We have only heard one side of the story, written by the author herself. It is very easy to paint someone in a misleadingly bad light even without lying by selectively presenting facts and writing the story so that the reader draws incorrect inferences to the detriment of the subject.

Psychopathic trolls themselves rely on this - and sometimes manage to manipulate online communities into rallying against their victim.

There is not enough information in the article to tell who is the troll and who is the victim here. The main argument relates to the use of pseudonymity is not wrong, and this is not really catfishing, just the use of a pseudonym - the blogger never invited the author to contact her.

Maybe the review was completely fictitious, and the reviewer never read the book, in which case she is the troll. Maybe it was heartfelt, and the reviewer read the book and really thought it sent a socially irresponsible message - and indeed, reached out to the author to help her improve future books, in which case the author is really the troll here.