Continuing the discussion from A thread of our own- misogyny, split by request:
Iād so much rather focus on the women trying to make a difference, than the perpetual parade of asshole men.
Muzzled? Ugh, fug off with that shite, Mr. King. Woody can just get another publisher.
He can self publish or set it up as a book in demand.
Someone please muzzle Stephen King. He hasnāt been relevant in decades, and was a hack even then.
I suspect āJoe Hillā is actually him, but canāt prove it.
He has a son named Joe Hill, but I suspect this son is getting daddy to write his books for him.
The books are different enough that I have no doubt that Joe is the actual author.
Also, I wish there were a few more āhacksā with Kingās skills and productivityā¦
Before this thread goes off-topic about King and whether or not heās a good writer outside of his numerous White Dude With Privilege flaws, can one of the leaders split it off, please and thanks?
The books are different enough that I have no doubt that Joe is the actual author.
Oh, you mean like how Kingās books are set in Maine and Hillās are set in New Hampshire?
They write in the same genre (supernatural horror, with a touch of psychological horror but not suspense), the same highly visual style, and use the same tropes. Hillās a little more up to date, but they write about the same subject matter. Their writing styles are close enough, within tolerance. Iāve read enough of each of their books to make a comparison. Hillās books contain a laundry list of Stephen King tropes, but not too much that King would have done differently. Compare this to Richard Matheson. King writes like Matheson, and was obviously heavily influenced by him, but thereās enough differences where I can tell the two apart.
Also, I wish there were a few more āhacksā with Kingās skills and productivityā¦
Then you must love arena rock. After all, if arena rock sucks, then how do they fill arenas?
whether or not heās a good writer outside of his numerous White Dude With Privilege flaws
Although that could be said for almost any writer. The books that make the bestseller lists are overwhelmingly white. Not trailer park white, but āgrew up in a bucolic New England town, dropped out of NYU, partied a lot, used family connections to get back on my feetā white. This isnāt a universal experience by any stretch of the imagination, but itās what gets published. And if I have to read another white dude authorās guesstimate of what a woman or a person of color is like, I will throw the book across the room.
can one of the leaders split it off, please and thanks?
Yes, please do.
These are all valid points, and I agree, even as a POC who actually likes Kingās workā¦ but itās still off-topic.
Getting back on it:
āCancel cultureā isnāt really a thing; as all too often, any negative consequences for shitty behavior are usually pretty short lived for most rich White dudes with power.
Inasmuch as there is anything that might be called ācancel cultureā, I think it flourishes online, in mostly progressive spaces on social media and among fandoms, where young people lash out at one another for not agreeing hard enough, or go on harassment sprees because someone supports a āproblematicā ship, or wrote something with stuff in it the other person thinks is absolutely unacceptable. Itās mostly silly, occasionally breath-takingly vicious, and it has nothing to do with the white privileged men complaining loudly about it.
āCancel cultureā isnāt really a thing; as all too often, any negative consequences for shitty behavior are usually pretty short lived for most rich White dudes with power.
Thing is, though, itās usually not rich white dudes with power that get ācancelledā. Very often itās the liberal/progressive/woke/insert-your-synonym-here or even minority/oppresed communities doing it to their own prominent (or less prominent) members, where it can be potentially devastating and leading to fragmentation, loss of faith and trust, to say nothing of the loss of online social safety net for the victim who may or may not have done something wrong but is not even given a chance of reflecting and growing. And to make it worse, for a lot of people (not all - but a lot) itās really not even about being honestly outraged or hurt, itās just tribalism and confirming identities, and a justification to get the high of dogpiling and bullying someone. (Having seen a number of these cancel campaigns, a disturbing amount of people seem to really relish in them. I suppose because as a āgood personā youāre not supposed to be mean to others, so many jump on any chance that justifies doing it.)
This is nothing new, mind you, itās been going on for decades, but itās reached really troubling heights (or lows, as it may be) in recent years, what with the growing polarization of online speech and the growth in peopleās tendency for bad faith interpretations and jumping to extreme conclusions.
A lot of people have talked about this, but I think the most comprehensive is Contrapointsā excellent video:
Yes, itās long, but itās absolutely worth a (full) watch, even if you have heard of this particular kerfluffle and already have an opinion on it.
I think it flourishes online
Youāre obviously allowed to hold your own opinion.
Aside from Weinstein, Louis CK, & Cosby (who is rich and powerful, but not White, obviously) most of the men of wealth, privilege and power who are also sexual predators rarely seem to suffer any long term negative consequences for their actions, once the dust has settled and thereās another scandal capturing peopleās attention.
growing polarization of online speech and the growth in peopleās tendency for bad faith interpretations and jumping to extreme conclusions.
Iāve already seen the Contrapoints video, and frankly Iām tired of people posting it in support of their belief in ācancel cultureā because they think it adds substance to their argument.
Contrapoints has made some good vids with valid points in the past. Regardless, sheās still human and therefore fallible; and her personal opinion on ācancel cultureā is likely rooted in her own bias and self interest, as sheās come under fire recently from other members of the Trans community.
Targeting marginalized and disenfranchised groups and individuals in order to silence them IS a problematic issue, but I wouldnāt call it ācancelling,ā because that minimizes the problem.
Iād call it what it is: fascism.
Ronan Farrow said that it would not be ethical for Hachette to publish Allenās memoir.
There is certainly a moral argument to be made against Allenās work.
The legal argument requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt-- which may well come; it hasnāt yet.
But ethics? In the book publishing world, what ethical principles are breached by this contract?
and was a hack even then.
by the most relevant definition, no less. King has some great books, and films and TV shows adapted from them.
But he is such a prolific writer that itās more like him tinkering with different combinations of the same shit until he gets a winning combination. Crappy Stephen King adaptations have a very specific kind of āSaturday Movie Nightā flavor of crappy.
What ethical issues are breached by not purchasing the work and allowing Allen to shop it elsewhere or self publish?
Is this a silenced group of people he represents? Is it an important viewpoint on issues that are stifled in the marketplace of ideas? Is he poor and powerless? Will he have to worry about a place to live or eating?
What ethical issues are breached by not purchasing the work and allowing Allen to shop it elsewhere or self publish?
Depends on the terms of the contract. Hachette may have breached itāi.e Allen gets the advance, but itās not an advance, itās an outright payment.
Thatās not an ethical issue - itās a financial one.
Are those two mutually exclusive ?