Instead of having my hopes raised by Anthony putting up a post, which is promptly pulled down at the request of "leadership". Yeah, I meant the quotes, because I don't know that changes are going to happen. In fact, Amos appears to be the only specifically Superversive voice to have read my last post. I state this based on his comment, but the fact is, from now on, I'll archive anything from there first, because they're controlling their message strongly, and might delete ANY post if they decide to.
What got put in its place? Brian's initial post that started the conversation. While it's a good post, I don't get why that should be added there. Maybe it's the only part their leaders think is worth reading. Maybe they don't get what the PulpRev crew(at least part of it) actually gets out of arguments.
The arguments they have(I'm on the periphery as I'm just a blogger/reviewer right now, and who reads those guys, anyway?) are both for working through points, convincing others, and teaching themselves how to think about writing. And while the arguments might get heated, that's not out of enmity, but rather the fact that they recognize that fun is serious stuff, far more serious than most things in life.
What's this mean for how I interact with Superversive itself now? Until I see changes, I'm going to be a lot more wary. I'm friends with a few of them, and that won't be affected on my part, but this whole controlling nature really hurts my ability to trust the "movement", and to an extent, the Press.
The whole keeping the rest of the world in the dark gets me down. I can't support something where there's literally no info on it, and since the group won't communicate publicly as a corporate body or individually, there's nothing to be found.
I don't even wanna type it.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
A centralized superversive movement is a contradiction in terms.
ReplyDeleteSupport those authors you deem worthy with your purchases, reviews, and endorsements. Those who reciprocate, and acknowledge your work are your allies deserving of additional effort on your part. Those who don't, still deserve recognition for their other virtues. Carry on, let the chips fall where they may, and allow the movement to grow organically.
Thanks for your reviews and support.
I hear you, Alfred. To keep you up to speed, my post showed up at Superversive SF because I put it there in an attempt to keep the conversation going. The removal of Anthony's post just happened to cross with the appearance of mine.
ReplyDeleteThis probably looks worse than it seems. Very little in Anthony's post was wrong; i, for own, thought we should sticky it. It was just that it was probably premature to post-- particularly since some of our most prominent folks are out on vacation at the moment and missed the discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt's less about information control and centralization than it is about figuring out crap out.
But in a way, between this and SAH's "MY PUPPIES" bit, it shows that they are not delegating or trusting their varied members to operate independently in support of their goals/ideals.
DeleteThe Puppies and Sarah Hoyt have never been a part of the Superversive team.
DeleteJosh is right. I jumped the gun.
Look, the Superversive Team has given me enormous leeway. I can write almost whatever I want and publish it at my discretion. I really am noy being stifled.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason this post was taken down is that the leadership was worried I was giving the impression we were all on the same page, when a couple of prominent members didn't have a chance to be a part of the discussion yet. So they asked me to take it down while we discussed things.
That is literally it. No censoring here. It's my fault, not their's.
Well, leadership could at least put up a post stating that things are being talked about. And maybe even tell us what is being discussed. Not that the public needs to give input, but seeing an acknowledgement of problems would be good.
DeleteI suspect you will see something like that relatively soon.
DeletePart of the problem is that we don't all agree on the problems; once we have that part down, I imagine the rest will follow quickly.