论者真的读过书，仅基于书的内容给出诚实意见。真正想判断是否喜欢这本书的读者应该能识别喷子评论并忽略。简言之：这些人真的重要吗？
tzs查看英文原文
Suppose the author had followed the advice she kept receiving from everyone she talked to with experience dealing with book bloggers, and ignored the blathering of the bloggers. Would would be the likely consequences for the author and her book? The book's Amazon reviews are fine. The critical reviews there generally seem to be sane and rational, not trollish. As far as I can tell Googling a bit, the intense negativity seems confined to Goodreads and maybe some blogs. Taking a look at a few of the negative Goodreads reviews, it is pretty obvious that they are not legitimate [1] reviews. Most people reading the Goodreads reviews to actually try to determine if they would enjoy the book should have little trouble recognize the troll reviews and ignoring them. In short, do these people actually matter? [1] What I mean by "legitimate" is that the reviewer read the book, and is giving their honest opinion of the book itself based upon just its contents.
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选