To speculate further, I think that Dwale, Schnee, I, and FurPlanet should have been given the opportunity to discuss Dwale’s concerns among ourselves before this was made public.
Both “it” and “they” are acceptable according to my preferences, thank you.
As far as discussion, I had said everything about the story that I had to say in the article itself. When people expressed private doubts regarding my analysis, I told them to read the story for themselves and decide for themselves. I also said that I would support FurPlanet in whatever course they chose. And so I did and still do. However, I would like to state for the record that there was no discussion that I ever saw or participated in regarding what FP decided to do with the story. That decision was made internally so far as I am aware. But I do support it, and would again if it were any other group being so framed.
EDIT: For clarity, yes, FurPlanet did share their public statement with me before releasing it. But I was not in on the decision itself. I did not (nor would I ever) consider it my place to tell a publisher what to do with their own product.
Not true. Actually I’m told there was considerable hatred being thrown around on Twitter that led the publisher to act. Hostility directed at both me and the publisher. (Perhaps you’d like to check it out; I haven’t the heart for reading it beyond a snippet or two that’s been forwarded to me.) The publisher warned me that the angry “blowback” was hurting them, and felt they had to act immediately, within 48 hours of the review, as though the book was about to physically explode. Contacting the reviewer was considered important, but getting my response before acting was less important. Praising the reviewer was considered important, but defending the author against charges of bigotry was not. So no, this was not the publisher miraculously being shown the error of their ways; it was a group of people wanting something erased because it offended them. Fear and political pressure dictated this editorial decision. Unfortunately FurPlanet and I were not able to come to any compromise, so while I’d eagerly work with Patten again I will not be doing further business with FP and they will be removing my other stories from their other books.
Let’s recap: a skilled editor thought the story was OK, and for months and months nobody noticed there any problem. Then, one day, a reader and fellow FWG member (not having contacted me) publicly declared me guilty of bigotry and intolerance. The result was that the work of fiction was retroactively erased and myself publicly denounced. That’s why I warned fellow writers that you may be next, because I can assure you that something you’ve written is capable of angering somebody, by some interpretation.
Is this really a fandom that prides itself on toleration and diversity of thought, considering that the result of this dispute is less professionally published content and a narrower range of ideas people are allowed to write in the fandom? I for one feel less welcome.
While I intend to remain far removed from the political discussion, I do feel like making one observation. I find it fascinating that of two different people who read the same story, both somehow came away with nearly diametrically opposed opinions on what its message was. Not what the message was supposed to be, mind you, but what message the story ended up imparting, accidentally or not.
There’s a writing lesson in here somewhere. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s in here.
I find this very relevant to the political correctness warnings I have seen lately. I too am amazed that two people came away from the same story with completely different perspectives, but isn’t that the whole point of writing a story. I understand that everyone wants to write a fun and even more importantly a popular book or story to be published. However, who doesn’t like to sneak little tid bits in there story like gems to be found that poke or at least tickle the controversial thought or perspective for discussion? I found actual intelligent discussion here which was sparked by this story. That is the way it’s supposed to be. I understand that there is and always be comments that are less than uncouth, uncalled for, and even less desired, but that is the risk you take to elicit intelligent converse on such subjects. Maybe the real crime was to remove the controversy and to put an end to the debate. I think I loathe the means many seem to think shutting down controversy helps as apposed to exposing it for real debate of reason.
This thread has been done with since September. What’s done is done, and there’s nothing else to be gained for necroing this thread.