Mental Health: Not always a matter of will

A few days ago an author posted a tweet. This isn't really news, as many authors post tweets every day. This, however, was one that I kind of felt was harmful in several ways.

The post in question was from global bestselling author Laurell K Hamilton on the subject of mental illness and while I don't think she meant any true ill will, it's something that made me more than a little mad.

I've seen people overcome tremendous odds & others with all the help fail. Force of will makes the difference. @econoprof @darrincoe
— Laurell K. Hamilton (@LKHamilton) October 5, 2013

The gist of the tweet was that Hamilton was talking about her own battle with mental illness and how she felt like she was taking charge of the situation. However at the same time the tweet sends off a dangerous message: that what happens in the course of mental illness is all down to choice.

Don't get me wrong. To a degree choice does factor into how your mental illness unfolds. If someone knows that they are suffering from a mental illness, has the ability to access mental health care, and chooses to do so, then they are influencing their future. The same goes for someone in this situation who chooses not to get help.

However mental illness isn't as easy as getting help and telling yourself that you won't do something harmful. It doesn't work that way. If it did, then every clinic out there would have people who walk in and out of the doctor's office in perfect mental health.

Sometimes a person can have depression that sinks in so heavily that they can't stop themselves from doing or thinking things that are detrimental to themselves and the people around them. Even if a portion of their brain is screaming out that picking up that shotgun is not the answer, their mental illness is screaming at them even louder and makes it impossible for that part of their mind to be heard.

Sometimes people can really, really want to break a cycle of mental illness but have no access to health care. Yes, yes. I know that some will say that many places have free or nearly free health facilities or suicide hotline numbers to call to talk to people. Not everyone has the ability to access those and for some, the free or nearly free alternatives aren't enough. Despite this being a bright shiny world where people are supposed to have more access to health care options and support groups than ever before, not everyone has equal access to these things.

And sometimes a person's culture, environment, or upbringing can make an equally huge difference. Some people grow up being told that seeking a psychiatrist or therapist means that you're completely and utterly broken, that there's something so wrong with you that you deserve to be locked away from humanity. There was and in many places, still is a huge stigma associated with seeking professional help. Some cultures and religions still see this kind of therapy as "bad".

The problem with all of this, and I'm running into a rant here, is that it's not as easy as saying that someone's will will make all the difference in how their mental health unfolds. A person can have access to great health care, have a huge support network, and a wonderfully rational mind full of common sense... yet still be unable to will themselves healthy. For Hamilton to essentially make it seem like mental health is all about telling yourself you won't fail is a hugely dangerous message.

It tells people that if their minds are telling them that they're worthless, that they aren't "trying hard enough to be happy". Hyperbole and a Half did an excellent blog on how depression isn't always easily solved by you trying to will yourself into a happy state. A person can know that their line of thinking isn't "right" or "logical" and try so damn hard to turn everything around... yet it doesn't work. For someone to say that "Force of will makes the difference" can make people feel like they're even more useless and that they aren't doing things right.

The problem is that there's no right way to do things. Sometimes someone can go into things with an extremely strong will and the mindset that they will beat their depression... yet still end up losing the battle.

How do I know this?

A few years ago my uncle shot himself. He'd been battling depression for years and had a mind that was unbelievable. My uncle had an amazingly large circle of friends, family, and students. He made a huge impact on the people around him to where we couldn't have all of his mourners in the funeral home. We still have people stop by my grandparents' house on the anniversary of his death. My uncle was far from perfect, but he was what people call "a damn good person".

But he still shot himself. And yes, he reached out to people around him for help. But sometimes none of that is enough. Sometimes someone can get so overwhelmed with their depression and mental problems that all of the ideas of willpower, support networks, and professional help get washed away in the moment. Sometimes people can have that brief moment where they can call for help. Sometimes they have people around them that can call for help. But sometimes they don't. My uncle fought for a long time and he was one of thousands of people who lose the fight against depression every year.

Don't get me wrong. A mindset can have an impact on someone's mental health. It's just that so often people tend to assume that someone can will themselves out of depression. Sometimes they can. But not everyone. That's why it's very dangerous to make blanket statements like the one Hamilton did.

If she was some nobody then this might not be so bad, but she's someone with a large audience and her words get read by a lot of people. I don't think her intent was to make it sound like someone can will themselves better and that if they fail then it's because they "didn't try hard enough", but that's what it comes across like.

I haven't posted in a really long time due to school, but Hamilton's tweet pissed me off royally and I had to write something about it.

Further reading:

*Hyperbole and a Half: Adventures in Depression
*Hyperbole and a Half: Depression Part 2

Authors Behaving Badly? Carroll Bryant

I was recently directed to a rant by indie author Carroll Bryant on Goodreads. (Click here to go to said post.)

Basically what Bryant posted was that a number of blogs had approached him for copies of one of his books (I think it was Children of the Flower Power) and then never delivered the reviews or interviews they'd promised. To a degree I can certainly understand his frustration, even though I'm not an author. It's got to be really upsetting when you send a physical book out to someone, spending your own money to send out copies of a book that you only have in limited supply. I've had to spend my own money to mail out books from various contests I've held, so I know how expensive it can get when you're sending out 3-4 books at a time to various places on the globe.

Yet what makes Bryant's rant a little off is that he's threatening to post names of various bloggers.

This is both good and bad in a way. Why is it good? Because quite obviously, there are a few bloggers out there that are exactly what Bryant's rant complained about. You're going to get people like that everywhere, not just in the literary world. How many of the bloggers on his list actually are freeloaders or scammers though... that's where the list turns bad.

Reason number 1: Not every blogger has loads of free time to review books non-stop like a machine. This past year I myself have gone through months where I'm only able to read for 2-3 minutes at a time and review books have piled up like snowflakes in a blizzard. I've got novels that I've purchased years ago that have piled up because I feel that I should read the review books first. This isn't something I recommend, though, because when you start reading only to review, you begin to lose joy in the very thing that you love: reading. This means that you do less of it because it feels like work, even if it's a book you know you like. (Although in my case my lack of reading tends to be more because I'm coming into my final years of college and have to take all of those great 300 and 400 level classes that I've been putting off.) That some of his reviewers were teenagers just sort of takes this to a new level because life is pretty busy when you're a teenager, or at least that's what it felt like when I was still in my teens. (Now I miss the free time I had back then, but when I was about 16-17 it felt like I didn't even have enough time to take a breath!)

Reason number 2: Sometimes the blogger doesn't give a review or holds off on giving a review or interview because they just didn't like your book and are afraid of hurting your feelings. I've done this in the past. I've put off giving a definitive answer because I didn't want to hurt the author's feelings, especially if they were indie. Being told that your baby smells bad hurts even if it isn't being said maliciously. I don't like telling people that I didn't like their books because I know that even the nicest criticism still cuts. I know it's necessary for the author to grow, but that doesn't make it any easier for you (the author) to hear or for me (the reviewer) to say. Sometimes I'll write negative reviews if I think I can write them well enough, but a lot of times I'll pass on them. Why? Because many times I'm pretty sure that I'm just not the right reader for a book and I don't want someone to pass on a read because they read a review where the reader was just the wrong person. Of course the fear of angry author rage doesn't help this out any either.

Reason number 3: Just because a blogger reneged on your deal doesn't mean that they're bad sauce. It'd be nice if they were to just say "no, I'm not going to review your book or interview you because of ________", but it's not always like that and sometimes there are good reasons behind it that have nothing to do with a blogger being flighty. Just because you had a bad experience with a blogger once during a certain point in time doesn't mean that this is standard for the blogger.

Reason number 4: Because it makes you look like a nutter. Sorry, but this is the truth. Threatening to post names of bloggers, whether they deserve it or not, looks very bad. Indie authors have to fight for publicity and to get their novels out, which isn't helped by the growing group of readers/reviewers/bloggers that are looking for bad behavior to feed on. This isn't the same as trying to neutrally report on it, mind you. No, there are people out there who are looking to crucify any author who makes a move that is even slightly dubious. I'm not going to name names, but I've seen people holler over author behavior that isn't all that bad, to be honest. This type of trend makes a lot of readers and reviewers leery of reading new authors, which makes it harder for many indie people to be taken seriously. It also makes it a lot harder for the author behaving badly to be taken seriously.

Reason number 5: Because you'll get blacklisted in return. Even if every single blogger on Bryant's list deserved to be black listed, creating a list of bloggers that shouldn't be used or visited makes the other reviewers and bloggers leery. What exactly do you have to do to be put on a list? Would any behavior do? What if the qualifications for being on the list changes over time and you get put on it simply because you're slow in responding to emails and other stuff? It makes you look as if you're a powder keg waiting to go off. As a result the blogger/reviewer crowd in general will simply stop doing business with you because they don't know how you'll react. This doesn't mean that everyone will ignore you, but it will make it harder for you to get that serious review or interview with Dear Author or any of the other big name blogs out there.

I guess the bottom line here is that authors just have to be careful about posting stuff like this. I understand Bryant's frustration, but he's got to understand that this is actually pretty standard. Even the big names in the literary business have people who get review copies and then never actually follow through on their promise to review. Some of the publishers get responses back saying that they won't get a review from Publisher's Weekly, some of them never even get as much as a one sentence email saying that Klausner can't make the time to post a review on Amazon. And these publishers send out far more copies of their books than the indies do. (Granted they have more money to be sending out copies en masse, but it still happens.)

So this brings us to the big question of what can you do if you have something like this happen?

First off, complain privately and only to a group of people that you know won't blab to outsiders. I know that you might mean well, but public rants can and will be taken badly. It doesn't matter if you have the world's best argument, it won't go over well when the subject is creating a list of bloggers that you think have bad practices.

Secondly, if you must make up a list, keep that private as well. Only give it to those trusted friends. NEVER discuss them publicly unless you absolutely can talk about it neutrally. Even then, make sure to say that this is only your personal experience and that it might differ from person to person. I've had some pretty bad experiences with authors, but I don't go around making big public lists of authors that you shouldn't read. Not only does that make me look bad, but come on... the author might have been having a bad day or something along those lines. If I have that happen I tell a few of my closest and most trustworthy friends to beware of those authors and then move on.

Thirdly, invest in ebook copies of your book. It is exciting to send out and receive paper copies of books, but go for ebooks. Not only is it more environmentally friendly to send out ebooks to reviewers, but this way you lose out on less if the reviewer doesn't follow through with their promise to review you. This is why I usually prefer ebook copies. I know that if I were to go through a slow period of reading, I won't feel bad that an author sent me a paper copy that could've gone to a more prolific reviewer. (Or that if I have a paper book I don't like, that the book could've gone to someone that would've liked it more.)

Finally and most importantly, the best advice is to just move on. No matter whether or not the reviewer deserves your scorn or not, there's nothing good that will come out of posting public lists or rants about them. If they are a bad blogger or reviewer, they'll do a good job of shooting themselves in the foot and most times reviewers like that will end up quitting their blog after a set period of time anyway. Blogs in general tend to only have a life span of 4-5 years, with the blogger either retiring, forgetting about the blog, or passing the torch onto others for whatever reasons. There's nothing to gain from publicly roasting bloggers for what is ultimately small potatoes. It stinks that you're out the cost of postage and a book, but just tell a few trusted author buddies not to use that blogger and move on. The short-lived publicity you get when others report on your actions is not worth the grief you'll get from it later on down the road when someone continues to associate you with something you wrote in a heated moment you'll later come to regret.

Follow up:

Well, it looks like the original thread on GR has been deleted and Bryant has been banned/blocked from the site. Despite this, he still posted the list on his personal blog, which seems to have also been removed. I am not going to repost the list, for obvious reasons. The only comment that I'll make is that it's a good thing that Bryant removed it, and not because he posted names of blogs that he wants to warn others about.

What this might mean for Bryant in the long run has yet to be shown. I'm trying to remain somewhat neutral about this in public, but this is really just another good example of what not to do when faced with something that upsets you.

How not to respond to a review: Fandom version

Hi everyone! I've got two things to mention, one that's good & another that's not so good. First the good: I should be posting a new set of authors & books to check out along with a contest, so look back in a week or two!

The other thing isn't really so good.

/rant mode on

I was a little bored earlier tonight so I decided to flip through my little stock pile of books. While doing so, I re-discovered a book that I'd wanted to read but had put off for one specific reason. What was that reason?

The fan reaction. I'm not going to name the author. If you haven't discovered this author then I want you to find her without this hanging over you. If you've already read her stuff then I don't want to ruin the reading experience for you.

This author is relatively popular on amazon, but of course with any amount of positive reviews you're going to get some negative reviews. Hey- it comes with the territory. Nobody is going to agree 100% on anything. No matter how well you think something is written, there's always going to be someone who doesn't agree with you. This doesn't mean that they're stupid or that they're attacking your opinions. It also doesn't mean that they're jealous or that they're trying to sabotage the author. It just means that for whatever reason, this book just wasn't for them.

In this particular instance the negative reviews for this author were getting bombarded by people saying all sorts of things about the reviewers. One memorable commenter asked how many books the reviewer had written. (This same reviewer commented on quite a few of the negative reviews.) Others were lambasted for various reasons from not finishing the book to the bad grammar of the reviewer. It got sort of nasty.

The really awful thing about this? The author did actually comment in one of the reviews & was nothing but nice. Unfortunately her comment was lost in a sea full of well-meaning but overly rabid fans out to "get" anyone who said something they didn't agree with.

Seriously, if you find yourself doing this or tempted to do this... take a step away from the computer and take a deep breath. I know that you want to defend your author & that you feel if you only vent to the reviewer that they'll see the light, but STOP. It doesn't make you look good and most importantly, it doesn't make the author look good either. You might have good intentions but commenting back to a negative review rarely ends well. The same goes for down-voting because nine times out of ten you're down voting it because you don't agree with the opinion, not because the review is actually unhelpful.

I still have the book because I'm hoping that eventually I'll be able to forget the horrible behavior by the fandom. I just can't bring myself to read it because each time I remember the fan reaction & I get worried that if I were to read & dislike it, would I be attacked if I reviewed the book? Then I end up turning to another story because I just don't want to knowingly put myself through that.

So what to do when you're looking up your favorite author & see a negative review? The same thing you should do if you're an author & you see a negative review. Ignore it. If you're on amazon, don't even bother down-voting it. If you absolutely positively feel that you have to respond, remember that online comments don't usually give off the proper meaning and/or inflection that you want it to. That rather innocuous comment that you planned on posting might come across as a condescending fan rant.

The best thing to do would be to make sure that you've given that book a positive review once you've finished it. Don't mention the negative reviews or any of the comments. That comes across like you're only posting because of the negative reviews. Isn't that insulting the author, for his or her work to share second billing with a rant against negative reviewers?

(Although it should be said that if your negative review contains personal information about the author that has absolutely nothing to do with the book or you're commenting on a book that you haven't even picked up, then you should hold off on that review for right now. Just because you're angry that George R.R. Martin takes years to release a book or you hate that everyone's into the Twilight craze is no reason to post a review.)

So in any case, so ends my little rant. I know that everyone's been in this situation on both sides, both seeing the comments & getting put off of them as well as wanting to comment on a negative review (this is why I don't read reviews on Scott Sigler books). We just have to make sure that we don't turn into one of the fan ranters. It only hurts the author in the long run, which is the exact opposite of what we want to accomplish.

/rant mode off