are people honestly just mad at this collection because she confronted that one silly blogger who kept giving her nasty reviews and then crying about being the victim for some odd reason and then turned out to be a catfish from the first essay? and people feel like in order to somehow protect the "free speech rights" of any dumbass blogger with an equally as dumb opinion and to just generally stand up for the “sanctity” of online writing reviews, they have to tank the score of a genuinely wonderful collection? because if so, people are even dumber and more petty than i thought they were and my expectations were already pretty god damn low. granted it felt to me like most of these essays would have felt incredibly out of place published in pretty much any form of traditional media and leaned more toward being experimental, literary nonfiction so i suppose if you were expecting more informative pieces of actual old school journalism, i could see why you might be disappointed. also some of the opinions she expressed/judgments she made throughout the essays were a bit disagreeable/off-putting (at least to me), but i also got the feeling that perhaps those weren't her genuine opinions and were more so written to add to the overall tone/experimental nature of the works, but hey i could be wrong and if so, i'm definitely not supporting a fair bit of what she said throughout this collection, but that doesn't take away whatsoever from how well-written, challenging, and completely enthralling the collection ended up being hence why i gave it such a high rating and legitimately don't understand its current low score/feel like most (if not all) of those scores were given in bad faith, but i suppose i could be wrong about that as well and people aren't just petty; they also have trash taste in essays/books of any genre, so that's a bummer for them. sucks to suck, i suppose.