I know this is likely to be an unpopular opinion, but I think there could well have been a significant difference from a paid gig where acting like a dick gets you lots of publicity, and a forum that he might be more genuinely engaged with in different ways and could well present the more real persona, rather that the public one who's probably paid to act like that to get ratings.
I'm not defending him, but I have an inherent distrust of judging someone on the basis of what they might do. Agreed, his track record isn't good, but I do think he might well have acted very differently at the Hugos, but we'll never know now.
Absolutely. This wasn't something that could or should have been done as Chair's actions.
Some people wouldn't have gone, to others he would have been a big draw.
From what I've read, it was handled badly at all stages. The twitter side of it was clearly very grisly and I feel very sorry for his wife and daughters. This should have never got to the stage of a messy public row.
It's not that simple, as other things come to light. A lot of blame has been put on Seanan McGuire, particularly by the Ross family and Gaiman. Yet Seanan did not tweet directly to Ross at any time. He had already resigned by the time her tweets had been widely publicised. She did not deliberately ignore Ross's daughter, she simply missed her in a rush of tweets. And Ross's wife's tweets to Seanan were... well, the mildest comment I have seen from those who have seen the saved versions was that they would have told her to take a long run off a short pier.
Gaiman took part in a documentary with Ross about Steve Ditko where Ditko told them he didn't want to talk to them and they forced their way into his office. While he was apparently polite to them, he made it clear he was taking his name off his door. They ignored his wishes and his boundaries.
The article in the New Statesman was written by Gaiman's god-daughter, so she knows damn well what a Hugo is and what it looks like.
All that info has come to light in the last two days...
Comments 7
I'm not defending him, but I have an inherent distrust of judging someone on the basis of what they might do. Agreed, his track record isn't good, but I do think he might well have acted very differently at the Hugos, but we'll never know now.
Reply
I'll've never found out anyway, because I loathe the man.
Reply
Some people wouldn't have gone, to others he would have been a big draw.
From what I've read, it was handled badly at all stages. The twitter side of it was clearly very grisly and I feel very sorry for his wife and daughters. This should have never got to the stage of a messy public row.
Reply
Gaiman took part in a documentary with Ross about Steve Ditko where Ditko told them he didn't want to talk to them and they forced their way into his office. While he was apparently polite to them, he made it clear he was taking his name off his door. They ignored his wishes and his boundaries.
The article in the New Statesman was written by Gaiman's god-daughter, so she knows damn well what a Hugo is and what it looks like.
All that info has come to light in the last two days...
Reply
Leave a comment