> 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.
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"."
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