Romance Writers of America implodes over handling of criticism of racism

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

You talking about the Vox Day fiasco?

He might've been involved but this was well before the puppy wars.
It was an extended catfight over the essays in an SFWA publication. IIRC he was one of the contributors objected to but not the only one. Ran for months.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My understanding is critic went after the author (Tisdale) based on her twenty year old novel and the fact that the author (Tisdale) was now also the employer (Tisdale employed Sue Whathername).

Grimshaw is the apparent cause of the ruckus, being hired as acquisitions's editor at Tisdale's current company.

There was no issue until after Grimshaw surfaced there and got on twitter. Then they went after her, Tisdale, and the book. In that order, apparently.

Did you check this above?

http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/2...nce-buyer.html

Hi everybody, it's me, Suzan Tisdale and I decided to do a live video so that you could see my face, hear my tone of voice. Sometimes when we write things, you can write one sentence that can be taken twenty different ways by twenty different people and I want to try to avoid that. So this is regarding Sue Grimshaw and the little fiasco, I guess is what we could call it, that's going on regarding Sue. This all started because Sue liked a tweet by Diamond and Silk.

I'd quote more but it gets very political very fast.
Which is why it all smells of non-literary. A bad historical characterizarion doesn't by itself start a mess now watched on both sides of the Atlantic.

This is not about an author complaining about a review.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Grimshaw is the apparent cause of the ruckus, being hired as acquisitions's editor at Tisdale's company.

There was no issue until after she surfaced there and got on twitter. Then they went after her, Tisdale, and the book.

Did you check this above?

Honestly no. Because I realized I don't much care. I have no interest in romance and no interest in having an opinion on RWA, Tisdale, Grimshaw or Milan. That is a foreign country that can stay foreign.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

He might've been involved but this was well before the puppy wars.
It was an extended catfight over the essays in an SFWA publication. IIRC he was one of the contributors objected to but not the only one. Ran for months.

There's a good discussion to be had over Vox Day and the puppies. But I don't want to derail this thread any further.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

There's a good discussion to be had over Vox Day and the puppies. But I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Me neither.
That's why I avoided mentioning them by name.
The RWA mess is heading into that territory, though.

As for the linked post, it's mostly background.
It doesn't really take sides and neither do I.

I do, however, notice that these catfights are getting more common, fiercer, and focused primarily around legacy midlisters, the people hurt the most by the "non-existent" ebook revolution that is diluting book sales numbers. In an industry under stress, everybody is on edge and publishing seems to be no exception.

[haertig]

If these romance author fights ultimately contribute to fewer romance books polluting the "free ebook" search engines I use (ereaderiq and freebooksy), then I'll be happy! Those romance books really clog up the results - especially at freebooksy.

[Lemurion]

The way I look at it, there are two issues at play here: First there's Courtney Milan's comments, and then there's the RWA reaction.

For me, the latter is the real issue. First, the RWA President-Elect chooses to bypass the entire Ethics committee rather than simply asking Courtney Milan to recuse herself. Second, he sets up a secret committee that reports only to him and it's that committee that decides to expel Milan and ban her from holding office in future.

If those optics don't look shady to you... I really don't know what to say.

Damon Suede (the President-Elect) could have handled this a lot better simply by keeping the process out in the open rather than going straight to the Star Chamber approach.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Grimshaw is the apparent cause of the ruckus, being hired as acquisitions's editor at Tisdale's current company.

There was no issue until after Grimshaw surfaced there and got on twitter. Then they went after her, Tisdale, and the book. In that order, apparently.

Did you check this above?

http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/2...nce-buyer.html



I'd quote more but it gets very political very fast.
Which is why it all smells of non-literary. A bad historical characterizarion doesn't by itself start a mess now watched on both sides of the Atlantic.

This is not about an author complaining about a review.

I did read it, and it's patently obvious that the bottom line is that it's not PC to be a conservative, or to "like" a tweet or video from anyone who's paid by Fox (in this case, two black women "Diamond and Silk."). That's the bottom line. I can find NO example, at all, of the woman being remotely "racist," other than being a Trump supporter and conservative. (Mods: yes, I know, this is about RWA, but evidence is evidence and lack of it is lack of it. I'm doing nothing but discussing the evidence in the case.)

Did anyone here--anyone at all--see anything other than that? (Happy to read anything with actual evidence of the alleged act, if it exists?) Because I don't. I see an accusation (I read the entire RWA submissions and everything that the RWA ethics committee reviewed as evidence, which consisted of screenshots of the "racist" liking the D&S tweets, a tweet from Trump and then, wait for it, accusations from other people that she WAS a racist, citing the "evidence" that yes, she liked those tweets), and then I see the RWA with their damned hair on fire taking wholly inappropriate action (and then reversing themselves) when they shouldn't have done a damned thing in the first place.

The egregiousness of what's happened here is horrific. This really is right out of 1984. Frankly, this level of ineptitude and the fact that an entity comprised of WRITERS would ignore the First Amendment like this is nauseating--they deserve to crash and burn for it.

What next? If someone applies to be an RWA member, will their social media be analyzed, first? Will they have to take a loyalty pledge or "purity test" so that only non-Conservatives need apply? Writers. WRITERS are doing this. OMG, just think about it.

/rant

Hitch

[issybird]

Please tone down the rhetoric; keep to the facts and maintain a neutral tone when discussing the issues. Thanks.

[fjtorres]

To be honest, the RWA was in an untenable position.
They couldn't deal with the complaint openly without starting a political fight and they couldn't ignore the complaints. They tried to deal with it privately and it still exploded on them.
It is simply public life in 2020. Absolutists and kneejerk reactions all over.
No measured thinking, no live and let live.

And it is not going to get any better.
This is an object lesson most of all, to get off the big "social media" platforms.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

To be honest, the RWA was in an untenable position.
They couldn't deal with the complaint openly without starting a political fight and they couldn't ignore the complaints. They tried to deal with it privately and it still exploded on them.
It is simply public life in 2020. Absolutists and kneejerk reactions all over.
No measured thinking, no live and let live.

And it is not going to get any better.
This is an object lesson most of all, to get off the big "social media" platforms.

Well, watching social media implode wouldn't hurt my feelings, either. It's done nothing but provide ridiculous weight to the opinions of the ill-informed and tweenagers. How could it possibly have gone in any other direction?

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down.
-- Frederick Douglass

Hitch

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, watching social media implode wouldn't hurt my feelings, either. It's done nothing but provide ridiculous weight to the opinions of the ill-informed and tweenagers. How could it possibly have gone in any other direction?

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down.
-- Frederick Douglass

Hitch

Social media is very entertaining, if used responsibly. I don't use social media often, but when I do I expect to be entertained. The trick is not to live in it. Apparently some take social media serious, and not as a form of entertainment.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Social media is very entertaining, if used responsibly. I don't use social media often, but when I do I expect to be entertained. The trick is not to live in it. Apparently some take social media serious, and not as a form of entertainment.

It's pretty hard to expressed nuanced thoughts in 240 characters. I use facebook to keep in touch with family and friends, but other than that I tend to ignore social media. If I need to get my heart rate up, then I go exercise.

[John F]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I don't think Yoko Ono would have any say in it, I mean, I don't think original artists have veto power over cover versions of songs. She certainly could loudly complain, but...

Assuming Yoko held the rights to John Lennon's estate, assuming John Lennon had copyright on the lyrics and the recording, wouldn't Yoko have some control?

I really don't know, but am interested in how it works.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Hitch

The egregiousness of what's happened here is horrific. This really is right out of 1984. Frankly, this level of ineptitude and the fact that an entity comprised of WRITERS would ignore the First Amendment like this is nauseating--they deserve to crash and burn for it.

What next? If someone applies to be an RWA member, will their social media be analyzed, first? Will they have to take a loyalty pledge or "purity test" so that only non-Conservatives need apply? Writers. WRITERS are doing this. OMG, just think about it.

/rant

Now I'm baffled. I completely agree with your first paragraph above, but how do you get from that to the second paragraph? I mean, did you somehow fail to notice who used their freedom of speech to say what they meant, and who tried to force people with undesirable opinions out of RWA?

I'll recap:

1. Donald Trump, Diamond and Silk, and others use their freedom of speech to write about (among other topics) concentration camps, ICE raids, and white supremacy.
2. Grimshaw uses her freedom of speech to like some of those tweets.
3. Davis uses her freedom of speech to write a book.
4. Milan uses her freedom of speech to criticise Grimshaw's and Davis' speech, and to criticise Tisdale for employing them in positions where they serve as gatekeepers for what kind of romance gets purchased by Tisdale's publishing house.
5. Tisdale and Davis lodges formal complaints with RWA against Milan's speech.
6. RWA, directed by president-elect Damon Suede suspends Milan from RWA for a year, and bans her for lifetime from holding office in RWA.

How on earth to you get from that to being worried that conservatives are the ones at risk from being banned from RWA?