Making Light & Todd James Pierce
Jun. 29th, 2004 01:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraI probably shouldn't be writing this, because it's always a good idea to take a breath when one's annoyed. Or several. Or in fact, a night's sleep. But then again, if I were a sensible person, I wouldn't be a writer.
I don't know how many of you have followed, or regularly read, Making Light, the excellent, varied, intelligent and oft pungent blog of Teresa Nielsen Hayden. I was pointed at it by two friends (Chris Szego, for whom I work, and another, as yet unpublished writer, Graydon Saunders, who also lives in Toronto) many months ago, and have lurked more or less frequentIy since then, but I do my best, having learned over time that this is wise, to lurk and keep my opinions in general to myself. This is less hard -- for those of you who know me -- than it might initially appear, because there are some pretty darned smart people who regular post there, and they usually say anything I might say, but with more cutting wit.
This self-imposed silence came to an end (try to look surprised, Stewart) when the Writer's Collective became the topic for discussion -- or rather, when the woman who started it showed up and laid out her reasons for starting it, and her plans for the books she handles. (I was also doing galleys at the time, which makes me a bit squirelly). Although I'm embarrassed by the number of typos that show up in those early posts, I felt that I had a few things to contribute to that particular discussion that hadn't yet been contributed; things about PR budgets, placements, the general importance of cover art, the importance of bookstores to midlist writers, etc. After these things were said, I went back to lurking, posted in one other thread about things that were not publishing related, and was, again, good.
But -this- second bought of Being Good came to an end when the second thread about Todd James Pierce reared its head. That thread is here: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005218.html. It was not, in any way, a kind thread, and to make a very long story short, it came out of bad advice for cover letters which TJP had posted on his site for writers. In particular, he advised writers to lie about their credentials in a way that wasn't so obvious they'd be caught, in order to make them stand out in some way.
This is generally not good advice, reasons for which TNH made perfectly clear. I didn't add anything at that point.
But the second thread was one that questioned his credentials and his CV. To me, this seemed harsh and justified; if you're going to encourage people to lie about their credentials, it stands to reason that you should expect that people will then examine yours more closely. Some mockery was made. I was still quiet. John Scalzi invited TJP to read & join in on the thread, but he failed to do so until over a month had passed, and the discussion had branched off into other things, as is inevitable in discussions of that, or any other nature. He did show up. He was offended, hurt, and furious, and threatening lawsuits for slander.
It was only when he showed up in person that I made my first post in any TJP related thread, and it was to question the use of his explanation of why he'd offered the advice in the first place, and the accuracy of it as well. I wasn't personal, but was pointed (no one could probably manage to look surprised at this point, so I'll let it go <g>). I wasn't all that fond of his reply to my comments -- because the only reply he made was to lump me in with a list of Tor authors, and accuse me of supporting my editors. Yay, me. News, I imagine to my -actual- editors, but I digress.
None of this particularly surprised me; if anything did, it was the extent to which he felt he'd been unfairly discussed or mocked. If you encourage people to lie about their credentials, and then defend this in a room full of people in that profession, it shows clearly that you don't expect that your own credentials would ever be under scrutiny. Which makes no sense to me. Had I given that advice, I'd at the least not be surprised if it incurred that reaction.
Okay. The part that's picking at me now: Two women joined in the discussion. One, to point out that we were all unnecessarily mean, and that we all owed TJP an apology. Pardon me? She said she took care not to notice who said what because she didn't want to be prejudiced should she ever be reviewing our submissions as an editor. I'd rather she'd taken that care. I -hate- to be lumped in with a group, and I actually don't like the condescension implied. I called it Class Detention -- and I didn't stay for those if I hadn't done anything wrong. To be fair to her, she also had similar harsh words for TJP, and a very good example of why his advice incurred the initial reaction it did. She had a point, I think, but made it broadly and a bit too sweepingly. And I responded initially to the first half (about the least I owed this stranger) rather than the latter; I responded to the latter half later, when I had cool-off time.
The next person did a drive-by post, one in which she said the same thing: that we were mean, personal, and etc., and that she wasn't going to stick around to defend that judgement; she just wanted to be on record as supporting the first brave woman.
Now hear the sounds of Michelle buttons being pushed (although it took me some time to figure out what the buttons were.
I don't actually like bullies. Never have. Don't generally put up with them. The idea that this poor TJP person is the misunderstood victim of our collective cruelty clearly paints me, as one of the participants, as a bully. Except, damn it, I've reread every word I've written in that topic, and I don't see that it applies to me. Or to many of the other posters.
But it's bugging me, now. As I said, the topic was unkind in inception, but I think that the unkindness was not random; it was a natural result of encouraging others to lie about their credentials. However... I'm perhaps not the most tactful of people, and I'm now wondering if I handled things poorly.
And am perfectly willing to be told that I did, if someone can be clear on why. I won't bite, because I'm asking and I want to know.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
andpuff is off the hook here; I think that it would take an hour for the discussion to actually load on her connection <g>.
I don't know how many of you have followed, or regularly read, Making Light, the excellent, varied, intelligent and oft pungent blog of Teresa Nielsen Hayden. I was pointed at it by two friends (Chris Szego, for whom I work, and another, as yet unpublished writer, Graydon Saunders, who also lives in Toronto) many months ago, and have lurked more or less frequentIy since then, but I do my best, having learned over time that this is wise, to lurk and keep my opinions in general to myself. This is less hard -- for those of you who know me -- than it might initially appear, because there are some pretty darned smart people who regular post there, and they usually say anything I might say, but with more cutting wit.
This self-imposed silence came to an end (try to look surprised, Stewart) when the Writer's Collective became the topic for discussion -- or rather, when the woman who started it showed up and laid out her reasons for starting it, and her plans for the books she handles. (I was also doing galleys at the time, which makes me a bit squirelly). Although I'm embarrassed by the number of typos that show up in those early posts, I felt that I had a few things to contribute to that particular discussion that hadn't yet been contributed; things about PR budgets, placements, the general importance of cover art, the importance of bookstores to midlist writers, etc. After these things were said, I went back to lurking, posted in one other thread about things that were not publishing related, and was, again, good.
But -this- second bought of Being Good came to an end when the second thread about Todd James Pierce reared its head. That thread is here: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005218.html. It was not, in any way, a kind thread, and to make a very long story short, it came out of bad advice for cover letters which TJP had posted on his site for writers. In particular, he advised writers to lie about their credentials in a way that wasn't so obvious they'd be caught, in order to make them stand out in some way.
This is generally not good advice, reasons for which TNH made perfectly clear. I didn't add anything at that point.
But the second thread was one that questioned his credentials and his CV. To me, this seemed harsh and justified; if you're going to encourage people to lie about their credentials, it stands to reason that you should expect that people will then examine yours more closely. Some mockery was made. I was still quiet. John Scalzi invited TJP to read & join in on the thread, but he failed to do so until over a month had passed, and the discussion had branched off into other things, as is inevitable in discussions of that, or any other nature. He did show up. He was offended, hurt, and furious, and threatening lawsuits for slander.
It was only when he showed up in person that I made my first post in any TJP related thread, and it was to question the use of his explanation of why he'd offered the advice in the first place, and the accuracy of it as well. I wasn't personal, but was pointed (no one could probably manage to look surprised at this point, so I'll let it go <g>). I wasn't all that fond of his reply to my comments -- because the only reply he made was to lump me in with a list of Tor authors, and accuse me of supporting my editors. Yay, me. News, I imagine to my -actual- editors, but I digress.
None of this particularly surprised me; if anything did, it was the extent to which he felt he'd been unfairly discussed or mocked. If you encourage people to lie about their credentials, and then defend this in a room full of people in that profession, it shows clearly that you don't expect that your own credentials would ever be under scrutiny. Which makes no sense to me. Had I given that advice, I'd at the least not be surprised if it incurred that reaction.
Okay. The part that's picking at me now: Two women joined in the discussion. One, to point out that we were all unnecessarily mean, and that we all owed TJP an apology. Pardon me? She said she took care not to notice who said what because she didn't want to be prejudiced should she ever be reviewing our submissions as an editor. I'd rather she'd taken that care. I -hate- to be lumped in with a group, and I actually don't like the condescension implied. I called it Class Detention -- and I didn't stay for those if I hadn't done anything wrong. To be fair to her, she also had similar harsh words for TJP, and a very good example of why his advice incurred the initial reaction it did. She had a point, I think, but made it broadly and a bit too sweepingly. And I responded initially to the first half (about the least I owed this stranger) rather than the latter; I responded to the latter half later, when I had cool-off time.
The next person did a drive-by post, one in which she said the same thing: that we were mean, personal, and etc., and that she wasn't going to stick around to defend that judgement; she just wanted to be on record as supporting the first brave woman.
Now hear the sounds of Michelle buttons being pushed (although it took me some time to figure out what the buttons were.
I don't actually like bullies. Never have. Don't generally put up with them. The idea that this poor TJP person is the misunderstood victim of our collective cruelty clearly paints me, as one of the participants, as a bully. Except, damn it, I've reread every word I've written in that topic, and I don't see that it applies to me. Or to many of the other posters.
But it's bugging me, now. As I said, the topic was unkind in inception, but I think that the unkindness was not random; it was a natural result of encouraging others to lie about their credentials. However... I'm perhaps not the most tactful of people, and I'm now wondering if I handled things poorly.
And am perfectly willing to be told that I did, if someone can be clear on why. I won't bite, because I'm asking and I want to know.
andpuff is off the hook here; I think that it would take an hour for the discussion to actually load on her connection <g>.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 02:52 am (UTC)Tried. Failed. Sorry.
And to answer your question, I've just read up to the point where Pierce first posts and "bryan" was a little over the top.. Pierce, on the other hand, sounds a smidge defensive in his reply... Like anyone cares about how the website he maintains, without pay, is for the "general good of the writing community".. pfft.
I was about to say that you called him on it when he tried to justify his advice except he never actually tried to justify it, he just talked around it by claiming that his website "helped" hundreds of namless theoretical authors..
This reminds me very much of one Bernard Shifman.
Denial and stupidity. An awesome combination ;D
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 05:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 06:17 am (UTC)But I do remember the guy's assertions, and it seemed to me that everyone who questioned him was correct to do so. If you tell people to lie, then you must expect to be regarded as a possible liar. That seems simple to me.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 08:48 am (UTC)I probably should have kept lurking. But page proofs make me crazy. They really do.
not even sarcastic
Date: 2004-06-29 06:32 am (UTC)You yourself weren't even sarcastic; I might have thought you were quite restrained in your locutions.
The "you were mean!" posts are coming from a place which insists that niceness is so due the deference of virtue, its ornaments and its antecedents, and indeed an escort of cherubim with trumpets, and which will not permit anyone to be tasked for their conduct, lest they become upset.
So I would say you didn't handle anything poorly; you're just dealing with people who go blank and horrified if anyone is upset for any reason. (It's the same tribe as thinks that you can win an argument by being more emotionally invested and starting to cry, at which point the other party has to do what you want.)
-- Graydon (not that it will take Michelle more than one of those sentences to figure that out. :)
Re: not even sarcastic
Date: 2004-06-29 08:09 am (UTC)Re: not even sarcastic
Date: 2004-06-29 09:47 am (UTC)Graydon has also articulated a concept which illuded my abilities at description at 6am.. ;D
'Mary Ann' is even the perfect name for someone who prefers blanket niceness in the face of prideful stupidity *g*
Re: not even sarcastic
Date: 2004-06-29 05:26 pm (UTC)I can understand where she is, in general, coming from. In this case, I think I'm much more acerbic, and I don't think that things were as terrible as all that. I don't know. Old cynic. I've seen mean, and I think people were, with the possible exception of 2 and a half, restrained. In their context.
But... on GEnie, there were some topics that were parlours, some that were little old lady knitting rooms, some that were salons, and some that were tavern brawls. You didn't like tavern brawls, you didn't go in. This strikes me as walking into a pub and exhorting people to stop that sinful drinking -- but again, regardless, it did take courage.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 06:39 am (UTC)I don't think I've said anything on that thread, or I'd have been lumped in with the Tor minions in that awful post, but the main reason I didn't say anything is because what you said seemed to say what I would have said but more politely and calmly.
He was telling people to lie about their credentials and then being offended that his own credentials were being rigorously examined... pah.
What Mary Anne said left a bad taste in my mouth and reminded me of some things I won't go into here.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 08:40 am (UTC)I will 'fess up, for those of you who only really see me at conventions when I'm trying really hard to mime social: I can be a bit overbearing. It's the napolean complex. I don't do it on purpose. Simone, the teenager with whom I work just calls it my 'scary face'. It is, unfortunately, the face that occurs when I think someone has just fallen below the lower boundary of human stupidity, and is still somehow ambulatory.
Some people therefore find me intimidating.
Some people don't like to argue. I spent four years doing nothing but slightly free-form debating with the man I eventually married, and they were heated on both parts, but always on topic, and we were always forced to acknowledge logic, even when used successfully against us. I understand that many people aren't like this, and I don't insist on it.
But... it does mean that my form of stating facts clearly probably can be seen as bullying or brow-beating. In real life, I'm short enough that that's not always the way it's taken, and I try very hard not to do this among most of the women of my acquaintance who are not also writers.
And you know? I don't want to be the bully :/. It's a worthy thing to struggle against being. Curmudgeon, otoh, is right up there with worthy goals. I just have to make
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 10:06 am (UTC)I haven't seen one of these in a while. Avoiding timesinks and moderating flame-free lists can sometimes result in a life of deprivation.
Ultimately you're in Energy Creature territory, complete with little mewing minions. Did I enjoy the pileon (new word for me, too)? Sure. The guy earned it. He should never have talked through the nether end in the first place--and god help us he's TEACHING this nonsense.
Michelle, you argue like me and that's your downfall. You get provoked by idiots and then you stick to the facts. That drives them straight screaming around the bend. Also you hate to be Lumped In. Best thing to do, said this weary warrior of the same persuasion, is figure there's no educating the uneducable, and save your energy for them as are worth talking to.
Right. I'll be this reasonable right up until the next idiot comes along and pushes my buttons and then Lumps Me In. Then I'll be gnawing my leg off, too. I'm sorry these overbaked blueberry pies came along and messed up your head.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 10:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 06:19 pm (UTC)But I honestly did just walk out of class when school had ended, if we'd been handed a class detention and I hadn't done anything. I explained, in my serious and slightly annoyed way, that the teacher could call the principal or better, my mother, to explain that I wasn't staying for detention because I hadn't done anything wrong, and see what lasting effect that had.
I realize now that this was probably bad for his general authority. Ummm, and it wasn't very civic minded of me. But the idea behind class detentions -- that everyone then gets mad at the people who did cause the trouble -- has never in my opinion worked.
Of course, that would be my opinion <rueful g>.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 10:14 pm (UTC)My big peeve with the Mary Annes and Whatzizfaces of the world is that they have no reasoning faculties as such--it's all emotional. They are incapable of separating fact from feeling, and they take everything personally. I hate that. There is no way the factual debater can get through to these people--everything has to be about them. They hate arguing with me, and since it's all personal, they end up hating me--because I won't crawl down to their level and start ranting at them for being ugly and their mothers dress them funny.
After I blathered about letting it go, I picked up messages from a horse list, and lo and behold--hot-button time. It was sort of similar, in that it was all about not very bright people getting personally involved in impersonal matters. It was also about another peeve of mine: newbies and wannabes who come to lists demanding advice for specific problems. List experts relay advice, very carefully and considerately. Newbies get all snarky and snotty and "I don't want your stupid advice!" because it's not what they want to hear. Because of course it always adds up to, "If you want to be successful in any field of study, from equitation to writing, you have to be willing to work hard and subsume your ego--and not incidentally, you also may have to make fundamental changes in how you approach whatever it is." After several rounds of this, with experts being extremely patient and newbies getting progressively snarkier and starting to say they never said what they said in the first place, some Mary Ann type invariably comes in and scolds the experts for "jumping on" the newbie. Usually with some slighting reference to the experts' right or qualification to give advice. Today's Mary Ann stopped just short of calling me a liar because I'd said something I know from experience and observation to be true but she has had no experience of it (therefore naturally it does not exist).
I swear it's a script. They hand it out when newbies get their first ISP's, along with the Neiman Marcus cookie recipe and a slew of "VIRUS WARNING!!!! SEND TO EVERYONE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE!!!!!!!" spam.
So much for good intentions on my part. Is it something in the air? I got a message from yet another listowner at about the same time, asking for help with a brangle on her list that was playing out in pretty much the same way. I swear these things come in waves, like epidemics.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 10:19 am (UTC)I will admit that I didn't always agree with everything a published professional/editor/agent said on the boards. But if I was going to disagree, it was on the basis of those facts that I felt were either too narrowly represented, or not represented at all (mostly bookselling stuff, discounts to rack jobbers, etc.). I didn't attempt to call them martinets for wielding a greater public authority than I did.
Terry Pratchett said, in an interview, something along the lines of "When opportunity knocks, it usually shows up at the door in dirty overalls and looks a lot like work." I'm mangling that. I'm sorry. I just have so much Pratchett, I'm not entirely certain where it all is; it's dispersed over the whole house, like a protective shield of humour. Which is my way of saying, too lazy to turn the entire house upside down to find it.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 11:32 am (UTC)A definite classic of the "if you hit her over the head with a clue would she ever get it?" genre.
I notice that the people using this kind of argument, or the kind that got you going yesterday, are always low on the professional totem pole, if they're on it at all. "I'm not looking to see who you are because I might reject your story" maketh me to quake in my bootth, yeth it doth--considering the source and all. Ditto the alleged creative-writing professor with the ahem flexible ethics--even the lawsuit threats. That kind of thing always withers before a real lawyer--and pales before real, high-end professionals.
The real thing doesn't need to tell you your mother dresses you funny, or threaten to sue because you told them truthfully that their fly is down.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 08:12 am (UTC)---L.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 08:33 am (UTC)So I consider the comments that occurred -after- he showed up to be more germaine, and therefore less desultory; more heated, but less snide. In general. I'll have to step back and view it again, though. I had expected something like a defense when he first started posting. Or something like a debate. Which, of course, didn't occur.
I don't mind a fairly heated debate, though.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 08:39 am (UTC)Otherwise, everyone seemed reasonable, except TJP himself.
Personally, I'm kind of amused for being accused of Tor toady myself. (He had to look hard to find his toadies, through quite a few posts, if he wound up with me. :->)
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 08:42 am (UTC)Ummm, and I mentiond your name in my post because you'd sold Mike -one- story, for pete's sake.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 09:06 am (UTC)I appreciated it, because it took me a while to realize I needed to show up back in that thread at all.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 06:04 pm (UTC)I think being a toady is possibly a privilege in this case, and am leaning toward the "write-ring conspiracy" t-shirts, myself. But perhaps that would be ... unkind.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 08:15 am (UTC)I was a Write Ring T-shirt, too. :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 08:56 am (UTC)*splutter* *wipes tea off keyboard*
I file all these sorts of threads (the one being discussed, not this one) under "do not feed the energy monster." I spent two years in HWA trying to be the voice of Reason and Experience*, and all it got me was an ulcer and a renewal on my Cynial Observer membership card.
* HWA is, um, notorious for the members who Have No Clue about professional standards or behavior, to say nothing of making logical and sustainable arguments.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 09:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 10:57 am (UTC)---L.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-29 06:14 pm (UTC)I learned on GEnie, for instance, to avoid certain topics (anything political that contained, say, Daffyd, whose name I may be spelling wrong). I never entered duelling modems. I avoided pretty much anything where conflict was almost the point of the discussion.
So, yay, brain cells have fizzled, memory has faded, and I'm wearing hip-waders and looking like... well.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 08:33 am (UTC)I admit, I had fun sysoping the dueling modems topic. Handing out scores (on the Olympic 10-point scale) for quality of flameage is not only wonderfully cathertic but effective at creating civility, both in the flamewar and the community at large.
---L.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 09:55 am (UTC)I admit that I didn't venture into duelling modems much, though -- who came up with the point system?
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 12:07 pm (UTC)I kinda had fun managing the anything goes area, recurrant gun-control debates and all. It helped that I'm pretty good at being disengaged, and didn't have to join in. It also helped that I had free rein to decorate liberally with wimsey. "Non-sequiturs do not rub the egg-roll." Not to mention the sensitive thinking man's babe and words of one beat.
---L.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 05:52 am (UTC)