5 ms·

Of course this is laundered through Yale, the center of the cyclone of struggle-session insanity. Framing this around shame is of course misplaced, it is about

Of course this is laundered through Yale, the center of the cyclone of struggle-session insanity. Framing this around shame is of course misplaced, it is about threat: threat to one's comfortable use of the internet, one's social network, one's livelihood, and you'd love to believe these maniacs would stop there, wouldn't you. Did they ever before? Shame is used as a weapon and a warning. It isn't that those lucky souls this doesn't work on are shameless: rather, they are protected from mob violence against their character wreaking havoc on their livelihood. Young Adult authors have no such protection.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Authors exist in an ecosystem where they make money based on the popularity of their work. It's an ecosystem more sensitive to public perception of the author than others. But that means an author simply has to be more protective of their private lives than other professions. There's a reason so many in history have written under pseudonyms; the effect of losing your audience if the public discovers you don't fit the mould is not new.
- spoonjim 4y ago
  But there's a disproportionate power wielded by the "cancellers" that isn't really dependent on the public's willingness to buy the books. Note that the cancellers never go on a big publicity campaign to get people to stop buying a certain book - they target the gatekeepers in the system, like the publishers, who are staffed by Oberlin and Wesleyan alumnae who don't want to be ostracized as "bigots" at their college reunion. With the founder gone, Amazon is also a suitable target because the management of Amazon got their jobs through currying favor with their seniors rather than the approval of customers like Bezos did.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Yes, that has not changed. It isn't like authors sold their books door-to-door in the past. If anything, self-publishing is easier now than in the past. ... But authors who have tried that have also found the public isn't receptive.
    - spoonjim 4y ago
      Yes, the cancellers know that self-publishing is not the solution, and the authors know that going that route is the road to perdition and permanent unpersoning. The authors know that they have to write a long mea culpa and promise to "do better" and "be an ally" and funnel a good chunk of money into the canceller ecosystem with sensitivity readers and empowering diverse voices.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        Interestingly enough, I can't think of J.K. Rowling doing any of that, and her net worth is like a billion. Nor Orson Scott Card (net worth $10 million). In fact I'm kinda racking my brain thinking of any examples of someone doing this recently... I'm starting to think the problem isn't the author's personal positions, it's that they're writing books few people want to read in the first place and the public finding out they're also not the sort of folks the public wants to support financially does their sales no favors on top of that.
        spoonjim 4y ago
        Of course JK Rowling doesn't have to apologize, her net worth is like a billion. Cancellation is most public when targeting extremely famous people but it's the less famous people who actually get harmed: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/books/amelie-wen-zhao-blood-heir.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/books/amelie-wen-zhao-blo...
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        Looks like she tripped over the American assumption that the flavor of slavery experienced in their territory was the only type. ... But, she was planning to sell to an American audience so that matters. If anything, it sounds like the feedback gave her a chance to tighten her fiction to be aligned better to the target market. That's a win for her and her publisher.
        4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

Authors exist in an ecosystem where they make money based on the popularity of their work. It's an ecosystem more sensitive to public perception of the author than others. But that means an author simply has to be more protective of their private lives than other professions. There's a reason so many in history have written under pseudonyms; the effect of losing your audience if the public discovers you don't fit the mould is not new.

spoonjim 4y ago
But there's a disproportionate power wielded by the "cancellers" that isn't really dependent on the public's willingness to buy the books. Note that the cancellers never go on a big publicity campaign to get people to stop buying a certain book - they target the gatekeepers in the system, like the publishers, who are staffed by Oberlin and Wesleyan alumnae who don't want to be ostracized as "bigots" at their college reunion. With the founder gone, Amazon is also a suitable target because the management of Amazon got their jobs through currying favor with their seniors rather than the approval of customers like Bezos did.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Yes, that has not changed. It isn't like authors sold their books door-to-door in the past. If anything, self-publishing is easier now than in the past. ... But authors who have tried that have also found the public isn't receptive.
  - spoonjim 4y ago
    Yes, the cancellers know that self-publishing is not the solution, and the authors know that going that route is the road to perdition and permanent unpersoning. The authors know that they have to write a long mea culpa and promise to "do better" and "be an ally" and funnel a good chunk of money into the canceller ecosystem with sensitivity readers and empowering diverse voices.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Interestingly enough, I can't think of J.K. Rowling doing any of that, and her net worth is like a billion. Nor Orson Scott Card (net worth $10 million). In fact I'm kinda racking my brain thinking of any examples of someone doing this recently... I'm starting to think the problem isn't the author's personal positions, it's that they're writing books few people want to read in the first place and the public finding out they're also not the sort of folks the public wants to support financially does their sales no favors on top of that.
      - spoonjim 4y ago
        Of course JK Rowling doesn't have to apologize, her net worth is like a billion. Cancellation is most public when targeting extremely famous people but it's the less famous people who actually get harmed: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/books/amelie-wen-zhao-blood-heir.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/books/amelie-wen-zhao-blo...
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        Looks like she tripped over the American assumption that the flavor of slavery experienced in their territory was the only type. ... But, she was planning to sell to an American audience so that matters. If anything, it sounds like the feedback gave her a chance to tighten her fiction to be aligned better to the target market. That's a win for her and her publisher.
        4y ago