Heroes Fall

Yesterday was a tough day for a lot of writers I know. We all knew our patron saint of oddness and quirky stories had fallen from grace, but yesterday's article at The Vulture (sadly behind a paywall, but there's an archive version here) wasn't the icing on the cake -- it was the cake itself. Everything up to that point might as well have been the printed recipe card. Yesterday we actually tasted the cake and wanted to spit it out to keep from gagging. 

Be warned, several of the articles contain descriptions of sexual assault and harassment. They can be difficult to read, so exercise caution if you can be triggered by such. 

The author in question has been seen as an ideal for literary weirdness, an icon that proved writers didn't have to sacrifice their souls on the altar of "accepted markets" to find success, a proof text that writers could be true to their visions no matter how warped or weird or whacked out and still make it on their own terms as creators. And he was loved for that. 

Sure, little stories popped up as warnings here and there, but even in the "during" and "after" parts of the #metoo realization, no one really wanted to believe it, not about HIM. Surely, just this one time, maybe, surely, pleasepleasepleaseplease, let it be some kind of conspiracy of hurt feelings lashing out. 

Alas no. 

And now we must swallow the cake, as bitter and vile as it is, evidenced in the following articles (not behind paywalls):

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn01dynqx7ro

https://variety.com/2025/tv/global/neil-gaiman-allegations-sexual-assault-1236272893/

https://www.avclub.com/neil-gaiman-sexual-assault-allegations-details-report

I've known writers who have shared stories about Neil, not #metoo level stuff, but icky enough to make me wonder. On the other hand, I've heard lots of tales about how wonderful he was to meet at conventions or book signings too. That's what made this whole thing so hard to process. 

But, in light of the consistent and growing number of allegations, it's time to side firmly and vocally with the victimized. 

For some, that may look like throwing away all your Gaiman books and stopping watching shows based on his work. 

For some, that may mean you keep what you've enjoyed and you refuse to support any new books or new television/movie projects.

For some, you may still have the freedom and distance to separate the man from his art and enjoy the stories. 

For some, it may simply look like a few more months or years of processing that some will no doubt see as you being overdramatic because they just can't understand how deeply this affects you. 

Now, some will compare this to JK Rowling's recent fall from grace regarding her transphobic hard-line rants (seemingly meant to intentionally alienate her previous fans and celebrity connections), but some will draw lines between them and seek to delineate how different they are. For me, no distinction matters. Not really. They both have been revealed to vile people. 

However, it's not my place to tell you how to react. I'm going to be busy enough with the mote in my own eye. If anything, both of these situations are warnings for me to keep an eye on my own life. Let's suppose one day the dream of being recognized as a world-renowned writer comes true. What kind of harmful words or actions can folks drum up against me (and rightfully so) at that point? If anything, this is another bell ringing to tell me to be true to the things I believe and to watch my words in interviews and conventions and to be on guard how I treat people both in my private and public life.

I mean, nobody's perfect, as the cliche goes. I can find something to revile in the lives of many of my favorite writers. Flannery O'Connor. Shirley Jackson. Ernest Hemingway. F. Scott Fitzgerald. Racism. Sexism. Physical abuse. Homophobia. History is filled with writers who fail(ed) to live up to the ideals that fans foist upon them. And it's not just short story writers and novelists. So many of the comic book writers I grew up on have turned out in recent years to be MAGA redhats (or perhaps that should be asshats) who stand staunchly against most everything I stand for in terms of women's rights, racial equality and equity, LGBTQIA+ causes, humanitarian issues, etc. So, learning to reevaluate my support for and enjoyment of certain authors is nothing new. 

But, at least in my mind, that never excuses any kind of abuse or vileness. And make no mistake, what has transpired in this case is vileness, purely and utterly. 

What does it all mean for this blog?

Well, this blog has referenced writing advice and writing tips from Gaiman in the past, and there are several posts that show up with his name as a keyword. I will not be removing the previous posts but this blog will no longer reference Gaiman or his work, except in the interest of updating news about this story as it develops.

Sharing Information Online Responsibly (i.e., Don't Be a Douche)

Here's your periodic reminder not to be irresponsible or manipulative when sharing links. Knowing is half the battle before you start spouting bad sources:

News -- This is news. It is fact-checked, verified, and references credible, relevant sources or interviewees specific to the story or event. It strives to be as objective as possible, sticks to actual data parsed by multiple experts, and always provides a counterpoint(s) for credible discussion (questioning an interviewee who claims the earth is flat or continuing to cite debunked theories about massive scale election interference isn't a credible opposing point, for example). It focuses on the who, what, where, and when of a story or event.

Analysis -- This is not news. This is someone's breakdown of what he/she/they feel are the takeaways from actual news or some event. This one confuses many people because the person presenting the opinions is usually some kind of expert in a matter related to what he/she/they are analyzing, such as pundits discussing a presidential debate or a legal expert discussing how a court case plays out. However, even though the analysts are experts , they tend to have a vested interest in promoting one side of an issue over the other side, such as a conservative pundit for a conservative news station or a climate change attorney for climate change rulings. The best examples of this include a variety of experts who can discuss and even disagree with each other, providing the experts are peer-respected, tenured, and credible (again, there's no point in including flat earth "scientists" for a credible discussion of geology or a pillow salesman or pop star for a discussion of world politics). 

Opinion/Editorial -- This is not news. This is someone's opinion (quite often a complaining, partisan one) about some issue or event. I'm surprised how often I see people reference these as facts or news because they are quite often clearly identified as just Op/Ed in the papers or sites they appear in/on. (Although some sources do incorrectly and irresponsibly let these appear alongside news stories as a counterpoint to news.) Sadly, this can often masquerade as Analysis and confuse those who are looking for quick, easy "facts" (not actually facts though) to support their preconceived beliefs.

Review -- This is not news. This is an assessment by a professional critic regarding (typically) some published media. 

Political Memes -- Not only are these not news, they are often flat-out lies and falsehoods. Unless they cite a credible source in the meme, these are typically unverified and intentionally misleading or designed to elicit an emotional, knee-jerk response. If it has no source, just don't share it. You could do more harm than good. If it does have a source, check it out before sharing it. Chances are the source is made up to provide false credibility or designed to take an actual quote or fact out of context. And trust me, we've all been fooled at least once by these pesky critters. 

Most YouTube sources fall under Analysis, Op/Ed, or Review. There are some that actually do the work of journalism to present news.

Most podcasters tend to fall under the Analyst-Op/Ed-Review category as well, though there are a few credible investigative journalism podcasts that report relatively unbiased news.

It's okay to share Op/Ed and Analysis articles. But please don't source it as news. Always be sure to explain that it is merely an opinion, albeit in some cases a more informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. If you intentionally imply that such a source is news or is a factual account of a story or event, you are irresponsible at best and outright spreading lies and trying to manipulate others at worst. 

Most partisan sources that identify as such promote bias and don't actually cover news. They inject a lot of Analysis and Op/Ed into so-called news stories.

[Link] Authors: end to censored versions of books is 'victory for the world of dirt'

by Alison Flood

Clean Reader app, which changes swear words and so-called offensive terms, removes all titles from online catalogue after writers protest

Chocolat author Joanne Harris is claiming a “small victory for the world of dirt” after an app that blanked out the profanities in books, replacing them with so-called clean alternatives, removed all titles from its online catalogue following a week of angry protests from writers.

The Clean Reader app, launched by a couple in Idaho in the US, has announced that after significant feedback from authors, many of whom did not want their work being sold in connection with the app, it has “taken immediate action to remove all books from our catalogue”.

Clean Reader set out to enable customers to, in its own words, “read books, not profanity”. A filter could be applied to ebooks purchased from its online store, which exchanged words that were judged to be offensive with alternatives.

Read the full article: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/27/clean-reader-books-app-censorship-victory-authors-celebrate

[Link] What do literary agents really want?

by Jonny Geller, joint CEO of Curtis Brown

Times are tough in the publishing industry, but agents still need to find new authors with a story to tell

"Are you completely mad?" one of my authors asked me. "I thought your agency was deluged by manuscripts – why ask for more?"

He was wondering why Curtis Brown, one of the UK's largest literary agencies, which receives between 600 and 800 manuscripts a month, wanted to welcome yet more at Foyles in central London last month. "Discovery Day" – an open day for any unpublished writer to pitch to an agent – was designed to open up the doors of the seemingly inward-looking publishing industry.

Eight minutes of expert feedback were followed by a 15-minute surgery in the café to probe further, and then a panel discussion with a leading author, a publisher and an agent to round off the day. Three hundred and fifty writers signed up within two days.

To be honest, we didn't know what to expect.

Continue reading: http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/books/booksblog/2012/oct/01/what-do-literary-agents-want

Attorney general alleges e-book conspiracy

BOSTON — Alleging that two of the nation’s largest book publishers and Apple Inc. colluded to raise the prices of electronic books and undermine free market competition, Attorney General Martha Coakley joined 33 attorneys general today seeking to file a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming violations of state law and the federal Sherman Antitrust Act.

“Collusion among competitors to raise prices is one of the most fundamental harms prohibited by antitrust law,” Coakley said. “We allege that through their actions the defendants and their co-conspirators collected more than $100 million worth of overcharges from consumers across the country.”

For years, retailers sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers — not publishers — set sales prices. The complaint alleges, however, that Penguin and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at $12.99 and $14.99.

The complaint further alleges that when Apple prepared to enter the e-book market with the iPad and iBookstore, it agreed with publishers to adopt an agency distribution model as a mechanism to allow them to fix prices. This guaranteed Apple a 30-percent gross margin on the sale of e-books. It also provided the publishers the ability to raise e-book prices.

To enforce the scheme, the publishers and Apple relied on contract terms that allowed the publishers to set the prices of e-books. According to the states’ enforcement action, the coordinated agreement to fix prices resulted in e-book customers paying more than $100 million in overcharges nationwide.

The antitrust action seeks injunctive relief to reverse the effects of the defendants’ anti-competitive conduct as well as damages for customers who paid artificially inflated prices for e-books.

Massachusetts was joined in today’s enforcement action by Texas, Connecticut, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Sixteen of these states filed the original complaint against the same defendants on April 11.

This case is being handled by Michael Franck, Assistant Attorney General, and Helen Hood, paralegal, in Coakley’s Antitrust Division, as well as William Matlack, Chief of the Antitrust Division.

Reposted from this original link.

[Link] Obama Says So Long SOPA, Killing Controversial Internet Piracy Legislation

The growing anti-SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) support that has swept through the gaming and Internet community found a very big ally today. With websites like Reddit and Wikipedia and gaming organizations like Major League Gaming prepared for a blackout on January 18th – the same day that the House Judiciary Committee hearing on HR 3261was scheduled in Washington, DC – President Barack Obama has stepped in and said he would not support the bill. SOPA has been killed, for now.

Much to the chagrin of Hollywood, the Entertainment Software Association (which has been a backer of the bill from early on), and Internet domain company GoDaddy.com (which lost many accounts as a result of its support for the bill); SOPA has been shelved. The Motion Picture Association of America, one of the bill’s largest sponsors, is expected to regroup.

To continue reading: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/