> Hell, it's not implausible that the entire article was written to spread more information about Blythe, needlessly continuing a vendetta that should never have begun.

The fact that she used Blythe's "real" name is what makes this the most likely case, in my view. Especially considering the last line on the article: "Some names have been changed."

Why wasn't Blythe's name changed?

An above commenter found her actual Goodreads account, and her twitter[0]. If I were some kind of eVigilante/troll, I could easily continue the cycle of harassment, thanks to this article.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8476103

Not only that, but someone in the Guardian comments seems to reckon that STGRB have a pattern of doing this to people who leave negative reviews:

"Would it be helpful to know STGRB are notorious for doxxing book reviewers? For not just giving information like their real names, addresses, photographs of them, places of work, but the places they like to frequent and the times they are likely to be there? They're peaches, all of "them"."

Writing lies about you and your job that affects your job performance (sales) is something you're willing to turn the other cheek on?

My general belief is if you want to destroy sometimes livelihood, do it with your real identity or expect it to be discovered.

It's hard to say, honestly, but I'm in no way a public figure.

I cannot imagine how much many pages this article would have to be if Steven King were to investigate every persistent critic.

But comparing this even to much more moderate degrees of fame, I feel like we end up in Phil Fish territory, wherein the more you engage, the more you sustain the unwanted attention, and you end up creating a negative feedback loop wherein more engagement equates to even greater attempts at having your livelihood destroyed.

Ultimately, she ignored every good piece of advice she was given, and ended up in the situation as a result of it. In the future, I assume she altogether skips the blogger distribution up front and just writes, which is what she should have done in this case.

I'm not faulting her for being crazy, mind you... we're all nuts in different ways, I just don't think that it's fair to downvote the OP for calling her crazy when that agrees with the author's own self-diagnosis.

Maybe not their post, but the tone in which it was posted. "Obsessiveness" != "the work of a dangerous lunatic" as you say, but the hyperbole was obviously not welcome.

But also worth noting, as mentioned above, this wasn't just an errant post on a review site. The "troll" reached out to the author as well, which was duplicitous and borderline obsessive as well.

Also, common sense flies out the window when something you're passionate about, your work, is so unjustly criticized ;)

> Also, common sense flies out the window when something you're passionate about, your work, is so unjustly criticized

Fair, but I'm sure she's learned the lesson by now that paying too much attention to any of those criticisms loops one into a pattern of unhealthy behavior that I hope she will avoid in the future... for her sake.

For less than this, the police would arrest a "troll". Whys it OK when a right-on Guardian journo does it?

You answered your own question: "journo".

Our standards for acceptable behavior for private citizens is different based on occupation (or ostensible purpose in life).

Common sense can lead you into a safe life (which I'm not knocking). But sometimes curiosity is way more powerful than common sense and violating common sense rules is what makes the most interesting stories. I loved what she did.