The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
Readers will recall that some months ago, I called for a boycott of Tor Books. Since the company has taken no action (publicly, at least) over my concerns, that call remains in force; and, judging by what I hear from industry insiders about the latest quarterly results (there and elsewhere), it seems to be having an effect.
It has come to my attention that the World Fantasy Convention has decided to replace the bust of H. P. Lovecraft that constitutes the World Fantasy Award with some other figure. Evidently this move was meant to placate the shrill whining of a handful of social justice warriors who believe that a “vicious racist” like Lovecraft has no business being honoured by such an award. (Let it pass that analogous accusations could be made about Bram Stoker and John W. Campbell, Jr., who also have awards named after them. These figures do not seem to elicit the outrage of the SJWs.) Accordingly, I have returned my two World Fantasy Awards to the co-chairman of the WFC board, David G. Hartwell. Here is my letter to him:
Mr. David G. Hartwell
Tor Books
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Dear Mr. Hartwell:
I was deeply disappointed with the decision of the World Fantasy Convention to discard the bust of H. P. Lovecraft as the emblem of the World Fantasy Award. The decision seems to me a craven yielding to the worst sort of political correctness and an explicit acceptance of the crude, ignorant, and tendentious slanders against Lovecraft propagated by a small but noisy band of agitators.
I feel I have no alternative but to return my two World Fantasy Awards, as they now strike me as irremediably tainted. Please find them enclosed. You can dispose of them as you see fit.
Please make sure that I am not nominated for any future World Fantasy Award. I will not accept the award if it is bestowed upon me.
I will never attend another World Fantasy Convention as long as I live. And I will do everything in my power to urge a boycott of the World Fantasy Convention among my many friends and colleagues.
Yours,
S. T. Joshi
And that is all I will have to say on this ridiculous matter. If anyone feels that Lovecraft’s perennially ascending celebrity, reputation, and influence will suffer the slightest diminution as a result of this silly kerfuffle, they are very much mistaken.
Should anyone care to express an opinion on this matter to Mr. Hartwell, feel free to write to him at the above address or to his email address: dgh@tor.com .
(BTW, for those who may still be uncertain over what a 'social justice warrior' might be, Roosh has written an outstanding article defining the breed. I don't agree with some of his views on life, the universe and everything, but on SJW's he's spot-on. See also 'SJW's Always Lie', the definitive textbook on how to detect their attacks and defend yourself against them.)
I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see yet another Tor employee involved in this mess. I suppose it was predictable, given past events; and it demonstrates yet again why I called for a boycott of Tor in the first place. It seems too many of the company's employees are placing their personal political, social and economic views and perspectives ahead of the company's interests in their public actions and personae.
Readers will recall that a few months ago, I called for a boycott of Tor Books over the unconscionable attitudes and behavior of some of its senior personnel. Opponents of the boycott have made fun of it ever since, insisting that it's having little or no impact, whereas others - whose figures and 'inside knowledge' I have reason to trust - claim that we are, indeed, making our presence (or lack thereof) felt in Tor's sales numbers.
Now comes evidence that even a moderately successful boycott can have - and probably is having - an impact out of all proportion to its numbers. The latest Author Earnings quarterly report states:
In the 18 months between February 2014 and September 2015, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), whose 1200 members include the “Big Five”: Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Hachette — have seen their collective share of the US ebook market collapse:
from 45% of all Kindle books sold down to 32%
from 64% of Kindle publisher gross $ revenue down to 50%
from 48% of all Kindle author net $ earnings down to 32%
The AAP releases monthly StatShot reports on the total dollar sales of their 1200 participating publishers, of which the “Big Five” collectively account for roughly 80%.
So far in 2015, the AAP’s reports have charted a progressive decline in both ebook sales and overall revenue for the AAP’s member publishers.
. . . We can see from the above that the market-share shift in unit sales, away from traditional publishers ... has been mirrored by a similar shift in publisher gross $ revenue ... The AAP’s 1200 publishers account for no more than 50% of publisher ebook dollar revenue.
Traditional publishing’s May 2015 to September 2015 fall in ebook dollar market share is the steepest quarter-over-quarter drop we’ve seen so far, since AE first began tracking ebook sales in the Amazon kindle store in early 2014. (This latest drop has also as of yet not been reported by the AAP, who have just recently released their May 2015 report.)
I'm not arguing that the Tor boycott is the primary, or even an important, reason for the decline in sales by traditional publishers; but it's unquestionably a part of the whole. With every single sale more than usually important in such a business climate, even a small boycott has its effect. Our Tor boycott is not small. Judging by the numbers who've publicly committed to its support, both in comments on my blog and other participating Web sites and in those who've approached me privately, either in person or by e-mail, I'd estimate we're certainly costing Tor several hundred sales of print books every month, and probably several times that number of e-book sales. They can't afford to lose that turnover in today's market. If we keep up our efforts, they will be felt . . . and if Tor (and/or its holding company) has any sense, they'll do something to resolve the situation before it's too late.
At least two of the Big Five are going to collapse in the relatively near future, although I have no idea which of them it will be because I haven't seen their financials. We know that Tor Books is in trouble simply by observing that it is bringing in foreign authors and trying to pass off midlist authors as its leading men; the so-called biggest publisher of SF/F has published precisely zero of the big SF/F hits of the last few years. Forget Rowling and Martin and whoever wrote the Hunger Games, they couldn't even get Howey or the guy who wrote The Martian.
This is the price of failing to develop new talent; once a new author hits on Amazon, he has no incentive to work with the traditional publishers. Throw in the Pink SF gatekeeping, the unprofessional and abusive behavior of their editors, and it should be quite obvious that they're doomed. How long it will take to play out, I don't know, but the end game is already clear.
So, once more, thank you very much to everyone who's supported the Tor boycott. Please keep up the good work, and stand shoulder to shoulder with us in fighting the good fight.
Readers will doubtless recall that question from youngsters on long car journeys. They had no idea of time, no patience, and an endless supply of "I want it my way! Now!"
That attitude seems to be afflicting SJW author Jason Sanford, who can't wait to debunk the boycott of Tor Books that I and others called for following the unconscionable remarks made by one of that company's editors (the latest in a long line of them, made by more than one individual and using company time, computers and networks to do so). A couple of weeks ago he was already claiming that the boycott had failed. Today he doubles down on his obsession.
After examining two additional weeks of sales data it appears my initial analysis was correct. This new data shows that for the five weeks prior to the boycott starting on June 19, the weekly sales average for these Tor titles was 1652 books sold per week. For those same Tor titles, their weekly average sales for the last four weeks of the boycott has been 1679 books sold per week.
So on average, Tor's sales for these titles are up slightly since the boycott started.
I repeat what I've said before: the Tor boycott is a long-term effort. I know for certain, based on solid feedback from literally hundreds of individuals, that it's already biting. It was an eye-opener at LibertyCon last month to have so many people come up to me, thank me for taking a stand, and confirm that they were part of the boycott. I'm certain that in 2015 alone, the boycott will have a six-figure effect on Tor's turnover - not much for a multi-million-dollar-turnover publisher, but that's just the start. As those involved in the boycott continue it and spread the word, the impact will grow. I fully expect it to reach a cumulative total of seven figures over time. Again, that may not seem like a lot to scoffers and naysayers; but I think in today's publishing market, where margins are already razor-thin, such a loss of turnover may have an impact out of all proportion to its dollar value. Vox Day, who's also called for a boycott of Tor, has more 'inside information' than I do, and he's also confident that the campaign is having an impact.
Thank you to all of you who've taken a stand on principle and stood up for what is morally and ethically right. That has a value all its own, in a world that doesn't attach much value to either morals or ethics. Stay the course. This will go on for years, and I think it will bear both short- and long-term fruit. (As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, there's already convincing evidence of that.)
One would like to assume that Mr. Martin made his call entirely of his own volition, without any request for intervention from individuals and/or publishers affected by the boycott. For those who do make that assumption, I have a special offer - a bridge in Brooklyn, NYC that I happen to have for sale at a very attractive price. Cash only, please, and in small bills.
Corporate actions tend to move along very slowly and then happen all at once. Macmillan's CEO just returned from his sabbatical this week and I have been directly informed by a Macmillan executive that no decision on how to address the situation has yet been made. And while I suppose it is possible that Mr. Sargent could simply throw out the company Code of Conduct in order to retain the services of an arrogant, entitled employee who believes she can treat his company's customers and authors with total contempt and still retain her job, I tend to doubt it.
I will not be even remotely surprised if both Ms Gallo and Mr. Nielsen Hayden leave Tor Books in the near future. Macmillan quite clearly had no idea what sort of inmate-run asylum it has on its hands, and it's not surprising that it would take a little time for them to figure out what needs to be done in order to set it straight.
We shall see. I haven't called for anyone to be fired or forced to resign, but others have. Whether or not that happens, something needs to be done to ensure that the institutional bias that apparently rules the roost in at least certain parts of Tor is uprooted. One hopes that Macmillan (Tor's US oversight company) is up to that job. I'd much rather see Tor reform those parts of itself and its staff that need it, apologize for their past errors, and once again cater to the desires and aspirations of all its potential customers.
Peter
EDITED TO ADD: I note that Mr. Martin has mentioned Tor and/or the boycott in no less than threeseparateposts on his LiveJournal today. To misquote Shakespeare, "Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much." As I said above, if you think he's doing this entirely of his own volition, there's that bridge I mentioned . . .
I guess it's time to post an update on what's been happening with regard to the Tor boycott.
I had the opportunity to discuss the situation at considerable length with a large number of people at LibertyCon over the weekend. (I was humbled by the number who thanked me for speaking up about the situation at Tor. It's nice to know I'm far from alone in my anger.) It seems there's very positive support for the boycott from the majority of those with whom I spoke. I'd say it's certain that we're on track to cost Tor a six-figure sum this year, and probably that will continue for the foreseeable future. That may not seem like a lot to some; but six figures a year taken off Tor's turnover, merely because they would not apologize for actions taken in their name by their personnel using company time and computer facilities, seems like a fitting punishment. I wonder whether the company will still be as sanguine about it when the loss of turnover reaches seven figures?
SJW's continue to be as fanatical as ever in trying to brand various Puppy factions as racist, extremist, and any other -ist they can think of. They're still trying to identify 'leaders' of the Sad Puppy faction and draw them out, so that they can demonize them as individuals. Unfortunately for them, there are no particular SP leaders behind the boycott. It's a genuine mass movement. (A few of them have tried to demonize me in that way, but it hasn't worked, for two reasons. One is that they've already dismissed me - rudely - as a nobody, not worthy of their attention . . . which makes it difficult for them to build me up into some kind of a bogeyman. The other is that I truly am small fry, as I've pointed out before. I'm merely an individual who, because of my personal background and history, was more offended than many others by Irene Gallo's intemperate and untrue remarks; and I therefore spoke out, loudly, about the situation. Others have chosen to pick up that ball and run with it.)
The SJW's also appear to be trying to conflate the Tor boycott with the Hugo Awards controversy. Please recall that I didn't call for a boycott of Tor because of anything to do with the Hugo Awards. I did so because of the lies and unconscionable actions of a number of senior Tor staff. It looks to me as if the loony left is grasping at straws here. Vox Day, who as organizer of the Rabid Puppies is the SJW's favorite demon, has done a great job cataloging their manic efforts to further polarize and inflame the situation. I know that some people regard him as all sorts of nasty things because of various incidents in the past, but I don't know anything about those. I've only had dealings with him since this situation blew up. In that context, I have nothing but praise for his openness, honesty and willingness to co-operate.
The very fact that the Puppies factions don't see any need to go on and on and on about the Hugos or the Tor boycott, whereas the SJW's seem unwilling or unable to talk about much else, is (IMHO) the clearest possible sign of who's currently winning this fight.
The good thing (in the faint silver-ish lining of the thunder-cloud category) about the Sad Puppies affair and the resulting fall out, is that it has caused me to evaluate my reading habit and to actually put numbers behind my vague feelings that something was rotten in the state of publishing. If I am not alone (and anecdotal data from comments on various blogs and Facebook pages suggests I’m very far from alone) then traditional publishing and book selling is in a world of hurt that can only get worse. I’m not sure what it would take to reverse the course (for book stores there may be nothing that can be done) but I’m pretty sure that bad mouthing voracious readers and denigrating the authors that write books for them, is not going to be a part of a successful strategy.
Vox Day has asked his supporters to send physical letters to Tor and its parent company, Macmillan, over and above the e-mails that were sent last week. You'll find the details over at his blog.
He wants Irene Gallo fired or forced to resign from Tor. I haven't gone that far: in fact, I've specifically stated on more than one occasion that I'm not calling for anyone's resignation or dismissal. I stated:
"... please be advised that I look for the following actions from Tor ... :
Tor should publicly apologize for the efforts by all, repeat, all of the persons I named ... to demonize, denigrate, slander and lie about the ‘Puppies’ campaigns;
Tor should publicly reprimand those individuals for stepping over the line (including misusing company time and computer equipment to do so);
Tor should publicly indicate that it is putting in place policies to prevent any recurrence of such issues.
Please note that I am not demanding the dismissal of, or resignations by, the individuals concerned."
I'd be very grateful if those of my readers who support my position would please send letters requesting the above to the addressees Vox has listed on his blog. That'll add the weight of our numbers, and our more moderate requests, to those supporting his position. The SJW's are lumping all of us together, whether we agree with that or not - they're equal-opportunity blamers - so why not use our combined strength in numbers?
It's been an interesting weekend, watching and reading the comments flowing from both sides of the debate over the Tor boycott. I'm no longer surprised by it, having seen so much of it, but I'm nevertheless at a loss to explain the sheer, unbridled lack of sanity and common sense exhibited by so many of the so-called 'social justice warriors'. Their navel-gazing naiveté is mind-boggling. A few examples:
Twitter user Adam F. Smith apparently believes not only that Vox Day had something to do with the church shooting in South Carolina, but that the tragedy is somehow connected to both the Sad Puppies and the Hugo Awards.
Speaking of Vox, he's taken note of speculation from SJW's and their ilk that the individuals at Tor who've been named in connection with the boycott may be at risk of violence. Since I've seen not a single reference to that - even the vaguest hint - from our side of the fence, I, like him, can only put it down to paranoia, or an utterly warped, twisted sense of reality (or the lack thereof), or deliberate lying. It's absolutely insane . . . yet they're hyping it up. (Edited to add: James Sullivan absolutely nailed the process in a comment at Vox's place.)
This isn't exactly a new tactic. SJW's are usually the ones screaming in manufactured outrage about the non-existent 'rape epidemic' on US college campuses, or tackling problems of discrimination. Trouble is, almost every time they rally around a cause like campus rape, it has a habit of falling apart when tested for actual, forensic, verifiable, legally defensible evidence. That says far more about them than the purported problems about which they protest.
I was particularly amused by an article in online magazine Starburst dated Saturday, June 20th, 2015. It appeared less than 24 hours after I called for a boycott of Tor (which was immediately endorsed by a number of others), yet it claimed: "An attempted boycott of publisher Tor Books by right-wing online activists has spectacularly backfired as booklovers across the world have responded by purchasing books from Tor to show their support." For heaven's sake, the boycott had only just begun, so how was it even remotely possible to conclude that it had backfired? Wishful thinking to the max! It'll take months before any results are apparent. We're in this for the long term.
It's no wonder many complain about being 'burnt out by the social justice outrage machine'. They're doing it so often, in so many spheres, that they're destroying their own credibility. I can see the same thing happening in the case of the Tor employees about whom I've complained. The evidence, in their own words, of their bias, distortion and lies is overwhelming . . . yet the SJW's are still trying to manufacture outrage that they've been called on it. What's more, when we do call them on it, all too often their response is to delete what they've said, as if to pretend that it never happened. For example, Moshe Feder's Facebook post to which I linked yesterday has since vanished from view, along with all comments from readers. Fortunately, I saved a couple of versions of it first, as did many others, so that won't help him.
Lies, fantasies, projection, delusion and deception. That just about sums up the SJW approach to this entire matter. It's rather tiresome. How refreshing it would be if one of them would actually have the honesty to admit that the named individuals at Tor have, indeed, said what I've proved they've said, and did, in fact, at least imply (and probably meant literally) what I (and many others) understood them to mean. That's objectively not open to debate. The evidence is conclusive. With that admission, we could get a really useful debate going by asking what can be done to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, and I see little likelihood of it in the short term. Hence . . . the boycott.
It's a lie. It's a bare-faced, out-and-out falsehood. He's lying in public, and he appears to believe he'll be allowed to get away with it.
The boycott of Tor has nothing whatsoever to do with "the efforts of some Tor employees to defend the Hugo Awards from attack". It has everything to do with some Tor employees (including Mr. Feder) deliberately, repeatedly and publicly lying about the 'Puppies' campaigns, those behind them, and anything and anyone else they regard as ideologically impure and/or unfit to associate with SF/F fandom as approved by them. I've already described in detail Ms. Gallo's contribution, which sparked the boycott. Mr. Feder's latest lie merely confirms and reinforces her mendacity (and my position).
He states that he's speaking for himself and not the company . . . but I haven't seen Tor repudiate any of his earlier lies, some of them issued on company time using company equipment, so I'll give this latest assurance the same credibility I've given his earlier ones. (Edited to add: Note, too, his use of 'our friends' and 'declared war on us' and 'our bookseller partners'. Speaking only for himself, eh?)
I have an open question for Mr. Tom Doherty of Tor.
Mr. Doherty, Mr. Feder continues to lie in public. That being the case, how can you ever trust him to be truthful with or to you, when he won't be truthful with or to us?
Verily, the mind doth boggle . . .
I'm still not going to call for the resignation or dismissal of any of the Tor employees I've named. Nevertheless, if I needed any more justification for why I'm boycotting Tor, Mr. Feder has provided it. I suppose I should thank him for that - and if he wishes to call me a 'scoundrel' or an 'idiot', well, I've been called a lot worse than that in my time. Furthermore, for all Mr. Feder's vitriol directed against him, he's just made Vox Day look like a sensible, reasonable participant in this debate. Vox might want to thank him, too . . .
*Sigh*
Peter
EDITED TO ADD: Vox Day has uncovered yet more lies from Tor supporters, in the form of unmistakeable sockpuppet posts that he quotes, complete with time stamps. (Read the comments from his readers, too - some are comedy gold!)
So, in the end, we have a company, Tor (and its holding company, Macmillan) that is/are apparently unwilling to take responsibility for the misdeeds of its employees, their misuse of corporate time and resources during those misdeeds, and their deliberate slander, libel and lying about a large part of the fan base upon which that company depends for its livelihood. I think that constitutes an indelibly shameful mark on executives at both companies, and makes them complicit in the actions and statements of their employees. In my days in the corporate world, such behavior would have been regarded as contemptible, and such lack of action in the face of customer anger would have produced at least a compelling case study at a business school, probably titled "How to commit executive career suicide". However, I doubt very much whether my opinion matters to those involved. They seem to be clinging to the more 'modern' approach - hunker down, say nothing, deny everything, and hope the problem will go away. I wonder whether at least some of them understand the meaning of the term 'dishonor'? If they don't, I suggest they look in the mirror to see a living definition.
Nor are they alone in their dishonor. The so-called 'Social Justice Warriors' or SJW's who've supported the guilty parties for years have been shrill in their screeching support for their heroes and heroines. That's continued in the present crisis. The facts of the situation have been ignored, and those drawing attention to those facts (including yours truly) have become objects of scorn, derision and open attack. That's not surprising, of course. Such lack of honesty and unwillingness to face the facts is a hallmark of the left-wing, progressive element in politics and society. It's been that way for decades, all around the globe. Facts are not important to such people. What matters is the narrative, the 'spin' put upon the facts for the faithful to believe and propagate in the face of reality. It's a classic application of the 'Big Lie' theory - and it still works just as well on blindly loyal 'useful idiots' as it ever did.
(There are those who think that because the 'Big Lie' theory is of Nazi origin, it's therefore right-wing rather than left-wing. *Facepalm* . . . I should like to point out that the Nazi party's full name was the "National Socialist Democratic Workers' Party". The Nazi's were left-wing totalitarians. The 'Big Lie' thus dovetails perfectly with the SJW mentality - and with the Alinsky playbook of which they're so fond.)
I've said all I need to say about the present scandal at Tor. If you haven't already read about it, there's a vast quantity of material out there. My articles on the subject may be found in reverse chronological order here, complete with many external links. If you're interested, I suggest you read them from earliest to latest to see how things developed.
As I wrote in my earlier, private letter to Tor and Macmillan:
"... please be advised that I look for the following actions from Tor ... :
Tor should publicly apologize for the efforts by all, repeat, all of the persons I named ... to demonize, denigrate, slander and lie about the ‘Puppies’ campaigns;
Tor should publicly reprimand those individuals for stepping over the line (including misusing company time and computer equipment to do so);
Tor should publicly indicate that it is putting in place policies to prevent any recurrence of such issues.
Please note that I am not demanding the dismissal of, or resignations by, the individuals concerned."
I am simply not prepared to allow the lies, slander, libel and open contempt of those named above to continue unchallenged. Therefore, those expectations still hold. If they have not been met by noon on Friday, I shall call for a boycott of Tor Books.
Regrettably, due to the apparent lack of action by (and the deafening silence from) Tor and Macmillan, the time has come to do as I promised. I therefore ask all those who believe, as I do, that the recent statement by Irene Gallo, and the pattern of behavior and statements from others at Tor whom I've previously named, are completely unacceptable, to join me in refusing to buy any of Tor's products from now on.
... this is between Tor and its readers who feel insulted, not the Sad Puppies campaign or the people who ran it ... To the Sad Puppies supporters, do what you think is right. All I’m asking is that whatever you do, try to be as civil as possible in your disagreements. Stick with the facts.
There's much more at the link. (Recommended reading for background and more information.)
I am not a member of, and I do not speak for, either the 'Sad Puppies' or 'Rabid Puppies' campaigns (although I support the former). I don't represent cute puppies, playful puppies, cuddly puppies or hush puppies - only myself. If you share, in whole or in part, my values and outlook on life, I invite you to join me in this boycott. Don't do so just because I, or anyone else, is asking you to do so. Act on the basis of your own informed conscience and reasoned judgment.
There are those who protest that a boycott of Tor will prevent them buying books they want to read, and/or hurt their favorite authors. I can only point out that used copies of those books are usually available from many sources soon after publication, often in very good to excellent condition, and sometimes at prices much lower than a new copy. As for your favorite authors, if you buy a used copy of their book(s), why not send them the money they would have made as a royalty if you'd bought it new? In fact, given that many royalties are a pittance, why not send them more than that? Many authors have so-called 'tip jars' on their blogs or Web sites, or you can write to them enclosing a check or money order.
There are those who doubt that a boycott can achieve anything. I can only reply that 'doing the right thing' is important in itself. It's a matter of honor - and although any mention of honor may be greeted with scorn and derision in these 'modern' times, I was raised to value the concept and live by it. I still do. I doubt I'm alone in that.
What's more, in a SF/F market that's increasingly dominated by independent authors, with cratering sales among mainstream publishers and tight financial margins, even a small boycott may have an impact out of all proportion to its size. I'm certain, on the basis of support already voiced, that we can achieve a short-term six-figure reduction in Tor's annual turnover. All that'll take is a couple of thousand people not spending their usual $50 per year on Tor books (and many have, until now, spent a lot more than that - for example, see here). With more supporters and/or bigger spenders involved, the impact will be correspondingly greater. I believe that over time, as word spreads and more join the boycott, we can grow this into a seven-figure annual impact - particularly when, in markets where we have a strong presence, we start talking to bookstores that carry Tor products. Given current economic conditions and the present and predicted state of the SF/F market, our boycott may in due course make the difference between a profit and a loss in Tor's annual trading accounts.
Finally, there are some who fear that we can't succeed in the face of what they consider overwhelming support for liberal/progressive/left-wing ideologies in our society. To them I can only say, never take counsel of your fears. Stand tall. Turn Alinsky's own tactics against his followers. Boycotts are a part of his script. Use them. You'll be surprised at what hard work and dedication can achieve. I've seen that in a country and a continent ripped apart by war (where I learned such tactics by watching the disciples of those who taught Alinsky and his mentors in the first place). It's a whole lot easier to succeed in a society like ours.
One thing that's struck me very forcibly in the whole Tor situation is how utterly blind to reality are many of those on the left/liberal/progressive/SJW side of the debate. It's incongruous to read the comments on 'Puppies' posts at File 770, those left in response to Tom Doherty's post at Tor.com, and from many of the authors and others 'leading the charge' on that side of the debate. They appear to be living in an echo chamber where they feed off each other, constantly repeating the same old lies like a stuck record. That's the problem - what they're repeating is, in many cases, simply not true, but they ignore that and carry right on saying it, as if repetition will somehow magically make it true. It won't, of course.
Truth is determined in relation to reality. If a fact is objectively true, if it can be verified according to evidence, or tested in a laboratory, or otherwise shown to be actually (rather than merely claimed to be) the case, then it's true. It's no good saying that something is 'true for me' if it's not actually true at all. That means you're living a lie. Period. An excellent example is the current fuss over Rachel Dolezal's claim that she 'identifies as black'. I don't care what she identifies herself as being - I want to know what she is in reality. The fact of the matter is, she isn't black - so no matter how many wishful thoughts she may have, and no matter what deception she foists upon others (including the NAACP), the reality is that her life has been built upon and around a lie.
The charges leveled against the Puppies campaigns by the SJW's are largely lies. They take statements made (or allegedly made) by one or more individuals (often quoted out of context to make them sound either worse than, or different from, what was meant), then apply them across the board to all 'Puppies' of whatever description. This is simply not true. It isn't real. It would be as if I took the views or statements or actions of a radical progressive/liberal/whatever (like, for example, Pol Pot) and accused all SJW's of sharing them. That wouldn't be true, so I don't do it . . . but why do so many of them do it to me? It's as I said last week. They focus on the narrative, not on the facts, because the facts don't support their views.
She said there were 'two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups' involved. There is no evidence whatsoever for her claims. The attributes of 'extreme right-wing' and 'neo-nazi' individuals and groups are well known. They're a matter of historical and political fact. None of their criteria apply to the Puppies groups in general. They may possibly apply to individuals within them (just as Pol Pot-like tendencies may apply to some SJW's), but that case has never been made in any objective, factual, measurable sense.
She claimed that both groups were 'calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy'. I have never seen a single pronouncement to this effect by either a Sad or Rabid Puppy. Not one. Kindly cite it if you have it, Ms. Gallo. I've certainly seen calls for less 'message fiction' and more emphasis on story, character and plot; but that isn't what Ms. Gallo said.
She alleged that both groups were 'unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic'. This is a lie from beginning to end, and as far as I was concerned it was the last straw. I've fought against racism all my life; I'm emphatically not misogynist; and as for being homophobic, during the mid-1980's one of the ways I sought to help people was as a volunteer at a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. They were rejected and ostracized by almost the entire South African community at the time, of every race. (The camp comments from those gay men, no matter how weak from their terminal disease, watching a straight man [me] give a back rub to one of their compatriots . . . let's just say that I don't think I've blushed so much in my entire life!) Ms. Gallo didn't know me at all; she knew none of those things about me; and she wasn't interested in knowing them. The mere fact that I supported Larry Correia and the 'Sad Puppies' was enough for her to label me 'unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic'. Facts meant (and, in the light of her half-assed non-apology, presumably still mean) nothing to her.
She claimed that 'they've been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them' to elect their slate for the Hugo awards. This is an out-and-out lie as far as the Sad Puppies are concerned, and I'm pretty sure it was in the early stages for the Rabid Puppies as well. There was no mention of Gamergate that I can recall until the SJW's themselves started tossing around that allegation. It's as if they couldn't possibly allow themselves to believe that ordinary SF/F fans might have a different perspective on life, the universe and the genre than they did. Unfortunately for them, the GG community is pretty proactive and assertive. When they heard themselves being accused of something like that, I think their reaction was pretty much "Oh, we're invited to a fight? Invitation accepted!" Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy . . .
Ms. Gallo (and most of my readers, for that matter) have no idea what real racism is like. Only those who've lived through it do, and most of us are from earlier generations whose memories aren't familiar to many people today. Those of us who lived through the maelstrom of 1976-1994 in South Africa can identify very well with those who lived through the Civil Rights struggles in the USA (particularly the deep south) during the 1950's and 1960's, and vice versa . . . but there aren't many of us involved in the current SF/F controversy. Perhaps that's a pity.
Let me give you a concrete example of how experiences like that can change - harden - an entire society, an entire nation. In 1983 Juluka released their album 'Work For All'.
It was never hugely popular outside South Africa, but inside the country it was recognized as a seminal work. Among other elements it examined, in music, the undeclared civil war that was raging across the country at that time, and would continue to rage for more than a decade longer. It tried to express the horror of the hatred, fear and genocidal fury that was devouring our country. I found it extraordinarily moving, because I could identify so closely with the subjects of its songs. I'd like to play you two of them to illustrate my point.
'Mdantsane' describes a scene that was relatively common in those evil years. A bus had been ambushed on the road to Mdantsane, a township in the Eastern Cape. Bodies lay in and around it, and the song speaks of 'mud colored dusty blood' around them. I know that 'mud colored dusty blood'. I've seen it. I've touched it. I've smelled it (and, believe me, that's a smell you never forget . . . the coppery flavor setting your teeth on edge, making the back of your throat slick as you sneeze.) It's seared into my soul, because all too often I knew the men and women whose blood produced it. I wept when I first heard that song, and I still do sometimes - but I can't stop listening to it now and again, because those memories are a part of me forever. That song reached the hit parade in South Africa. Can you imagine a hit song in the USA singing, not about saccharine-sweet schmaltzy love, but about the blood of dead, innocent victims of a racial war, soaking into the soil? It shows how mad things were in my former country during the 'crazy years'.
The second song is 'Bullets for Bafazane'. It also reached the hit parade. It tells the story of an activist who's being hunted by 'shadow men' who've decided that until he's killed, his people won't give up. I knew many 'Bafazane's' during those years. Many did not survive.
Shall I tell you about Lucky? I can mention his real name (well the English name he was given by his parents because you were not allowed to register any children under their Zulu names) because he is dead. Lucky, who was a known informant, who gave us details of things that had gone on when the victims of this evil were too scared to speak out, who gave comfort and care to those whose children had been ripped from their arms and killed, or whose husbands had been picked up, only to return to them as a disabled shell, broken hands, broken legs, face chewed off, broken heart.
By the time Lucky called, we had the UMAG (unrest monitoring action group) phone installed at home. It was late, way past bedtimes when he called and my Mom picked up. He was at a safe house that was soon to become very unsafe indeed. The police had cottoned on to what he was doing. So he was running, through K section, Kwa Mashu in search of safety.
Throughout the night he rang us, from safe house to safe house, from his cousins to his brother in law, from comrade to comrade. He never said where he was (our phones were bugged most of the time), just phoning in to say he was still free, still alive and I guess to hear a voice on the end of the phone.
Lucky made his final phone call at around 5am as the sun was coming up. His last words were “Eve, eve I think they have found me” and the phone went dead. It remained engaged for hours after that and when it was eventually answered, the residents denied any knowledge of Lucky’s presence. He never called again. No doubt his broken, tortured body lay somewhere in the dust.
I knew many Lucky's. I knew many Bafazane's. My life is richer for having known them . . . and my soul is bereft, and the entire nation of South Africa is poorer, for their loss.
And so, when Ms. Gallo accused me - me - of being 'unrepentantly racist' purely because I happened to support the Sad Puppy cause, that was the last straw. I'd heard that lie from SJW's before, of course, and been able to get over it . . . but lies like that are like the Chinese water torture. Sooner or later, something's going to snap. Her accusations were, to me, unforgivable; and since she's never seen fit to retract them, they still are. Since her employer has seen fit to allow her, and others like her, to pontificate about something of which they apparently know absolutely nothing, to make false accusations and toss denigrations around like confetti, doing so on company time and using company computers and networks . . . that employer is complicit in the whole mess. Hence my outrage against Tor. Hence the boycott for which I will call on Friday if Tor and its holding company, Macmillan, don't act against those responsible.
I won't take this any more. I know I'm far from the only Puppy supporter who's had enough of the SJW's lies and slanders and libels. They want a war? They can have one.
The continued deafening silence from Tor and Macmillan over the conduct of certain individuals at the first-named firm continues to puzzle me (and many others who've complained to both companies). I'm beginning to suspect that they have no idea what to do about the situation.
It may be, of course, that they see themselves as being between a rock and a hard place. If they follow Tom Doherty's example and reprimand those who've overstepped the mark at Tor, they risk outraging all the SJW's who've followed their lead and attacked the 'Puppies' and their Hugo slates for months - in some cases, years. (Mr. Doherty did just that - see the comments below his statement.) On the other hand, if they don't take any action, they're going to outrage all those who've complained; who've finally had enough of being insulted, denigrated and scorned by a publishing house whose employees should unquestionably have known better. That may be the real reason for the silence - they think they'll be damned if they do, and damned if they don't. (I shall certainly do my part to ensure the latter outcome, if they are so short-sighted, misguided and foolish as to make it necessary.)
Meanwhile, L. Jagi Lamplighter has been asking for and publishing photographs of fans' collections of Tor books, hardbound and paperback. If you feel so inclined, please e-mail a picture to her so she can add it to the article. It'll hopefully give Tor and Macmillan some idea of the business they risk losing from just the few fans who submit pictures like that. When you multiply them by the hundreds who've actively complained, and the thousands of fellow-travelers who are watching, reading and listening . . . I think they can't help but realize how seriously a boycott may affect them.
There is very little time left to address these issues before this situation gets out of control.
I can only repeat that warning, with greater emphasis. I've already seen a number of commenters declare that as far as they're concerned, the boycott is already in effect. I've seen e-mails sent to Tor and Macmillan that say the same thing.
I'm also saddened that instead of an intelligent dialog about this mess, both sides seem to be descending into greater vituperation and mutual abusiveness. I hoped that David Gerrold's peace overture would meet a better response, but I'm afraid it didn't - from either side. Even some of the towering figures of SF/F are lowering themselves into the gutter when attacking those they see as their opponents. We are all poorer for such conduct. However, in a very real sense, this is war - a cultural conflict rather than the shooting variety, but war nevertheless. In war, common decency is one of the first casualties. I'll do my best not to stoop to name-calling, with the exception of referring to the other side as 'social justice warriors' or SJW's. I do so only because I have no other name in my vocabulary to adequately or accurately describe them. If anyone can suggest a better, more acceptable alternative, I'll be grateful.
There are less than three days left until noon on Friday. I truly hope Tor and Macmillan do the right thing before then. The alternative is not pleasant . . . but it will happen, unless they forestall it. The ball's in their court until then.
Phrases such as “America is the land of opportunity” and “America is a melting pot" are "micro-aggressions" that could leave some students feeling discriminated against, according to a new faculty training guide put out by the University of California that one former professor in the system says shows "how crazy it's become."
. . .
The guide ... uses the same argument to condemn a number of seemingly innocuous statements, such as:
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
“Affirmative action is racist.”
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
“When I look at you, I don’t see color.”
“I don’t believe in race.”
“Gender plays no part in who we hire.”
Many find the training guide absurd.
“I don’t think University of California realizes how crazy it’s become," Tim Groseclose, an economics professor at George Mason University, told FoxNews.com. Groseclose was a professor at UCLA until last year, when he resigned after he brought to light evidence that the university illegally admitted students on the basis of race. "According to that document, Martin Luther King, Jr. would be guilty of micro-aggressions.”
A heartfelt "Thank you!!!" to everyone who responded to requests to e-mail Tor and Macmillan about the situation there. I'll leave the co-ordinator of the campaign to announce the totals, but they appear to be well into four figures as of the time of writing. I wonder if Tor and Macmillan will now accept that we aren't bots and we aren't just a few malcontents? We are, in fact, a growing wave of SF/F fans who are threatening to abandon them altogether. If they haven't yet got that message, they'll probably never understand it without more direct action.
(By the way, I can only describe as 'catastrophic' the performance of whoever's responsible for customer relations at Tor and/or Macmillan. There's been an absolutely inexplicable, deafening silence from both companies in response to e-mails and other communications - not even so much as an acknowledgment of receipt. When I was a manager and, later, a director, if I'd had a customer relations person who performed so abysmally, they'd have been fired the moment I found out about it. "Do not pass 'GO', do not collect $200, and by all means let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!" This is simply ridiculous. Oh, well . . . if they want to play the clam, I think we have every right to assume that both companies are standing behind the unconscionable words and attitudes of the Tor personnel we've named. We're therefore free to take our response to the next - and only logical - level.)
I'll be sending the following open letter to both companies this evening.
Dear (Name), I hope the e-mails your company received today have demonstrated the strength and breadth of feeling among a large number of SF/F fans concerning the attitudes, lies and libels expressed by Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Moshe Feder and Irene Gallo, all current or former employees of Tor, and by the Tor-published author John Scalzi, concerning supporters of the 'Puppies' slates for the Hugo Awards.
Last week I asked Tor and Macmillan to respond to my requests by Monday (today). As I posted on my blog over the weekend, I've been persuaded by two Tor employees that I hadn't allowed sufficient time for that, and I therefore publicly extended the deadline until noon on Friday, June 19th, 2015. I hope and trust your organization will have the courtesy, professionalism and common decency to respond by then.
As I wrote in my earlier, private letter to Tor and Macmillan:
"... please be advised that I look for the following actions from Tor by not later than noon on Monday, June 15th, 2015:
Tor should publicly apologize for the efforts by all, repeat, all of the persons I named above to demonize, denigrate, slander and lie about the ‘Puppies’ campaigns;
Tor should publicly reprimand those individuals for stepping over the line (including misusing company time and computer equipment to do so);
Tor should publicly indicate that it is putting in place policies to prevent any recurrence of such issues.
Please note that I am not demanding the dismissal of, or resignations by, the individuals concerned."
I am simply not prepared to allow the lies, slander, libel and open contempt of those named above to continue unchallenged. Therefore, those expectations still hold. If they have not been met by noon on Friday, I shall call for a boycott of Tor Books. I've spoken to a large number of SF/F authors, fans and others about this. Some will publicly support a boycott. Others will do so more tacitly. I imagine we'll both find the result interesting. I do hope that your company will at least show courtesy enough to acknowledge receipt of this message. However, in the light of its past cavalier conduct towards customers complaining about this situation, you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath. Yours respectfully, Peter Grant
I wonder if they're listening yet? I guess we'll soon find out.
Vox Day, Peter Grant, et al, claim righteously that they are not bots, that they deployed no bot armies to assault Tor. OK. But they can not say there are no bots. It takes a single hacker to raise and deploy a force of bots, and this hypothetical hacker may not have been at the command of or either in communication with VD or any of the principals in Puppy Command.
It’s a wellknown principle of fantasy that when you raise the demons, they escape your control.
I'm sure you've been reading my posts about the Tor debacle over the past days. It's time for action, and I'd be very grateful if each of you would please help by sending one e-mail separately to three different addresses tomorrow.
Vox Day came up with the idea. Note that I'm not one of his 'Rabid Puppies' or 'minions'. I'll simply take allies where I can get them, thank you very much! I'm aware that some SJW's regard him as being in league with the Devil. To that I can only make common cause with Winston Churchill: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." So, Vox, this is my best Churchillian imitation!
Comments from two Tor employees indicated that some SJW's there (and elsewhere, although some of those sources have since been deleted) were blaming many of the e-mails sent to Tor and Macmillan (its US managing company) on 'bots': artificially generated complaints that didn't come from real people. In response, Vox has asked his readers to do the following:
It is time to prove to Macmillan that the senior SJWs at Tor are lying to them by sending ONE email apiece to the following people on MONDAY morning. (Emphasis added as a result of already seeing emails in my inbox.) Send the emails separately, do not CC them or send out one email to the three email addresses at the same time. The point is to make it clear that you are NOT a bot, you are a human being, and therefore the people at Tor Books are lying to their superiors at Macmillan.
tom.dohertyATtor.com
andrew.weberATmacmillan.com
rhonda.brownATmacmillan.com
The three emails should be short, straightforward, polite, and respectful. It should have I AM A REAL PERSON in the subject, CC voxdayATgmail.com, and address the following points:
I am a real person and not a bot.
I do not approve of the behavior of the senior people at Tor Books, specifically Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Moshe Feder, and Irene Gallo.
. . .
I request a response to confirm that my email has been received and read.
Something to that effect, anyway. There is no need to mention any possibility of a boycott, tell them how many books you buy in a year, or anything else. The people at Macmillan are smart, they are professional, and they know what is at stake.
There's more at the link. Vox is also asking his readers to request the resignation or dismissal of 'guilty parties', but I'm not going to go that far. If you want to, of course, you'll find more information at his blog.
I'd be very grateful indeed if each of you, dear readers, would please do as requested above. In particular, please send three SEPARATE e-mails rather than a single one to three addresses. Send each e-mail to one of the addresses Vox provides, and please CC each of those e-mails to him (so he can calculate how many were sent, and we can judge the strength of the campaign). If you'd rather not copy an e-mail to him, for whatever reason, please feel free to CC it to me instead, at bayourenaissancemanATgmail.com . I can tally the numbers here and pass them to him, if that's what you'd prefer.
What we want to achieve is to demonstrate conclusively to Tor and to its parent company, Macmillan, that our concerns are genuine, and that we're real people, not bots. If they receive e-mails composed as outlined above, and we can demonstrate that we know (from CC'ed copies with ISP addresses) just how many were sent, this should disprove the 'bot' allegation once and for all (particularly if all the e-mails are sent on one day). Just think of the impact if Tor and Macmillan get a couple of thousand of them! It's bound to make them sit up and take notice.
I'll be personally very grateful to you, dear readers, if you'll please help us get our point across. Thanks in advance.
I've been quietly amused by the number of SJW's who are trying to dismiss the current brouhaha over Tor as something 'manufactured by troublemakers', individuals who don't have a following and are 'nobodies' making a fuss over nothing. They take great care to attack 'Puppies' supporters and commenters, often going so far as to attribute emotions and attitudes to them that have no existence whatsoever in reality - but they never address the real issues involved, as I pointed out recently. It's a very strange, almost surreal attitude to life.
I'm sure many of my readers have seen SJW attacks on Larry Correia, Brad Torgerson, Vox Day and the like. Even humble little me has come in for his share of them - as, for example, in comments to this article at File 770. For your entertainment, here are some of them, with links:
"Why has this “brave fighter” against racism never said anything to condemn Vox Day?" (Uh-huh . . . precisely the line that's been taken by SJW's against every other prominent 'Puppy'. "Condemn Vox Day or your credentials are meaningless!" And who are you to prescribe to me, or anyone else, whom I should or should not condemn? At least Vox has never spoken about me the way SJW's have. Gee, thanks, Vox! I feel suddenly better about you!)
"Who the **** are you?" (I get the feeling that as far as SJW's are concerned, I'm "a voice crying out in the wilderness" - and the further I go into the wilderness, the better! Maybe I won't be able to find my way back!)
I hasten to add that I really am small fry in this debate. Most of the other dramatis personae in this fight are far better known than I, have published more books than I, and have much wider influence than I. However, I think I have enough of a platform through this blog and my books that my voice has been heard nonetheless: and I think my background gives me a unique perspective on this debate that is, perhaps, a closed book to most of the others involved. I hope I've been able to open its pages to them a little. The same can be said of R. K. Modena, a.k.a. Shadowdancer, who's expressed her own perspective on this crisis very movingly. She sums up:
This is why I prefaced this post with a history of who I am, and a rather summarized description of my experiences. I have faced real racism, real discrimination. I have stood OPENLY in support of the Jews, of Israel, for which I have been stalked by someone on the side of the Antis FOR NEARLY SEVEN YEARS AND RECEIVED THREATS AGAINST MY CHILDREN FOR.
Peter Grant has fought against it.
Brad Torgersen goes to fight ISIS / DAESH – against REAL terrorists, REAL religiously motivated hatred, REAL rape culture, REAL KILLINGS OF GAYS.
You who sling mud at us, who question our honor our integrity, our hardships and experiences are doing so FOR THE PETTY REASON OF AN AWARD FOR FICTION.
With Irene Gallo’s original response to the protests of her words, and her subsequent non-apology, it is clear she is unrepentant in her contempt, in her hatred.
The difference between her and my father is, she is ‘sorry’ that ‘we were hurt by her calling us Nazis’, not that she is sorry at all ‘for calling us Nazis.’
. . .
Irene Gallo and her like are not building, they are destroying. They are discriminating against merit, and favoring things extant to merits.
There's much more at the link. I highly recommend you read her article in full. It's worth your time.
As for relative influence, let's look at the Alexa rankings of a few of the Web sites involved, listed in descending order of global rank, as of about 9 a.m. this morning (click the image for a slightly larger view):
Yep. I'm small fry . . . and I don't care. I have a voice, no matter how small, and I'm going to use it. If that makes SJW's unhappy, too bad. So sad. Live with it. I don't give a damn about insults or threats from the uninformed and uncaring. They want to call me and those like me 'neo-Nazis'? I've faced down real neo-Nazis, and shown my readers here what they were like. After facing them down, what makes SJW's think they can intimidate me?
As I mentioned earlier, I was contacted by an individual who works at Tor, and through him was put in touch with a second. I've received a fair amount of information today, but I can't use it 'as is', for three reasons.
The individuals concerned are afraid of the consequences if their identities are revealed. They believe they'd be fired at once. I've agreed to do everything I can to conceal their names. In some cases, this means I can't directly quote what they told me.
The information they provided has to be verified. I explained to them that I couldn't simply take their word for something; it had to be confirmed by external evidence. They agreed that this was reasonable.
Some of the information they provided may relate to matters other than the present scandal. For example, one reported that a well-known individual at Tor was no longer employed there. I was able to confirm this; but in the process, it emerged that she'd left before the current situation arose. Her departure is therefore an unrelated matter. I want to make sure that if I say something about what's going on at Tor right now, it's definitely related to the current problem.
For all these reasons, I can't say too much right now. However, I've shared some of the information with others who can confirm it for themselves, and may be able to make good use of it. We'll see.
It appears that there's immense anger and bitterness among some senior personnel at Tor. They reportedly believe the current backlash against that company is basically 'manufactured outrage', deliberately stirred up by Vox Day (whose name is allegedly an expletive there now). Some have even asserted that the thousands of e-mails complaining about Irene Gallo's statement aren't genuine, but the product of a bot-net, a manufactured wave of pseudo-indignation that has no foundation in reality. Apparently Macmillan and others involved aren't so sure about that, but it's a defense the SJW's are using with might and main. It's also apparently why almost none of us have had any acknowledgment of our complaints, not even a notification that our e-mails have been received. (Some correspondents who requested confirmation when their e-mails were opened have received it; others have not.)
A major cause of the bitterness among the senior SJW's at Tor is that Macmillan is allegedly taking a much greater role in formulating Tor's policies and enforcing adherence to them. The company is said to have a new social media policy that's been described as 'Draconian', and individuals have allegedly been warned that any further violations will be a terminally bad idea, career-wise.
Presumably as a result of this policy, I note that some very recent posts by some of the individuals concerned have already disappeared from public view on Facebook or other online venues. Moshe Feder has gone so far as to state:
Although I've issued numerous disclaimers over the last few weeks to remind you all that I'm speaking here SOLELY FOR MYSELF and _not_ for Tor Books, Tom Doherty Associates, or Macmillan, I've decided that in the present circumstances, it would be prudent to provide a constant visual reminder of that at the top of this page.
Therefore, you will now find my employment listed at the top of the left column as being first of all with the newly minted Federal Books.
It'll be interesting to see whether Mr. Feder works as an independent in future. I also noted last night that Irene Gallo is now listing her positions at Tor, but claiming that her opinions are "her own, not Macmillan's". Both developments appear to me to be indirect confirmation of the above information.
The 'Tor two' also claimed that there's a divide between the upper-echelon SJW's there and what they call 'the lower levels' (where they work). They assert that not everyone at Tor shares the SJW's opinions or outlook, but daren't say so publicly because they'd attract immediate retaliation. They say there's more than a little schadenfreude at lower levels to see certain individuals taken down a peg or two. They quoted a couple of comments that were side-splittingly funny, but which I can't repeat for fear of their being used to identify individuals who'd be harmed by that. Perhaps one day . . .
They're worried about their own futures. They say that any serious boycott of Tor will have very damaging effects, very quickly, because the company's margins are not good. It's said to have bet its shirt on a recent contract with John Scalzi, and allegedly doesn't have that much liquid capital left to play with. They're also afraid that if Tor is driven into the ground by a boycott, anyone who's worked there may have a 'toxic' label attached to them when they look for another job. Apparently other publishers are taking note of the reaction stirred up by injudicious use of social media, and are tightening up on their own policies and procedures. Anyone associated at high level with this crisis may receive sympathy from fellow travelers at other companies, but may find it difficult to actually get a position there, for fear of provoking a backlash from already-offended readers.
There's also said to be real anger and disdain directed against pro-Puppies authors who are making their voices heard over this crisis. They're allegedly being called 'traitors', 'cowards' and 'opportunists'. Apparently my name is mud, too. I've been told a few of the things supposedly being said about me, and I've taken due note of dates, times and individuals. I guess I should be glad - after all, any publicity is good publicity, right? I don't think they're going to buy my books, though . . . perhaps I should donate a set?
I'm trying to obtain independent confirmation of a few other things said by the two people with whom I spoke. If I do, I'll post more about them here. I've also shared a few things with those who may be in a better position to make good use of them. We'll see what happens. Meanwhile, I've been advised that giving Tor and Macmillan only until Monday to respond is simply expecting too much. There's apparently a great deal going on at present, and more time may be needed for them to work out how to handle this mess. I'll accordingly delay any decision on what to do next until Friday, June 19th, and will so inform the individuals with whom I've been in correspondence.
Here's an article from Daily Life in Australia. A liberal/progressive/feminist author attacks comedian Jerry Seinfeld for his lack of understanding of what political correctness really means.
The term 'political correctness' exists in the same camp as 'bleeding heart liberal'. When you burrow down to their individual definitions, you'd be hard pressed to argue against their necessity. To have a bleeding heart means to care deeply about those without any power (political or otherwise), and to advocate on their behalf. To be politically correct means to not discriminate against or further oppress those same people who are already marginalised and trodden on by the whims of capitalism, patriarchy and heteronormativity.
. . .
I do believe good comedy is nuanced and great comedy can go to dark, unsettling places. But it has to say something of value if it's going to use words and ideas that challenge and confront the status quo - it doesn't become great just by saying the words themselves. As playwright and performer Nakkiah Lui told me, "I think lines and boundaries should always be pushed and crossed, however, this does not go hand in hand in silencing and dismissing critical engagement and discourse."
Indeed, it seems obvious the racism parodied by the ABC's Black Comedy (in which Lui starred) is effective precisely because it's presented by the people most likely to experience racism. When comedians supported by the structures of white supremacy make 'daring' jokes about racism, they're almost always reinforcing the invisible hierarchy which keeps them in power. When black people make those same jokes, it's far more likely to be as a commentary on racism while also confronting white people with the realities of structural inequality and white supremacy.
As Lindy West argues, perhaps what really rankles Seinfeld is not accusations of political correctness but the changing landscape of comedy in the 21st century. Although the straight white man still dominates the comedy rooms, there are more and more voices emerging to be modern scribes, jesters and cultural satirists. Perhaps in the end what really scares Seinfeld and his ilk isn't that the right to laugh is being taken away from the men who have always dictated what passes for humour. Perhaps it's that for the first time in history the tables are being turned and the joke, at last, is on them.
Well, bless her cotton socks - and her pure, puritanical SJW heart. If you want to know the attitudes at the root of Tor's problems, you need look no further than those expressed in that article.
