Novelist Alice Hoffman, pictured here, found herself in hot water today after she printed the phone number of a critic who had disliked Hoffman's latest book.
(Author photo courtesy of Deborah Feingold)Photos (1 of 1)
Novelist Hoffman apologizes for blasting a book reviewer on Twitter
By Matthew Shaer | 06.29.09
“The author doesn’t deliver.”
That short clause, printed yesterday in the book review section of The Boston Sunday Globe, has today sparked a swirling debate over the relationship between writers and critics in the digital age. The author in question is Alice Hoffman, whose latest novel, “The Story Sisters,” was recently released to mild reviews.
Writing in The Washington Post, Wendy Smith called the book “excessive and over-determined but ultimately so moving that it overwhelms these faults.” In the Times, Chelsea Cain said that the novel’s “last act grows a bit histrionic and narrative strands are over-tangled, then too neatly tied up, but Hoffman’s writing is so lovely and her female characters so appealing that it almost doesn’t matter.”
And in The Boston Globe, Roberta Silman said “this new novel lacks the spark of the earlier work. Its vision, characters, and even the prose seem tired.” Each of these three reviews – Globe, Post, and Times – arrived at a similar conclusion: “The Story Sisters” is a solid book from a writer Smith identified as “maddeningly uneven.” A solid book, but not without flaws. “Lovely” to read, but not particularly groundbreaking.
Still, it’s Silman’s critique that seems to have really agitated Hoffman. Yesterday, presumably after reading the Globe piece, Hoffman took to her Twitter account, and blasted Silman. A sampling of the tweets, reprinted with help from Gawker:
• “Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe is a moron. How do some people get to review books? And give the plot away.”
• “Now any idiot can be a critic. Writers used to review writers. My second novel was reviewed by Ann Tyler. So who is Roberta Silman?”
• “Girls are taught to be gracious and keep their mouths shut. We don’t have to.”
• “My single bad review in my hometown. This is a town where a barking dog is the second top story on the news.”
• “No wonder there is no book section in the Globe anymore – they don’t care about their readers, why should we care about them.”
At one point, Hoffman printed Roberta Silman’s email address and her phone number – it’s unclear how she obtained the latter; the former was printed with the review – and encouraged her readers to tell Silman what they thought of “snarky critics.” Earlier today, after a Gawker blogger plastered news of the Twitter messages across the site, Hoffman deactivated her Twitter account.
This afternoon, Hoffman’s publicist sent the Monitor a brief statement from the author:
I feel this whole situation has been completely blown out of proportion. Of course I was dismayed by Roberta Silman’s review which gave away the plot of the novel, and in the heat of the moment I responded strongly and I wish I hadn’t. I’m sorry if I offended anyone. Reviewers are entitled to their opinions and that’s the name of the game in publishing. I hope my readers understand that I didn’t mean to hurt anyone and I’m truly sorry if I did.
In the literary blogosphere, Hoffman’s original tweets have been greeted with condescension. Writing on Entertainment Weekly’s blog, Kate Ward said that revealing Silman’s contact information bordered on “harassment.” Blogger Edward Champion calls Hoffman “the most immature writer of her generation.” Over at the Literary Saloon, M.A. Orthofer writes, “You’d figure someone who has been around as long as Alice Hoffman would know better than to complain about what she perceived as a bad review.”
And yet Hoffman has her defenders. Here’s a comment from the Entertainment Weekly post, attributed to “Zora”:
I think in the big picture, Hoffman is being judged way too harshly. So she wanted to vent and rant. Who cares? No one knows why she became angry, but everyone has their moments, for better or worse. People who claim to be her readers who say they will no longer read her books because she got upset are being way too dramatic. I didn’t agree with the way Hoffman reacted or her tactics, but for the first time, I saw her as a human being and not just the perfect image of an author typing away in some old house.
My opinion? Probably just a case of Web 2.0 inexperience. Hoffman acted without thinking – and didn’t count on how quickly social networks such as Twitter can generate, foster, and fan the flames of controversy. (Disclosure: I’ve reviewed books for The Washington Post and The Boston Globe, where I once worked.) That doesn’t excuse the name calling, but judging by the removal of Hoffman’s Twitter account and her apology, we can chalk the whole thing up to a lesson learned.
—
Was Hoffman right to apologize? Tell us here – or on Twitter.
<< Was Wikipedia correct to censor news of David Rohde’s capture? | MainComments
2. Mary | 06.29.09
Alice Hoffman SHOULD have issued an apology, but the one she issued was lame. “I’m sorry if I offended anyone.” If? What about apologizing to Roberta Silman, whose home phone number she posted with a call for her fans to phone the reviewer and “tell Roberta Silman off.”
3. taylor | 06.30.09
I don’t think we can excuse Hoffman’s actions so easily. With over 20 tweets raging about the review and a call to harass the reviewer (supplying the unlisted phone number no less) Hoffman crossed a line from mere thoughtless tweeting to full on inexcusable behavior.
5. James A Woods | 06.30.09
She didn’t apologize. She issued a defense of her unreasonable actions. Hoffman claims the whole thing is blown out of proportion and she’s sorry “if”… And she did mean to hurt someone when she asked fans to harass Roberta Silman.
6. Mo | 06.30.09
Alice Hoffman’s “apology” holds as much sincerity for me as those postings by certain right to lifers after the recent murder of the “abortion” doctor. The intention in posting the subject’s phone number was ultimately the same … to force the objects of their displeasure to cease their actions with the implicit threat that direct action could be taken against them, physically as well as verbally. After all, once you know someone’s phone number, it’s not excessively difficult to find out their physical address.
7. Lori | 06.30.09
Ms. Hoffman: If you publish something (movie, play, book, music) for public consumption and personal monetary profit, you should expect to be critiqued. Not everyone is going to like your work, and that includes critics with large audiences as well as members of the reading public. It’s those members of the public who pay for your salary, not the critics. Damaging your reputation with them by being immature to the point of grade-school revenge tactics will ultimately hurt your pocketbook more than one bad review (which, by the way, is probably being read by at least 100 times more people on the internet than would have seen it in the newspaper if you’d swallowed your precious pride and kept your mouth shut).
8. Jackie (Literary Escapism) | 06.30.09
I have to say, that out of all the tweets she said, the one that really got me was when she said: “Interesting, reviewers can say what they want. But when writers speak up they’re “going after” reviewers.”
Isn’t the idea of reviewing anything? Giving your opinion, hence being able to say what we want? Are we really suppose to take into consideration the authors feelings before writing our own reviews? Wouldn’t that take away from the honesty of our own opinions? And what value would the reviews have then if we had to cater to the authors?
Plus, I have to agree with everyone so far…Hoffman didn’t apologize. Not to the person who really mattered. Posting Silman’s personal information is a violation of her privacy and why she thinks a generic public apology, and not one directed at Silman, would suffice is beyond me. The whole fiasco was childish and she should have done a public apology directed at Silman. I’ll be honest, I never even knew who she was until this happened and now I really don’t care to know what she writes.
And Lori is right…I never would have seen the review without hearing about this. Hoffman is probably getting a ton of publicity right now; whether she wants it or not.
9. Scott Edelman | 06.30.09
Did you ever see how novelist Brad Meltzer responded to his critics? Check out his YouTube video:
That’s how to respond to reviews with grace and humor. I’m saddened Alice Hoffman was unable to access those qualities within herself.
10. Ralph | 06.30.09
while I agree that the author was out of line,what does the murder of an abortionist have to do with any of this?(no quotations necessary..he WAS an abortionist)..there are other forums if that is your agenda
11. Amanda M | 07.01.09
Ah, but posting a phone number would be no big deal if we lived in a society generally mature enough to know that just because you have a piece of information doesn’t mean you have to do anything with it. Do readers (not authors) actually get so worked up about book reviews that they would be willing to call the reviewer about it? If Silman actually received any calls as a result of the initial tweet and not as a result of the subsequent media coverage I would be surprised.
12. SMD | 07.02.09
Amanda: If Stephanie Meyers had posted this sort of stuff, you’d better believe it that people would be calling Silman on an hourly basis. Hoffman may very well have a few nutty, overly devoted fans… Just look up some of the reactions Twilight nuts have had to criticism of their favorite book series.
13. GIOVANNI | 07.03.09
IT SEEMS TO ME THE REASON OF THE AUTHOR’S FURY WAS NOT THE BAD CRITIC BY THE REVIEWER BUT THE ‘PLOT GIVEN AWAY’. IN FACT IT WAS NOT A SMART THING TO DO…
14. M. Davis | 07.05.09
While I agree that Hoffman was unwise and unprofessional in venting her anger at the review in a public forum, and likewise agree that it was flatly wrong of her to post Silman’s email address and phone number, it should be noted that some of Hoffman’s anger stems from the fact that Silman gave away the ending of the book, which will spoil the story for many readers. Silman isn’t entirely blameless here.
15. Melanie Simms | 07.09.09
This is a tough one… I think giving out personal info (if it wasnt public knowledge) was bad taste– but I can definately sympathize with the knawing effect critics can have on a writer– they are always looking for something negative– they call it analysis– the only problem is, their anaylsis can often be politically influenced and biased… how many contests do you enter that are won because a writer can bring more fame to the contest, for example.. its a bitter battle… the best thing you can do is remember Madonna.. and turn even bad press into an advantage for sales! 
I get upset, we all do especially with something as sensitve and close to us as our work… perhaps critics could learn a little humanity…
16. Melanie Simms | 07.09.09
Did that get submitted? Just wanted to share some empathy— feel bad for her in many ways–though her actions seemed immature, the critics ARE NOT always right and they can often be swayed by politics and personal bias… its important to remember that critics err just as much as writers… perhaps it would be important for critics to remember that writers write from the heart– adn thats one of the most sensitive places to come from… its only natural to find some rebuttal and hurt. Perhaps critic would do well to remember that.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. FO | 06.29.09
Everyone has the right to rant their opinion, no matter how petty or immature. However, posting Silman’s telephone number and encouraging her followers to harass her was entirely beyond the pale. Any reasonable adult, regardless of what their internet experience/inexperience may be, should have recognized that as an extremely poor and potentially dangerous choice.
Hoffman’s Twitter account should remain deactivated until she is able to to develop some sort of internal delay between private thoughts and public expression.