Pixel Scroll 5/30/18 Pixels, Scrolls…I’m The Guy With The Book

(1) TAKEDOWN. The New York Post tells how “Accountant embezzled $3.4M from famed literary agency”.

A Manhattan accountant cooked the books at a prestigious literary agency that represents top writers, including “Fight Club” author Chuck Palahniuk, bilking its clients of millions and leaving the company on the brink of bankruptcy, according to legal papers.

Darin Webb, 47, faces 20 years in jail on wire-fraud charges for embezzling $3.4 million from storied Manhattan agency Donadio & Olson, according to a recently unsealed federal criminal complaint.

Although the agency, which also represents the estates of “Godfather” writer Mario Puzo and radio legend Studs Terkel, was not named in court papers, a lawyer representing the firm confirmed to The Post that Donadio & Olson was the subject of the alleged theft.

…The stolen money — allegedly lifted between January 2011 and March of this year — was earmarked for author royalties and advances, the complaint says.

But the theft could be exponentially more, a source told The Post, noting that a forensic accountant is combing through Donadio & Olson’s books all the way back to 2001, Webb’s first year at the agency.

He allegedly fessed up to the theft in March in a videotaped interview with company executives and their attorneys at the agency’s Chelsea office, saying he filed monthly financial reports that “contained false and fraudulent representations in order to accomplish the theft and evade detection,” the complaint states.

Webb was arrested May 15 by the FBI and is out on $200,000 bail.

The Guardian reports on a celebrity victim: “Chuck Palahniuk ‘close to broke’ as agent’s accountant faces fraud charges”.

Palahniuk – one of many starry authors represented by the firm, including the estates of Mario Puzo and Studs Terkel – said his income had dwindled for several years. He had blamed multiple factors, including piracy and problems at his publisher, for the decline in earnings.

More recently, Palahniuk said, “the trickle of my income stopped” and payments for titles including Fight Club 2 “never seemed to arrive”. He wondered if the money had been stolen, but told himself he “had to be crazy” – until the news broke.

“All the royalties and advance monies and film-option payments that had accumulated in my author’s account in New York, or had been delayed somewhere in the banking pipeline, [were] gone. Poof. I can’t even guess how much income. Someone confessed on video he’d been stealing. I wasn’t crazy,” wrote Palahniuk in a statement on his website.

The novelist said that “this chain of events leaves me close to broke”, but that he had found himself to be “rich … with friends and readers who’ve rushed to my rescue”.

“On the minus side, the legal process will be long and offers an iffy reward. On the plus side, I’m not crazy. Nor am I alone,” added the author.

(2) WISCON. Sophygurl, a Tumblr blogger, was present at a controversial WisCon panel and has written an account of what she heard: “WisCon 42 panel The Desire for Killable Bodies in SFF”. The post begins –

This is going to serve as my panel write-up for this panel, but it also a copy of what I wrote as a report to the Safety team about the panel. I am posting this on DreamWidth and Tumblr and will be linking to Twitter and Facebook. Please feel free to link elsewhere. This should all be public knowledge, imo.

For anyone who doesn’t know – this panel included a panelist who ended up talking about the importance of sympathizing with Nazis. This is obviously not the kind of thing you expect to find at an intersectional feminist convention. It was upsetting and disturbing. Most of the panel was actually very interesting and even funny, and I appreciated what the other two panelists had to say. I even appreciated *some* of what the panelist in question had to say. All of this was overshadowed by the awful things she said, however.

(3) BRANDON SANDERSON WARNS FANX. Utah author Brandon Sanderson has raised his voice against “Harassment at FanX”. (For background, see “FanX Salt Lake Comic Convention Sharply Criticized for Handling of Anti-harassment Complaint”.)

I don’t normally discuss charged issues on my social media, but I do find harassment at science fiction conventions a topic that is very important to discuss. It is also very relevant to my fans, as conventions are often how they interact with me.

Recently, Salt Lake City’s biggest media convention (FanX, formerly called Salt Lake Comic Con) has made some troubling missteps. First, it grossly mishandled harassment claims—then it doubled down on its mistakes, bungling interactions with voices that have called for reform.

Some authors I respect deeply have composed an open letter to FanX, calling for them to do better—and I have co-signed it. Many of these authors have spoken better about this specific issue than I can, and I encourage you all to read what they have said. I believe that conventions like these (alongside the smaller literary conventions that were so instrumental in my road to publication) are important parts of our community—and it is essential that they provide a place where victims are not silenced and harassment is not tolerated.

For now, I am still scheduled to appear at FanX this fall. My team and I have been evaluating whether or not this is a position we can still take—and it will greatly depend on how FanX responds to this letter in the next few weeks. I will keep you informed of our decision—and if I do decide to bow out of FanX, I will try to schedule some replacement signings instead.

(4) OPEN LETTER. The “Open Letter to FanX” that Sanderson refers to calls on the convention to do the following thigs:

One: In a public statement, and without disclosing her name, apologize to the victim who filed the sexual harassment report for disclosing their private report to the media without their knowledge or consent. Admit that the victim’s trust was violated, and promise future attendees who may report incidents that they will never undergo the same scrutiny or mishandling. Assure everyone that all reports will be heard, evaluated, and confidential. Keep the victims’ names confidential at all times.

Two: Hire a professional with experience writing, implementing, and upholding sexual harassment policies. Clarify the consequences for breaking the policy and reiterate that those consequences will be upheld. Removal and banishment from the conference should be among those ramifications.

Three: Address harassment complaints quickly. The past complaint was filed in October, and the complaint was not investigated until January. This shows a lack of concern and a reluctance to address the situation, as well as disregard for the seriousness of the issue.

Four: Recognize that trust is earned not through words, policies, and statements, but by a proven track record of implementation and action over time.

It’s signed by Robison Wells, Shannon Hale, Bree Despain, Emily R. King, Ally Condie, and Dean Hale, and co-signed by Brandon Sanderson, Maureen Johnson, Dan Wells, Howard Tayler, Annette Lyon, Mette Harrison, J. R. Johansson, Jessica Day George, Courtney Alameda, Lindsey Leavitt, and Sarah M. Eden.

(5) BOMB DISPOSAL. The Washington Post’s Steven Zeitchik, in “How Disney could get Star Wars back on track”, says the relative failure of Solo at the box office shows that Disney will have to take steps to make Star Wars films more appealing, including spacing them out more, making them edgier, and not releasing Star Wars films in May or June.

Fewer movies. Five months is not a long time for Star Wars to be away. Certainly it’s not the year that stretched between the previous three movies, or the 10 years between the last of the George Lucas movies and “The Force Awakens” in 2015. With Marvel that seems to help — releases in quick succession enhance one another. But with Star Wars, seen less as the rapid-fire sequel, novelty and absence may be the key to the game. Disney could do better by going back to the 12-month spacing — or even longer.

Why it’s tricky: This sounds good to fans. The problem is it doesn’t sound good to Wall Street or Disney financial executives. Star Wars movies are such juggernauts that Disney wants to cash in whenever it can. Waiting that long doesn’t help in that bid. Disney and Lucasfilm are encountering a major paradox here. Modern Hollywood says when you have successes you should replicate them early and often. But making Star Wars movies early and often may make them less successful.

(6) SOLO ACT. Guess who’s writing the tie-in? “’Solo: A Star Wars Story’ Novelization Coming In September 4th, Written By Mur Lafferty”.

The Solo novelization is continuing the trend that The Last Jedi novelization started of being released several months after the film.  Previously the novelizations have been released closer to the films theatrical releases.  The original and prequel novelizations were released before the films, while The Force Awakens and Rogue One adaptations were released as e-books the same day as the film and as hardcovers shortly thereafter.

(7) SFWA STUFF. Security protocols may have been breached….

(8) BIG BOX STORE. Adweek reports “Amazon Is Driving Around a Jurassic-Sized Box, and You Can Ask Alexa What’s Inside”. (Registration required to read full article.)

The last time we noticed Amazon driving around a giant box, the mysterious delivery turned out to be a Nissan Versa. But this time, perhaps it’s something a bit more … carnivorous?

(9) COMICS SECTION.

  • Chip Hitchcock thinks those penguin prognosticators might be right about what’s coming: Arctic Circle Cartoons.
  • Not sure whether I should thank Chip for also making sure I didn’t miss a horrible pop-culture pun at Bliss.

(10) THE DIRECTOR VANISHES. Comics shop owner Cliff Biggers showed this photo to his Facebook friends.

UPS employees like Alfred Hitchcock so much that they opened our package, tore open the action figure packaging, stole the figure, and then re-taped the box and sent it to us.

(11) LISTEN UP. The Parsec Awards Steering Committee is accepting nominations for the 2018 Parsec Awards through June 15 – submit nominations here.

Any material released between May 1, 2017 and April 30, 2018 is eligible for the 2018 awards. Material released needs to be free for download and released via a mechanism that allows for subscriptions. Thus, YouTube, Facebook, etc.. series are eligible.

If you are a podcaster or author, please feel free to nominate your own podcast or story. It is one way we know that your contact information filled is correct.

(12) KEEPING SCORE AT HOME. Seanan McGuire, in the area for ConCarolinas this weekend, took time to rate Ursula Vernon’s cats. Start the thread here —

(13) THE LAW & ANN LECKIE. A little known fact (in some quarters).

(14) SPEAKING OF WHOM. Joe Sherry launches his Nerds of a Feather post series with “Reading the Hugos: Novel”:

Provenance: This is a novel which took a while to settle out from under the weight of unfair expectations that I placed on it. Once it did, I was able to engage more fully with Leckie’s story of truth, lies, and cultural identity. Provenance is a strong novel in its own right, and in the end, I appreciated Leckie’s light touch in how she connected it to the larger Ancillary universe.

It’s just that when we look back on Leckie’s career in twenty years, I suspect Provenance will be viewed as minor Leckie. It’s good, please don’t take this the wrong way, but the Ancillary trilogy was a major accomplishment and Provenance is “just” a very good book. I appreciated how Provenance pushed me to think about historical documents and relics, how their perception of importance could override the truth they should represent. There’s great stuff to chew on here

(15) SOLO REVIEW. And Nerds of a Feather contributor Dean E. S. Richard sounds relieved as much as anything in “Review: Solo: A Star Wars Story”.

The good news: it doesn’t suck! I mean, there’s some forgettable stuff, and Han Solo isn’t, like, Han Solo, but if you’re willing to watch it for the sake of itself and not expect Harrison Ford, it’s fine. It tries a little too hard for quips, and his against-odds/I-don’t-actually-have-a-plan moments come across a little forced, but, again, we’re measuring this against complete disaster, so I’ll take it.

(16) SIPS OF CEASELESS. Charles Payseur comments in “Quick Sips – Beneath Ceaseless Skies #252”

Competition can bring out the worst in people, but as this issue of Beneath Ceaseless Skies proves, it can also bring out the best. Both stories this issue are about races, and magical ones at that, featuring women who find themselves squaring off against their lovers (former or current) for the chance to win a great prize. In both stories, though, the actual prize might not matter as much as the competition itself, as the thrill of the race. Because when these characters are faced with what they’d do if they won, the results are…interesting. It’s a wonderfully fun pair of stories, expertly paired, and I’ll stop yammering on in introduction and just get to the reviews!

(17) THE ORIGINS DEBACLE GOES ANOTHER ROUND. According to Larry Correia, who was dropped as a GoH of Origins Game Fair two weeks ago, “Origins sent out yet ANOTHER message about me, and my response” [Internet Archive link].

At Monster Hunter Nation he cites this as the text of Origins’ Executive Director John Ward’s message to educate vendors about the social media uproar following the “disinvitation.”

Good afternoon Exhibitors,

We are a few weeks away from Origins and the anticipation is building!

Things are looking great for this year’s show. The Exhibit Hall is officially sold out and badges are currently trending 15% above pre-registration numbers from 2017.

We have taken a brief hiatus from social media but are fully prepared to continue promoting the show and its exhibitors starting this week. Before we begin communicating through social, there are a few things we wanted to bring to your attention.

Some individuals have rallied online with plans to harass companies exhibiting at the show—this is in response to the disinviting of Larry Correia as a guest at Origins.

To provide you with some background: our original decision to invite Larry as a guest at Origins was simple—he’s a successful author, has been a guest at other conventions in previous years, and any one that knows him knows that he is big into gaming.

Unfortunately, we were not aware of Mr. Correia’s online presence and following. Upon further research we found an abundance of confrontational discourse and polarizing behavior online.

We have nothing against Larry as a person or as a professional, but we have seen the drama that follows him, and we do not want that at Origins.

As an exhibitor at Origins, we wanted you to be aware of the general MO of the group we are explaining:

Company pages are inundated with comments and negative rankings
Employers and publishers are contacted
Messages with keywords regarding to the show are targeted

Time has passed, and things have calmed down, but we should all still be aware of these potential behaviors. If you receive any threats or libel regarding you or your company, please send them to John Ward.

Thank you for your support. Good luck with the final preparations for the show!

Correia explains that he actually believes vendors should be left alone. Except for the ones that deserve what’s happening to them, that is.

My only comments during this entire debacle concerning the vendors was that they should be left alone. The vendors are just small businessmen trying to have a good sales weekend, and they have nothing to do with the incompetence of John Ward.  I’ve specifically gone out of my way to say that to my fans on multiple occasions.

The only vendors I’ve seen animosity directed at were the ones who specifically went out of their way to virtue signal on Twitter about how booting me for having the wrong opinions was So Brave. And that’s a short and very specific list who did that usual social media thing where they decided to throw punches, and then cry about getting punched back afterwards.

But hey, toss that out there. The important thing is that everyone knows Origins is the real victim here.

(18) GAME LOSES STEAM. Who thought this was a good idea? “School shooting game Active Shooter pulled by Steam”.

A game pitched as a “school shooting simulation” has been ditched from Steam’s online store ahead of release.

The title had been criticised by parents of real-life school shooting victims, and an online petition opposing its launch had attracted more than 180,000 signatures.

Steam’s owner, Valve, said it had dropped the game because its developer had a history of bad behaviour.

But the individual named has denied involvement.

Active Shooter came to prominence after the BBC revealed that an anti-gun violence charity had described it as “appalling” last week.

CNN subsequently reported that the families of two students killed in February’s high school attack in Parkland, Florida had described the game as being “despicable” and “horrific”.

(19) LE GUIN FILM. I’ve linked to the trailer before, but here’s a new Bustle post about the project: “This Ursula K. Le Guin Documentary Reveals How Much The Author Struggled To Write Women In Sci-Fi”.

Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin, a new documentary by Arwen Curry about the life and legacy of the late author, explores Le Guin’s long career as a pioneer in speculative fiction, including the role of feminism in her work and the struggles she faced teaching herself how to write women into her novels. In the film, which Curry worked on with the author for 10 years, Le Guin admits that “from my own cultural upbringing, I couldn’t go down deep and come up with a woman wizard.” According to the author, she had been “a woman pretending to think like a man,” a behavior she had to unlearn before she could create some of her best work.

As Le Guin tells Curry in the film:

“I had to rethink my entire approach to writing fiction … it was important to think about privilege and power and domination, in terms of gender, which was something science fiction and fantasy had not done. All I changed is the point of view. All of a sudden we are seeing Earthsea … from the point of view of the powerless.”

 

(20) BIG HERO 6 THE SERIES. Coming to a Disney Channel near you. (Which means not very close to me, but maybe to you.)

Hiro, Baymax and the Big Hero 6 team are back and ready to save San Fransokyo! Big Hero 6 The Series premieres Saturday, June 9 at 9A on Disney Channel. The adventure continues for 14-year-old tech genius Hiro and his compassionate, cutting-edge robot Baymax. If dealing with the academic pressure of being the new kid at the prestigious San Fransokyo Institute of Technology weren’t enough, it’s off campus where things really get tricky. Hiro and Baymax, along with their friends Wasabi, Honey Lemon, Go Go and Fred, unite to form the legendary superhero team Big Hero 6, protecting their city from a colorful array of scientifically-enhanced villains intent on creating chaos and mayhem!

 

(21) EXPANSE. Already linked in comments, but let the Scroll Record reflect: “It’s official: Amazon has saved The Expanse”. The Verge story says —

It’s official: The Expanse has been saved. After the Syfy Channel canceled The Expanse earlier this month, Alcon Entertainment has confirmed that Amazon will pick up the show for a fourth season, after after outcry from the show’s fans.

[Thanks to John King Tarpinian, JJ, Andrew Porter, Cat Eldridge, Carl Slaughter, Martin Morse Wooster, Chip Hitchcock, IanP, and Mike Kennedy for some of these stories, Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Paul Weimer.]

210 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 5/30/18 Pixels, Scrolls…I’m The Guy With The Book

  1. @Hampus
    They haven’t been permanently banned. Yet. And might not be.

  2. @Lenore Jones/jonesnori: A con is not a party; the structure is way to different for that analogy to work. The Frenkel thing (which has come up here already) also is a poor analogy.

    She said things that upset some people at a panel. Which was over. She did not then go around accosting people to tell them to sympathize with Nazis, right? She wasn’t a serial harasser, right?

    Doing something like no more panels/guesthood/guest privileges – con’s almost over? okay, for next year, too – feel like more reasonable possible responses than booting

    You might even decide this while they’re out on the deck or in the bathroom, before you’ve spoken to them.

    I wouldn’t (see my comment from yesterday), but this is another way the analogy doesn’t work. If I hosted a party and someone hurt/upset/angered some others, I’d want to talk with them first. Even if I’m thinking, “This is so out of control, probably best to ask them to leave,” I’d still want to talk with them first. And because my friends are all reasonable people, the hurt/upset/angry friends would want me to talk with the other friend, too.

    But a con’s not a party and many attendees aren’t friends and don’t even know each other.

    As for Frenkel, has it occurred to you that the con moved quickly here because it learned from previous experience not to let things sit?

    I feel like you’re conflating “quick reaction” with “appropriate reaction” here.

    Cons are kind of stuck in the middle, you know: blamed if they act, and blamed if they don’t. Often by the same people. This is hard stuff, especially when the person in question is a long-time attendee with many friends.

    I agree with some of that, but the choices aren’t “ban or don’t act.” This has come up with other con-boots-someone stuff in the past, when discussed here. There are options between (and beyond!) “boot or nothing.”

    I agree it’s hard stuff and everything gets Monday-morning-quarterbacked (including by me, though up till yesterday I’ve tried to say little). I’m sure that bites for the WisCon security/safety/concomm folks.

  3. @P J Evans: I believe you’re misreading/misunderstanding @Hampus Eckerman’s comment.

  4. P J:

    “They haven’t been permanently banned. Yet. And might not be.”

    Whatever decision they will come to, I would see it as a permanent ban in the same situation. Because it would clearly not be a space I could feel safe in.

  5. @Rev. Bob: Sure, though I was responding to @JJ’s example of “someone hiding out in a semi-private space (not their own room*) to avoid that.” I sort of figure, yes, security would be told and probably other staff. But I wasn’t totally coherent or the connection to @JJ’s example got lost somehow.

    Heck, we even had walkie-talkies at a small con I worked. That was a novel experience for me, at that con.

    * I have no idea if Tuesdale had a room, but that’s not where he was.

  6. We’re all quarterbacking because none of us were at that panel.

    I’d still like to know where the rape story came from. Are you sure that’s a WisCon story, Anna?

  7. I’d still like to know where the rape story came from.

    I’m not going to go into details here, but there was a credible account of the rape posted on an LJ account some years ago now. AFAIK no official action was ever taken, but I don’t think the rapist attends WisCon now.

    Regarding the claim of safety being a concern, it seems pretty clear that there was no worry about actual physical safety here. I’m guessing that it’s more a case of “X” allegedly making WisCon a non-safe space by bringing up the subject of having empathy for persons who were Nazis. That it led to “X” being banned from the convention doesn’t make much sense to me, honestly.

  8. Kendall: the timing was happenstance entirely, definitely not directed at you. My comment was meant to point out to several people that final decisions have not been made.

    Hampus:while I don’t disagree that the ultimate effect might be a person choosing not to return where they are unwelcome, I see that as a differing choice with differing consequences, just as the myriad ways to leave a job differ significantly. If the con decides she is welcome back but she decides otherwise, that has different implications for the actions and concerns of others than a full ban.

  9. Has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation for the safety claim? That one has me completely flummoxed. It reads like a bad parody.

  10. @Kendall: “Sure, though I was responding to @JJ’s example of “someone hiding out in a semi-private space (not their own room*) to avoid that.” I sort of figure, yes, security would be told and probably other staff. But I wasn’t totally coherent or the connection to @JJ’s example got lost somehow.”

    Unless the “semi-private space” in question is a con function area, I don’t see how that affects the procedure I outlined. If the offender has removed himself from con space, the question of whether he’s been banned is largely academic. If not – say, for instance, that he’s in the dealers’ room making a purchase – then security can either conduct a search or watch for him to come out. The best option will depend on the specific circumstances, of course, but the offender is still in the process of being separated from the convention at large. That’s a good thing for the other attendees, even if not quite as good as an actual removal.

    The only type of “semi-public space” I can think of which would be at a con but not formally part of it would be a room party. So happens I know of a case where the head of a con hit the roof because someone banned from the con visited a room party and nobody on his staff said anything, but when you get down to it, that’s somebody voluntarily opening their hotel room to other people. Legally and practically speaking, it’s really hard for the con to police that. (That situation wound up being a right mess, but for other reasons. The staff thought it was none of his business, while he maintained that the rules they’d agreed to follow required them to speak up. IIRC, the staffers involved became ex-staffers.)

  11. Rev. Bob: In many cons, the dealer’s room or even the art show are open to the general public even if the rest of the con isn’t, so that might qualify as a semi-public space. But I don’t think anyone has been able to use one to circumvent a ban the way some people hang out conspicuously in the hotel lobby (not even banned people, in the latter case; also the much more benign “I’m not going to the con this year but wanted a chance to say hi to some friends” people).

    As to safety: NO idea whatever.

  12. Sorry, Darren, didn’t see this one.

    To me, your interpretation of the “plain sense” of the words looks like it is being shaped to fit conclusions that you have already reached. Mine probably look the same to you.

    You do agree, though, that her opening remark about Nazis made no references to individual Nazis not being evil as opposed to their group’s aims and actions, but spoke of the Nazis as a group as ‘maybe not evil’?

    “Nazis were a convenient” other for this trope that are “maybe not evil” but that “as we become more tolerant of others” – we’re running out of other people to use in this way.

    @Anna

    Actually no, she is repeatedly alleged to have expressed sympathy for Nazis as individuals. There is a lot we shall never know about what went down in that panel but this is a detail all the sources agree on.

    See above.

    @Meredith
    I did investigate whether she actually said that remark, as I wondered whether she were being railroaded by something she never said. I even asked Sophygurl, who has the most complete account that I read so far, whether she said it or not, and reported the results here (she said that she did not hear her say it, but that she was distracted and upset for part of the time while taking notes and could have missed it). So I am open to the idea that she was misunderstood, and misconstrued. And I agree that what we DO know seems to indicate that the ‘sacrifice the disabled’ remark seems to have been meant in the context of a video game discussion.

    (Though it’s worth noting that the video game in question seems to allow the option to preserve your disabled population as people of worth and use despite the extreme survivalist scenario, as per an article in the link you sent – which made me decide to buy the game).

    But I think her opening remark about Nazis – in which she certainly seems to say that Nazis as a group aren’t evil, and can also be construed to imply that the group that epitomizes intolerance merits tolerance (thus I gather it may violate Wiscon’s rules about Nazi apologia right off the bat) –
    likely put people’s hackles up, and made them look at her subsequent remarks while giving less benefit of the doubt than they would have otherwise. This may have included her remark about sacrificing the disabled, thus reporting it could have been done in good faith by people who were already upset about her opening remark and her subsequent buttonholing of the man who as mixed race and gay (hence, as he says, a doubly killable body from the point of view of Nazis) to ask if he would choose to kill for the Nazis under duress.

    As to complaints about people feeling ‘unsafe’ due to those remarks – would we complain if they were reporting to the safety committee a person who was unequivocally making against-the-rules Nazi apologia remarks even if there was no credible physical threats involved?

    No doubt the committee should have spoken to the panelist before banning – but I don’t think that the banning itself was necessarily unwarranted.

  13. A different discussion I put here, not so people can wander over and yell or the like – please do not swamp someone else’s facebook – but because it features more people of the perspective being cut out here, including staff on site. Mikki Kendall’s post

    Still not sure what I agree with, myself.

  14. @Jayn

    As to complaints about people feeling ‘unsafe’ due to those remarks – would we complain if they were reporting to the safety committee a person who was unequivocally making against-the-rules Nazi apologia remarks even if there was no credible physical threats involved?

    I don’t understand the “unsafe” thing at all. I wasn’t there, I’m not criticizing people who felt unsafe, but I don’t understand what they mean by it. If Freitag was a known alt-righter with a typical gator-style mob of followers, or if she was known to physically attack people she disagreed with, or if she had a history of following people who disagree with her around and harassing them (that doesn’t seem to be the case) – I could understand people feeling unsafe. I don’t get how what was reported made anyone feel unsafe.

    Maybe the definition of safe/unsafe has evolved without my noticing? Like the way the term racist/racism has evolved to be about systemic racism and underlying racist attitudes and beliefs that aren’t necessarily the blatant, pointy-white-hat brand of racism that I grew up with. It took me a minute to grok that.

  15. @kathodus
    So if there were a person making absolutely unequivocal against-the-rules Nazi apologist remarks (or rape apologist remarks, for that matter) at a com, it would be inappropriate to report this to the safety committee as making the reporter feel unsafe IF the person making the remarks had no history of harassment or physical attacks? Is it inappropriate to report that person making unequivocal Nazi apologist remarks to the safety committee at all?

    Note that I’m not saying Freitag was making unequivocal remarks of that kind.

  16. @Lenora Rose: Something in the comments there jumped out at me. Does Freitag really have a history of problematic comments about disabled people?

  17. jayn on June 3, 2018 at 10:54 am said:

    You do agree, though, that her opening remark about Nazis made no references to individual Nazis not being evil as opposed to their group’s aims and actions, but spoke of the Nazis as a group as ‘maybe not evil’?

    “Nazis were a convenient” other for this trope that are “maybe not evil” but that “as we become more tolerant of others” – we’re running out of other people to use in this way.

    I think it is taking a common phrasing and reading it far too literally. A similarly phrased sentence would be “The panelist’s remark was maybe not smart but unlikely malicious.” It is saying that maybe the subject isn’t being portrayed exactly as x, but at least they are being portrayed as y.

  18. @Jayn – I feel unsafe dealing with people who take actions to directly harm other people, whether physically, through online harassment, or whatnot. That describes me and what makes me feel unsafe. Having read Mikki Kendall’s post and the following discussion that Lenora Rose linked to up-thread, I think I have a better understanding now. It seems to me that the rules are meant to prevent people with PTSD from nope-ing the hell away from a situation that is intolerable for them.

  19. @Rev. Bob: There are lots of ways around that (go watch movies! hang out in the dealer room! go to a panel and just stay there for future panels – great if you like readings, which tend to be in the same room! etc.). Obviously if you know what someone looks like, you can just go scout all those areas for them (tougher to canvas the video room). I’m not sure I’ve been to any con that has staff/volunteers enough to post someone at every panel/event doorway.

    Anyway, @JJ’s example was someone who hid out in the Puppy Suite. I wrote “semi-private” because I have no idea whether it was function space or non-con function space or a suite/room opened up to the group or what. And I don’t know whether everyone was allowed in or not. But yeah, if it were not con space and they retired there, then it’s much simpler to intercept when/if they return. Or, heck, if they left the con space, that makes it much simpler . . .

    . . . depending on the con & volunteer/staff available. Some cons have space so spread out that you can’t control access via a couple of choke points. One I used to frequent had half their space in public corridors, but barely enough security to staff one checkpoint, and at that point, they could not bar people because it was a way to get to some of the outside parking. Things are rarely as simple as they sound on paper, especially at small cons methinks (this was a small con).

  20. @Lenora Rose: First, my apologies for misunderstanding and thank you for clarifying.

    Re. Mikki Kendall (no relation), she wrote in her second paragraph (emphasis added):

    WisCon doesn’t start at banning, I wasn’t part of this decision but I do know the process. People are given chances to rectify their wrongs & tell their side. It’s just that sometimes the indefensible happens & the correct response is an apology, but people choose to argue intent rather than address impact. Saying “I’m sorry” will get you much further than defensively digging a deeper hole.

    From reports here/elsewhere, the bold parts don’t sound like what actually happened. I wonder why she’s muddying the waters with this. She says she wasn’t involved, so, uh, yeah, I’ll believe someone reporting the con just banned the panelist without talking with her, over Mikki Kendall commenting vaguely about how things are supposed to work.

  21. kathodus on June 3, 2018 at 11:58 am said:

    Maybe the definition of safe/unsafe has evolved without my noticing?

    I believe the context is in being kept safe from comments or ideas that may lead to an emotional reaction. Or, really, any form of deviation from the crowd mean at all. I’m reminded of a story I read a couple of years ago about a student getting a complaint about violating a safe space by waving her hand in the air to try to get attention to ask a question. She later almost received another warning for shaking her head at someone else’s comment. Some times “safe spaces” really do live down to the parody.

  22. @Darren Garrison – If my understanding is correct, it seems that Wiscon is trying to be a comfortable place for people who have experienced trauma, and prioritizing them over people who have not. If that’s correct, I understand why some people would find that kind of environment attractive (or necessary, even).

  23. kathodus on June 3, 2018 at 12:54 pm said:

    @Darren Garrison – If my understanding is correct, it seems that Wiscon is trying to be a comfortable place for people who have experienced trauma, and prioritizing them over people who have not.

    And probably no jokes about Universal Screw Machines. (I stumbled across that one in a Google search.)

  24. @jayn: With respect to this quote –

    “Nazis were a convenient” other for this trope that are “maybe not evil” but that “as we become more tolerant of others” – we’re running out of other people to use in this way.

    I do not read that the way you do. I read it as two distinct thoughts:

    1. Nazis have been used as convenient killable bodies. (True, beyond dispute.)
    2. As our society becomes more tolerant, more and more groups which have been used as “others” have been taken out of that category. (Also true.)

    Now, not having been there to hear the remarks in context, I cannot speak to whether the panelist intended that to come across the way you took it, as “have pity on the poor Nazis, for society still considers it okay to other them.” I mean, I suppose it’s possible, but that’s not a conclusion I would leap to.

    Frankly, it looks more to me like two related thoughts that got unfortunately jammed together, creating an unintended implication. I could almost see myself saying something similar at the start of an extemporaneous discussion of the topic: “We used to have a lot of groups that were accepted as okay to be slain en masse by Our Heroes – like those Nazi soldiers in the Wolfenstein games – but as our society has evolved, the number of such groups has plummeted. Ever wonder why you see so many zombie-killing games? That’s one of the reasons. Nobody objects to showing the heroes mowing down loads of zombies.”

  25. @Darren Garrison–You seem to be saying that only physical damage counts–that words and behavior that “merely” trigger panic attacks (for instance) is not something anyone should be expected to avoid, and that those of us who can have panic attacks due to, say, someone praising Nazis or seeming to endorse the idea that the disabled can be killed for reasons of practicality, should just shut and stay home.

    Maybe if you expressed your point of view in ways less openly contemptuous of people you disagree with, people would not be so likely to question the good faith with which you argue.

  26. Lis Carey on June 3, 2018 at 1:12 pm said:

    @Darren Garrison–You seem to be saying that only physical damage counts–that words and behavior that “merely” trigger panic attacks (for instance) is not something anyone should be expected to avoid, and that those of us who can have panic attacks due to, say, someone praising Nazis or seeming to endorse the idea that the disabled can be killed for reasons of practicality, should just shut and stay home.

    You are very good at emotional hyperbole.

  27. I feel unsafe attending a convention where I can be branded on the internet as a Nazi and Confederate apologist without a chance to discuss my position.

    Apparenlty, Wiscon is ok with picking and choosing who gets to feel safe. (Does this make Panelist X a killable body?)

  28. @kathodus

    If my understanding is correct, it seems that Wiscon is trying to be a comfortable place for people who have experienced trauma, and prioritizing them over people who have not.

    I applaud and respect that, but then, I’m not sure if that kind of panel discussion was a good idea at such a convention in the first place — “Let’s talk about people who need killin’, but let’s do it in a way that absolutely nobody is traumatized” is a rather tall order.

  29. Darren: you do come across as having only disdain for those who disagree with you.

  30. Lenora Rose on June 3, 2018 at 2:39 pm said:

    Darren: you do come across as having only disdain for those who disagree with you.

    It depends on what we disagree on and how that person expresses what I disagree over. Also, I have to say it is hilariously ironic appearing on a site that gained prominence (it certainly how it gained my attention) from having hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of posts of disdain for those that were disagreed with (the puppies and related.)

    (Also–I’m criticizing some who showed disdain for someone who was viewed to be showing insufficient disdain.)

  31. @Darren Garrison – If my understanding is correct, it seems that Wiscon is trying to be a comfortable place for people who have experienced trauma, and prioritizing them over people who have not. If that’s correct, I understand why some people would find that kind of environment attractive (or necessary, even).

    That may be the case, but if so, the panel topic seems to have been poorly chosen, and also a panel that people who are that vulnerable probably shouldn’t attend.

  32. Nancy Sauer on June 3, 2018 at 1:29 pm said:
    I feel unsafe attending a convention where I can be branded on the internet as a Nazi and Confederate apologist without a chance to discuss my position.

    Apparenlty, Wiscon is ok with picking and choosing who gets to feel safe. (Does this make Panelist X a killable body?)

    Back in the days when I loved Wiscon and missed not being able to go, I had a fannish friend (a bisexual not exactly white feminist) that had been once and had felt treated with hostility and contempt, and said it felt a very unsafe space to her. Now I understand what she meant.

  33. Two different people today have prefaced a link by explicitly saying a named person committed a crime. Were they prosecuted? Convicted? This is a concern of mine because I’ve already got some libel exposure issues from a comment unrelated to this topic.

  34. @rochrist and @microtherion – Agreed. I don’t see how it’s possible to create a space within that environment that would both be safe for that topic of discussion and meet the safety needs of the con-goers.

  35. @Mike Glyer

    I’m not a lawyer but have reason professionally to be aware of Internet related laws. My understanding is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes forum providers from claims of defamation made by third parties in comments, etc. For instance, see one of the first links in a search for Internet forum libel:

    https://www.socalinternetlawyer.com/defamation-internet-forums/

    Obviously if there is concern consulting competent legal counsel with experience in Internet law would be wise.

    Setting law to the side, there is ethics of course, which is a different matter.

  36. Stoic Cynic: The important distinction to me is whether my site is being used to originate an unproven charge that someone would regard as very harmful to their reputation. Consider the difference between these examples —

    • X committed a [specified crime] on Y — here’s links to the discussion.
    • The accusations about a [specified crime] at [named convention] are discussed at this link.
  37. @Mike Glyer

    I think legally you are still covered so long as you, your agents, your staff, etc (e.g. you 🙂 ) did not post or directly spread the potential libel. Ethically though I agree there is a concern at allegations like that being spread without verification.

  38. @Rev. Bob

    I do not read that the way you do. I read it as two distinct thoughts:

    1. Nazis have been used as convenient killable bodies. (True, beyond dispute.)
    2. As our society becomes more tolerant, more and more groups which have been used as “others” have been taken out of that category. (Also true.)

    IIRC, I originally brought up that quote because Darrin kept insisting that the panelist had never defended Nazis as a group, only individual cases with extenuating circumstances. And I still think that that quote does speak of Nazis as a group as ‘maybe not evil’ and certainly makes no reference to individual cases with extenuating circumstances like coercion. Do you disagree with that much?

    I do agree (and have said above) that what she said was equivocal and could be interpreted in different ways. Hell, even Darrin, who’s been steadfastly defensive of the panelist, concedes that he can’t tell just WHAT she meant when she brought up ‘Nazis’ to begin with. I have myself more than once in my life stuck my foot in my mouth up to the uvula and beyond while blithering and found that I’ve said things that other people could have reasonably construed as both offensive AND the opposite of what I’ve intended to say, or believed, and I had to backtrack and clarify, or leave that offensive impression unchanged.

    Thing is, while she did say at different points that she was defending individual cases of coercion, AFAICT from the accounts that I read, she didn’t clarify and emphasize much that she thought that Nazi aims and actions as a group were indefensible.

    Now it may seem an obvious rejoinder to say, “She doesn’t have to! She’s a decent person and to any decent person that goes without saying!” But IMO, after Charlottesville, it really doesn’t go without saying anymore…it really, really doesn’t. And saying so, IMO, doesn’t mean I’m saying she’s NOT a decent person.

    Basically, I don’t think that if you reject the narrative ‘She’s a Nazi sympathizer!’ it means that the truth must therefore be, “A bunch of hypersensitive snowflakes are maliciously exaggerating what the panelist said in deliberate bad faith to fuck over a perfectly nice lady!” IMO, the takeaway from this is that if you decide to defend Nazis (individually or otherwise) and get pushback, you’re kind of under the obligation to be as clear as possible what you ARE and ARE NOT defending. And I don’t think the obligation to thus be clear when speaking of Nazis is a hideous burden of injustice for a con audience to expect of a panelist. (not that I think you’re implying that, Rev. Bob, just the tone I’ve gotten on the internet from people upset about Wiscon’s decision).

  39. @Stoic Cynic

    I can’t think of any left leaning SFF authors that have weaponized their fan base quite the way some on the right have.

    That sort of behavior kind of comes baked into the culture right now. An author aiming their readers at a target is focusing something that is going to happen anyways.

    —-

    On the utility of games…+1 to MattY’s comments. It’s a form of relaxation. I’m in the game to not think about the real world for a while. An overt storyline that preaches any sort of politics just isn’t welcome.

    Blowing stuff up is a lot of fun.

    @Darren Garrison

    I believe the context is in being kept safe from comments or ideas that may lead to an emotional reaction.

    This.

    John Ringo, Larry Correia, and now WisCon. All of these people/incidents have the potential to say something that someone else will find troublesome. (in the case of WisCon, did say something that many find troublesome)

    None of them had a history of actually offering violence to other people. Speech isn’t violence.

    These are nothing more than the most recent in a long stream of events (including things outside of fandom) where people are being de-platformed for saying something that is disagreeable to someone. One key to de-platforming those people is to claim to feel “unsafe” as a result of the speaker’s positions.

    If a person has a history of actual abuse, then people should feel unsafe and cons should act accordingly.

    Regards,
    Dann
    Vegetarians eat vegetables-Beware of humanitarians

  40. At this point, I am having a hard time peering through the psychic murk surrounding the Wiscon panel. It feels like we’re generating more heat than light here and I am quite confused.

  41. Dann: John Ringo, Larry Correia… None of them had a history of actually offering violence to other people. Speech isn’t violence. These are nothing more than the most recent in a long stream of events (including things outside of fandom) where people are being de-platformed for saying something that is disagreeable to someone… If a person has a history of actual abuse, then people should feel unsafe and cons should act accordingly.

    By Ringo’s own first-person account, he has sexually-harassed women panelists at cons (and I saw on Facebook first-person accounts from several women he had harassed, as well). Correia pulled someone who can fairly be described as a neo-Nazi and a misogynist (along with that person’s supporters) into an active campaign of harassment he had started against Worldcon members — and then he invited Gamergaters in, too, to pile on.

    That is not merely “speech”. Those are actions. And there were consequences for those actions.

    Your apologism for their actions does you no credit.

  42. John Ringo and Larry Correia both have a history of problematic behaviour that goes beyond mere uncomfortable speech.

    As for the Wiscon panelist, we have no way of knowing whether this was a one off incident (and I currently lean towards the theory that she expressed her point badly and did not properly clarify herself when challenged) or whether there is a previous pattern here.

  43. @jayn: “IIRC, I originally brought up that quote because Darrin kept insisting that the panelist had never defended Nazis as a group, only individual cases with extenuating circumstances. And I still think that that quote does speak of Nazis as a group as ‘maybe not evil’ and certainly makes no reference to individual cases with extenuating circumstances like coercion. Do you disagree with that much?”

    I do, yes. You’re going by the abbreviated notes of a member of the audience, not a transcript. We do not know how accurate those notes are, and the nature of note-taking is such that jotting down two phrases in close proximity can imply a link that was not present.

    So it’s not a quote, what is quoted is fragmentary, and neither of us was there to hear it in context. At most, I think all we can confidently conclude from those notes is that the person in the audience heard those phrases. They may have been a defense, they may have come across as a defense, or they may have been nothing of the kind. We. Don’t. Know. Therefore, I am not going to automatically conclude the worst about the panelist’s words, let alone her intent… and calling it a “defense” is a statement about intent, not impact.

    Thing is, while she did say at different points that she was defending individual cases of coercion, AFAICT from the accounts that I read, she didn’t clarify and emphasize much that she thought that Nazi aims and actions as a group were indefensible.

    Absence of evidence means absolutely nothing. (Shall I illustrate by listing a handful of loathsome ideas which you have not called out as indefensible? I bet I could come up with quite a few without even trying hard… and it would prove nothing.) Here again, you’re jumping to a conclusion not just on hearsay, but on what’s not in the hearsay. That’s just ludicrous.

    Basically, I don’t think that if you reject the narrative ‘She’s a Nazi sympathizer!’ it means that the truth must therefore be, “A bunch of hypersensitive snowflakes are maliciously exaggerating what the panelist said in deliberate bad faith to fuck over a perfectly nice lady!”

    Who the fuck said anything even close to that? Damned sure wasn’t me!

    @Dann (quoting Stoic Cynic):

    I can’t think of any left leaning SFF authors that have weaponized their fan base quite the way some on the right have.

    That sort of behavior kind of comes baked into the culture right now. An author aiming their readers at a target is focusing something that is going to happen anyways.

    It comes baked into the culture on the right. When fans of a left-leaning author attack someone, it’s usually their own idea, not the author fanning the flames and saying “go get ’em!” As with any generalization, there are exceptions, but when you look at the overall phenomenon, it tilts decidedly to the right.

    None of them had a history of actually offering violence to other people. Speech isn’t violence.

    Now, I’m just a country reader and all, so correct me if I’m wrong… but isn’t “offering violence” done with speech? When done in person, it’s even a crime – specifically, the crime of assault. (Remember, saying “I’m gonna hit you” is assault. Hitting is battery. Saying and then doing is assault and battery.)

    Say, wouldn’t something like calling the cops to say that the Guest of Honor at a convention presents a physical danger qualify as “offering violence”?

    If a person has a history of actual abuse, then people should feel unsafe and cons should act accordingly.

    Please define “actual abuse” in this context. I damned well hope you’re not clueless enough to claim that “just words” never qualify.

  44. Dann:

    “None of them had a history of actually offering violence to other people. Speech isn’t violence.”

    Ringo had a history of disrupting panels and sexually harassing people in the audience. He wrote about it himself. And afterwards, he has threatened to sent the gamegate-harassment campaign on the con.

    Is this really behaviour you find acceptable? Do you really have such startling lack of morals?

  45. @Hampus: Bragging in a many page public document about how you sexually harass people, and then threatening to send a known harassment campaign after people who disapprove of that sort of thing is pretty definitely beyond the pale.

    @Rev. Bob: Yes — too many people think assault is the same as battery. Nope, simple threats of battery are assault. There’s a reason they’re legally recognized as two different offenses (*doink-doink*). Touching someone against their wishes is battery, be it a grope or a beat-down.

    And of course convention CoC’s aren’t obligated to conform to the criminal code anyway; being tossed out of a con is a far cry from being locked up in the hoosegow. Of course the latter has stricter rules.

    I used to go to a con where the parties were all on one wing of one floor, and you couldn’t get into that area from the elevator without a con badge. No such thing as an open party there. I guess you could have come in via the stairs, but the con would have had the right to have you escorted out.

  46. @Cora: There was a comment in the FB post linked to earlier that suggested that the comment about the disabled might not have been a one-off.

    And everything has to be considered in the context of people still being a bit shell-shocked over people that we previously thought well of now feeling that they can let their freak flag fly.

    I’ve suspected from the beginning that this was two subcultures colliding, and that much of the audience is from one where these statements are only heard from trolls. (Or from family members and former friends who then go on to say much, much worse.) Whatever Freitag thought she was saying, we know from multiple accounts what people heard. If she can’t grok that, maybe she shouldn’t be on potentially explosive panels.

    I do find it interesting that we don’t seem to be in agreement over the needs of the con attendees taking precedence in this incident as we were with the ConCarolinas-Ringo business.

  47. @Rail

    There was a comment in the FB post linked to earlier that suggested that the comment about the disabled might not have been a one-off.

    I don’t do Facebook, so I didn’t see that. But if the panelist has a history of problematic remarks that changes things. Though it also makes me wonder why she was put on a potentially sensitive panel with such a topic at all.

    As for why we were more in agreement regarding Ringo and Correia than in this case is because Ringo and Correia have a known and well documented history of behaving like jerks. Ditto for Dave Truesdale at WorldCon. Many of us here have been watching Correia’s and to lesser degree Ringo’s behaviour for years and several have been on the receiving end of said behaviour. The Wiscon panelist, however, was an unknwon quantity. At any rate, I had never heard of her before all this. And the accounts, especially the early ones, were fairly vague about what was actually said. Sophygurl’s is the most detailed and that one didn’t surface until a fews days later.

  48. Lurkertype, I’ve been on discussions about whether or not to badge the entire party-floor at a convention.

    The problem from the convention-runners’ point of view is threefold. 1) Hotels are notoriously bad at blocking; if a salesman from Boise is given a room on the “party floor”, you have to let them in. 2) The convention would have to allocate badgers to every elevator and stair access, which would be at least three or four people for several hours; that’s a lot of volunteer manpower that could better be used in places like the consuite. And most importantly, 3) if the floor is badged, it can be argued that the responsibility for the party floor falls on the convention, not just on the individuals renting the rooms. And that means that the convention might be legally liable for room damage, etc. (It’s not definite, but nobody wants to go to court to find out.)

  49. Cassy B:

    The convention would have to allocate badgers to every elevator and stair access…

    Speaking as a Ferret, I’m not sure what to think about that. They’re not nearly as nice as us Ferrets, but on the other hand they’re much less likely to have their attention scattered to the four winds. Very persistent, doncha know, eponymously so.

  50. Cora: But if the panelist has a history of problematic remarks that changes things. Though it also makes me wonder why she was put on a potentially sensitive panel with such a topic at all.

    The panelist is a physician. My suspicion is that their comments were coming from a place of detachment and objectivity which were probably well-suited to a medical academic conference panel, but not so well-suited to the Wiscon audience.

    I also suspect that the panelist was startled and taken off-guard by the response, felt that their remarks were taken as different from what was intended, and was genuinely just trying to elucidate — but under the circumstances, this was perceived as doubling-down and only served to make the situation more fraught.

    While the subject matter was certainly one which could be of serious interest and stimulating discussion for an audience at an SFF con, it was also one which had a huge potential to go awry, and I’m a bit surprised that the programming staff who scheduled the panel did not realize that. I suspect that they were thinking of the discussion being in terms of minorities as being disposable in fiction and gaming, and it did not occur to them that the subject of villains who would be considered disposable would almost certainly come up.

Comments are closed.