Lexicon Update: "Fan Feud" by Tim Wu in The New Yorker *Updated*
PoW! Tim Wu must be the bravest man in the United States to write this article! Check out the caricature also!
The Bench: Fan Feud by Tim Wu
I'm glad he didn't call it "Family Feud" although it does have quite a bit of "Mom likes you best" in it!
I posted this link in the Leaky Lounge, then ran for my life.
Update: Melissa Anelli has written a first impression of this article on Leaky Cauldron:
http://www.leakylounge.com/WB-JKR-vs-RDR-SVA-Part-X-t61643.html#entry1602060
1:22 a.m Eastern
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Well. That's interesting.
About 0.01 percent of our conversation (which was actually very lengthy and substantive and included Mr. Wu telling me that he thought I had turned him around on the case) was used there, and every time Mr. Wu asked me to comment on the ways in which Mr. Vander Ark has hurt me, or to make a judgment on his character, I declined. Apparently I was alone in thinking to insult even a former friend in the press would be a low blow.
He called him a rogue fan, to me, and he said, "Did you call him that?" I said, "No." He said, "Would you like to?" I said, "No."
Can someone please point me to where I said "he's vilified now" on the podcast? I don't recall the words leaving my lips but I could be wrong. For that matter, also, "He has ruined his good standing." If I said anything near that it was quote of what a lawyer or document said; it wasn't my own adjudication.
When we spoke it was to be an article on the acutal issues in the case, not one making this weird comparison between Mr. Vander Ark and myself, as if one of us has to be the opposite of the other. The idea is strange, wrong, and insulting. As is the idea that Mr. Vander Ark (apprently repeatedly) likes to promulgate, that I'm some sort of blind obsequiant to Jo's will. That is the very basest of insults. I disagree with him on this case because I am a thinking adult with a thinking brain who came to the conclusion based on the facts of the case. To call any one of us less than that is an insult.
Also to imply that any interaction with Jo is "status" - that's just flat-out disgusting. I'm actually disgusted, here.
For the record, I watched Mr. Vander Ark in every second of that testimony. He looked at Jo precisely once; directly after he cried. And never again. I had my glasses on and could see perfectly.
Also for the record: Jo has never once, never ONCE, asked us/me to, or implied I/we should, do absolutely ANYthing just because she said so, or speak through her mouth as one would a prophet-God relationship (another disgusting and inaccurate metaphor). In fact, she has done quite the opposite: She, during a very rough time for us early in this case, absolutely ENCOURAGED me/us to weigh things properly and come to our own decisions even if it hurt her in the end. I am sorely tempted to detail exactly how but I don't feel such a rude quote by Mr. Vander Ark should be the reason for that. I don't feel it should be the reason for anything. What Mr. Vander Ark does not know (the least of which is that it was I who urged Justia to remove portions of documents that included his social security number, as I felt it unfair to him) outweighs that which he does, and that upon which he has made such terrible statements.
It's very sad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2:28 a.m. ET
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They claim it's on the podcast; it's easy enough to check. A fact checker called me about some of this stuff; I told her to check the podcast for anything they claimed was on it (because I certainly couldn't remember who said what, and still can't, but told her I really didn't think I said what she claims I said), and she said they would. She also said they would change "Jo's blessing," which is one of the few things in this article mentioned to me; they were supposed to say "support." Because Jo hasn't "blessed" my book in that sense (what is it with all the religious imagery in this article?), as I didn't ask her to bless my book. I told her about it, and she supported it well before this case occurred, but there was never a permission required, as there isn't a doubt in this world that it's fair use, as it doesn't deal in her actual inventions. That was never even an issue between us, because she actually does know and respect the difference, contrary to what people would believe. Anyway, the line wasn't changed. And I was given no indication at all (not least by the 45-minute discussion with Mr. Wu about the actual merits of the case and not this weird and false construct of status and "fan feud" that I find abhorrent) that this article was not about what it seemed to be about.
I'm heading to bed before I get drawn into this further. I've probably ranted a bit too much already. Let's just say that before tonight I thought I couldn't be more hurt by someone who once called himself my friend, and I was extremely, terribly, wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4:02 a.m. ET
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, here's the thing: All the words quoted from he podcast exist in some form, I just either didn't say them or it's been taken out of context. What I said to Mr. Wu on the phone, the three words of it that were used, were, I suppose, accurate - the fact-checker asked if they were, and I said yes.
As for what wasn't on the phone: the "vilified" quote, I believe, was said by Sue, not as "yay, he's vilified," or, "we've vilified him," but as a statement of what FANDOM in general has done. The "ruined good standing," I can almost swear (but would have to listen to the podcast again, as I directed the fact-checker to do) was a rephrase of what was said in court by lawyers; I certainly never said that I believe he has ruined his good standing or whatnot. (Please someone correct me if I am wrong.) The words exist, just not as portrayed. If Mr. Vander Ark is the only source from whom Mr. Wu got that side of the statements, then I have little doubt they're true; I've been taken out of context and misquoted, but he didn't invent anything, that's the difference. No matter what kind of journalism is going on here, I don't believe Mr. Wu would invent wholecloth, if for no other reason than a fact-checker had to call Mr. Vander Ark, just as she did me, and asked if he had said the things he is quoted to have said. (The only other possibility is that their conversation was recorded, which renders the fact-check irrelevant, as he could just hand over the tape.)
I noted concern over my podcast quotes and told the fact-checker this, and told the fact-checker to check the podcast, and it's clear they did not, and that is something to be dealt with for sure (and I will deal with it, for sure), but if I said, "No, I never said that," it either wouldnt' be printed or they'd prove to me, via the podcast, that I did. It's different from what Mr. Vander Ark said as he's the only one who could have said yay or nay; I have severe doubts that with an inflammatory statement such as that anything but, "Yes, I said that," would pass muster. If he said, "No, I didn't say that," they wouldn't have gone to print with it; it would be actionable - and distinctly unwise to ignore as such. Mr. Wu would be woefully unintelligent indeed if he didn't think that there would be a distinct possibility that Vander Ark would sue if he felt he'd been slandered; he wouldn't just make it up, though I sincerely wish he had.
Honestly, bed. Now.
This is just made of Drama.
The Bench: Fan Feud by Tim Wu
I'm glad he didn't call it "Family Feud" although it does have quite a bit of "Mom likes you best" in it!
I posted this link in the Leaky Lounge, then ran for my life.
Update: Melissa Anelli has written a first impression of this article on Leaky Cauldron:
http://www.leakylounge.com/WB-JKR-vs-RDR-SVA-Part-X-t61643.html#entry1602060
1:22 a.m Eastern
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Well. That's interesting.
About 0.01 percent of our conversation (which was actually very lengthy and substantive and included Mr. Wu telling me that he thought I had turned him around on the case) was used there, and every time Mr. Wu asked me to comment on the ways in which Mr. Vander Ark has hurt me, or to make a judgment on his character, I declined. Apparently I was alone in thinking to insult even a former friend in the press would be a low blow.
He called him a rogue fan, to me, and he said, "Did you call him that?" I said, "No." He said, "Would you like to?" I said, "No."
Can someone please point me to where I said "he's vilified now" on the podcast? I don't recall the words leaving my lips but I could be wrong. For that matter, also, "He has ruined his good standing." If I said anything near that it was quote of what a lawyer or document said; it wasn't my own adjudication.
When we spoke it was to be an article on the acutal issues in the case, not one making this weird comparison between Mr. Vander Ark and myself, as if one of us has to be the opposite of the other. The idea is strange, wrong, and insulting. As is the idea that Mr. Vander Ark (apprently repeatedly) likes to promulgate, that I'm some sort of blind obsequiant to Jo's will. That is the very basest of insults. I disagree with him on this case because I am a thinking adult with a thinking brain who came to the conclusion based on the facts of the case. To call any one of us less than that is an insult.
Also to imply that any interaction with Jo is "status" - that's just flat-out disgusting. I'm actually disgusted, here.
For the record, I watched Mr. Vander Ark in every second of that testimony. He looked at Jo precisely once; directly after he cried. And never again. I had my glasses on and could see perfectly.
Also for the record: Jo has never once, never ONCE, asked us/me to, or implied I/we should, do absolutely ANYthing just because she said so, or speak through her mouth as one would a prophet-God relationship (another disgusting and inaccurate metaphor). In fact, she has done quite the opposite: She, during a very rough time for us early in this case, absolutely ENCOURAGED me/us to weigh things properly and come to our own decisions even if it hurt her in the end. I am sorely tempted to detail exactly how but I don't feel such a rude quote by Mr. Vander Ark should be the reason for that. I don't feel it should be the reason for anything. What Mr. Vander Ark does not know (the least of which is that it was I who urged Justia to remove portions of documents that included his social security number, as I felt it unfair to him) outweighs that which he does, and that upon which he has made such terrible statements.
It's very sad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2:28 a.m. ET
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They claim it's on the podcast; it's easy enough to check. A fact checker called me about some of this stuff; I told her to check the podcast for anything they claimed was on it (because I certainly couldn't remember who said what, and still can't, but told her I really didn't think I said what she claims I said), and she said they would. She also said they would change "Jo's blessing," which is one of the few things in this article mentioned to me; they were supposed to say "support." Because Jo hasn't "blessed" my book in that sense (what is it with all the religious imagery in this article?), as I didn't ask her to bless my book. I told her about it, and she supported it well before this case occurred, but there was never a permission required, as there isn't a doubt in this world that it's fair use, as it doesn't deal in her actual inventions. That was never even an issue between us, because she actually does know and respect the difference, contrary to what people would believe. Anyway, the line wasn't changed. And I was given no indication at all (not least by the 45-minute discussion with Mr. Wu about the actual merits of the case and not this weird and false construct of status and "fan feud" that I find abhorrent) that this article was not about what it seemed to be about.
I'm heading to bed before I get drawn into this further. I've probably ranted a bit too much already. Let's just say that before tonight I thought I couldn't be more hurt by someone who once called himself my friend, and I was extremely, terribly, wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4:02 a.m. ET
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, here's the thing: All the words quoted from he podcast exist in some form, I just either didn't say them or it's been taken out of context. What I said to Mr. Wu on the phone, the three words of it that were used, were, I suppose, accurate - the fact-checker asked if they were, and I said yes.
As for what wasn't on the phone: the "vilified" quote, I believe, was said by Sue, not as "yay, he's vilified," or, "we've vilified him," but as a statement of what FANDOM in general has done. The "ruined good standing," I can almost swear (but would have to listen to the podcast again, as I directed the fact-checker to do) was a rephrase of what was said in court by lawyers; I certainly never said that I believe he has ruined his good standing or whatnot. (Please someone correct me if I am wrong.) The words exist, just not as portrayed. If Mr. Vander Ark is the only source from whom Mr. Wu got that side of the statements, then I have little doubt they're true; I've been taken out of context and misquoted, but he didn't invent anything, that's the difference. No matter what kind of journalism is going on here, I don't believe Mr. Wu would invent wholecloth, if for no other reason than a fact-checker had to call Mr. Vander Ark, just as she did me, and asked if he had said the things he is quoted to have said. (The only other possibility is that their conversation was recorded, which renders the fact-check irrelevant, as he could just hand over the tape.)
I noted concern over my podcast quotes and told the fact-checker this, and told the fact-checker to check the podcast, and it's clear they did not, and that is something to be dealt with for sure (and I will deal with it, for sure), but if I said, "No, I never said that," it either wouldnt' be printed or they'd prove to me, via the podcast, that I did. It's different from what Mr. Vander Ark said as he's the only one who could have said yay or nay; I have severe doubts that with an inflammatory statement such as that anything but, "Yes, I said that," would pass muster. If he said, "No, I didn't say that," they wouldn't have gone to print with it; it would be actionable - and distinctly unwise to ignore as such. Mr. Wu would be woefully unintelligent indeed if he didn't think that there would be a distinct possibility that Vander Ark would sue if he felt he'd been slandered; he wouldn't just make it up, though I sincerely wish he had.
Honestly, bed. Now.
This is just made of Drama.