Kathleen Hale

No One Else Can Have You - Kathleen  Hale

 

                I should note, I suppose, that I find this author’s (and I use that term loosely) actions to be disgusting.

 

                I honestly really hadn’t heard of Kathleen Hale or her book prior to being told about her piece in the Guardian. I know I will never read anything by Hale. I also have stopped reading the Guardian.

 

                Several online bloggers and authors have written various posts about the inaccuracies and problematic issues of Hale’s piece. If you want a more detailed analysis, check out Jim C. Hines and Dear Author (links below). Suffice to say, with enough determination, a person can track down the original review that upset Hale and see that the review seems to simply be two words “Fuck This”, as in the book. This sentiment is no doubt one that many readers have felt at one time or another about a book. The updates of Harris’ reading of the book provide the reason for the reaction and there is respectful discussion about them. It should be noted that Hale and several articles about this mess have treated this update comments as a review. They are not. They are updates.(though some GRs, supportive of Harris, are saying there was a more detailed review. Hale's quotes, however, match many of the updates).

 

Furthermore, a quick look at other reviews written prior to Hale’s article shows that Harris isn’t the only one to feel this way about the rape and other issues. Additionally, statutory rape is at best problematic in books because for some readers an older man having intercourse with a young girl (i.e. any girl under 18 years of age) is just wrong, regardless of what any law may say. In many US states the age of consent can be as high as 18, and many readers have a low threshold for this teen with adult intercourse. I do. I just read a book by an author whose work I normally enjoy, but who had a teen and adult male engaged in sexual relationship. I went ick! While some people see statutory rape as non-rape, some see it as rape, and others decide based on the age of the people involved (i.e. two 16 year olds, no; but a 20 year old with a 16 year old, yes).

 

                And this view of rape leads me to some other issues surrounding Hale’s piece and to a degree the reaction to it. Some people have pointed out, correctly, that if Hale were a man; the reaction to her piece would be far different. When we think stalker, thanks to Hollywood, we either think Glenn Close and bunnies, or male predator stalking a pretty blonde.   It is tied to sex and that is it. It doesn’t have to be, society should lose the double standard and Hollywood treatment of stalking. In particularly here, when Hale invades what she presumes to be her critic’s work environment.  There are ramifications to such actions, and these can include the victim losing his/her job.

 

This point seems to be driven in part by the characterization of Hale in the piece. She describes herself as “anxious and inexperienced” even though she has been published. Admittedly not a book, but any internet search of Hale reveals she has been published by the Guardian as well as has a connection with Vice. Not the same, true, but she does know the idea of getting a bad response. A person might be more forgiving of an amateur, of someone who is already insecure. The use of such description and the acknowledgement of the book as part of her body, seem to be an angle for understanding or forgiveness.

 

Additionally, early in the article Hale refers to being “engaged in light stalking”. At best, such phrases show a disconnection from the issue and make a joke out of stalking. It is possible (though questionable in taste) to joke about stalking, but Hale’s constant reference to her stalking as something that is obsessed but not dangerous is weird and makes stalking out to be something that is not serious.

 

        I call bullshit on that.

 

Having your life invaded by someone who persistently forces themselves into it is not a funny issue. Hale admits to following Harris on the internet, to asking for Harris’ address, to requesting Harris for an interview. Look at this way. You are driving to work and curse at the idiot who seemly took your parking place. Said idiot follows you on Twitter and Instagram, calls you at your workplace and mentions your children, and shows up at your job. Feel okay with that? It’s just light stalking, you should be.

 

Then there is the question of looks and gender as it applies to Harris and how Hale sees her. Hale talks about Harris’s (a name she did not change, btw) tweet. Hale writes of the avatar, “She was young, tanned and attractive, with dark hair and a bright smile”. So the beauty sucked you in, is that? I guess this would tie into the idea of being catfished, but would Hale’s reaction have been the same if it was a fat, ugly guy? Did Hale obsess because she sees a dichotomy between looks and opinion? I don’t know. But there are other strange things in the article.

 

When talking about a spat with bloggers earlier this year, Hale writes, “For the rest of the afternoon, I fielded venom from teenagers and grown women, with a smattering of supportive private messages from bloggers who apologized for being too scared to show support publicly”. This is problematic because it implies that those who were mean were young and only woman as well as not professional. The term bloggers covers all ages and genders as well as giving the supporters a semi or totally professional description that those who dislike her don’t get. Why not refer to venom from some bloggers and support from others? This ties into the idea of women being vicious gossips and therefore what they say has no value. This is further brought to mind because in her article the only people Hale truly accepts advice from are men. She ignores what her female friends tell her. Indirectly, Hale seems to indict a woman’s voice is somehow, in some way worth less. Unless it is Hale’s, of course.

 

Even more disturbing is the inclusion of Nev Schulman, who uses the word chick in the piece. Schulman is problematic because he does have a negative reputation when it comes to women. Tie this with the use of Stop the Goodreads Bullies website - a site that targets women – and one wonders if Hale’s stalking of her critic is due simply to the critic’s gender. Both Hale and her supporter’s response seems to be based on the idea that (a) women should not expressed strong negative views and (b) only those are who are somehow and in some way anointed can be a critic of any type. That Harris can’t be a critic or have a critical response because she is a member of the uneducated masses.

 

                This is compounded by the fact that Hale and others don’t seem to understand why people might have an online fictional persona. I have no idea (and don’t care) what the truth of Harris’ home life and employment are. It’s none of my business. Considering that several authors are really pen names for a two people working together or made up entirely, it seems to be a double standard to attack Harris for this, especially when either of the two jobs that Hale contends that Harris might have would seem to require a degree of online anonymity. On a more practical level, and this might come as a surprise to Hale, it is entirely possible for someone to have more than one job or to have switched jobs and not update her profile.

 

                This “article” by Hale angers me on so many levels. As a reader, it pisses me off because it is telling me that my opinion about a book is not valued unless I get the book exactly the way the author wants me to and express my opinion exactly the way the author wants me to. As a woman, it pisses me off because the implication is that stalking is okay if it is a woman stalking a woman or that my voice is somehow worth less.

 

                It also upsets me as a consumer and fan of authors. There already is talk of only reading dead authors or neglecting independent authors or recently published authors. That angers me. Because it means that writers like Marty Gregor will not get noticed. Mr. Gregor asked me to review his book After the After.   He did so after I liked a review of the book a GR friend had posted. I said yes. I didn’t like the book and gave it a one star review. Did Mr. Gregor stalk me? Threaten me? Nope. He thanked me. He said that while he wasn’t happy getting a one star review (something I can understand); he would take the criticism into account for his future work. He didn’t make me feel guilty or nervous. He thanked me for reading the book. People like Hale (who had a profession publisher) give the true professional like Gregor (who published his book independently and most likely hired his own proofreader) a bad name.   That makes me incredibly sad. Because of Mr. Gregor’s behavior I will most likely give his second book a try when it comes out. But I will never touch anything by Hale or anything published in the Guardian for that matter.

 

Links:

Dear Author

Jim C Hines