This "feminist" outlet published a piece tearing down 5 books by women—including me
Hating my novel is A-OK! Lazy journalism is not.
Yesterday I got a Google alert for this exceptionally stupid “article” on
:
I'm not linking because I’m not willing to give them the traffic. But I’ll tell you what this article isn’t:
a synthesis of professional reviews
actual criticism from a journalist who read the books
It's just a roundup of the cruelest one-star Goodreads reviews for five books by women. That's it—that's the whole shtick. Here’s what an actual women’s lifestyle publication printed about my book:
In Andrea Bartz's “We Were Never Here,” best friends Emily and Kristen meet annually for epic girls' trips. But during their latest getaway in Chile, Kristen kills a man, supposedly in self-defense. The thing is, the same thing happened on their trip the year before. As they return home, Emily begins to unravel, unsure if Kristen is a danger to others, or to herself. Goodreads gave the book a 3.50-star rating, as some readers struggled with the implausibility of repeated murder cover-ups.
One reader said, "I feel stupider for having read this book. I pushed past some truly atrocious prose ('my insides tumbled like concrete,' 'his clothes formed a casserole by his body') because the setup and first few chapters were actually pretty promising. What follows is a sloppy patchwork of cliches ... and exposition-heavy scenes that test the reader's patience." Another person commented, "I just wanted this book to stop, stop, stop."
The write-ups for the other four thrillers follow the same formula: book summary (which sounds suspiciously AI-written to me) + quotes from one-star reviews.1
Look, my book isn’t for everyone—no book is. But to devote space to belittling thrillers that other readers might love for clicks is just mean-spirited and lazy. It’s bad enough when someone tags me in a bad review. Instructing your audience not to pick up my novel on account of those haters (random people who, of course, know that the cruelest write-ups get the most likes) is infuriating.
And of course, OF COURSE, this is not the first time Women.com has done it: There’s an equally lazy “3 Reese's Book Club Reads That Aren't Worth Your Time” from April, an “Oprah's Book Club Picks That Aren't Worth Your Time” (packed with picks by authors of color!) that published on Tuesday. Rich coming from a media brand whose Instagram is packed with “empowering” quotes about self-worth and succeeding in a “man’s world.”
A digital-editor friend pointed out that Google Discover (a “personalized feed of content from the web”) loves negative headlines like these, so it’s safe to assume this is a cheap grab for eyeballs.
But in that case, why not scare readers away from books they should ACTUALLY avoid? (Think: “5 Books by TERFs to Take Off Your Bookshelf Now”.) Or do a little analysis and share the bestsellers with the widest ratings spread, with people either loving or hating it!
Instead, Women.com chose to tear down Reese and Oprah, women who’ve done so much to elevate women’s voices, as well as the authors who gave us these titles. (Reese’s Book Club only picks books by female and NB authors.) It’s giving Mean Girls burn book, and it’s trash.
I loved the other thrillers on this do-not-read list. And I’m lucky to know the women behind them, who, like me, poured their hearts and souls into their novels, hoping their words would resonate with readers, aiming to entertain people, knowing not everyone would love their art. I’m proud of my novels and understand that as long as I’m digging into the deep and vulnerable themes I want to explore, I’m gonna get some one-star reviews. That’s fine!
But with fewer and fewer outlets running book coverage at all, it's so disheartening to see this in a major publication. I’m calling
out not because I’m bitter that they included We Were Never Here (a book by a queer author, hi), but because it’s a cold, dark world out there, and the last thing we need is supposedly feminist media tearing down female creators.If you feel the same, feel free to let them know on Threads (the replies are giving me LIFE) or send them a note at staff@women.com.
The article also displays a breathtaking misunderstanding of Goodreads; in the “methodology” section, Women.com explains that they selected thrillers with averages below 4.0 on the site. But Goodreads itself defines its star ratings as (1) didn't like it, (2) it was okay, (3) liked it, (4) really liked it, and (5) it was incredible. (Not to mention that this article included a book with an incredible 3.96 average.)
Hey Andrea! I just wanted to support you. This sucks and I'm sorry that it happened to you. People forget their humanity just to get clicks.
Women tearing down women. That’s the last thing we should be doing. Every book has those kinds of reviews, using them as a reason for everyone not to read them is, as you said, “lazy journalism”. There are real people behind these books who worked their asses off, and belittling them serves absolutely no purpose other than to get clicks.