It's one thing to despise the people who had the information and denied it/didn't act on it, but it's over-egging the pudding to despise people who didn't know they should be looking for the information in the first place.
Do not put words in my mouth. "Not particularly convincing" doesn't equal "despise" on any level.
And though I was speaking mostly of regulars to James' journal, I find it extremely hard to believe that general fans would never Google MZB, and find, oh golly I dunno, one of the five results on the first page, including MZB's Wikipedia page, that mentions Breen and the abuse.
I'm actively defensive here, so pardon me for responding while defensive.
But, to explain my failure of knowing, the Goldin page is very explicit about Breen's culpability. It focuses on MZB's breathtaking enabling, but Goldin's page (and the timeline) don't mention MZB being a molester herself. And I never read Waters' deposition until now, because every time I try and read MZB's deposition, her absolutely breathtaking lack of insight and ability to excuse anything and everything renders me unable to have a brain for awhile.
So I do find it credible that one could know Breen directly molested people, but not MZB.
Edited because I don't know if a deposition is technically considered testimony.
I'm a general fan. I have never, to my knowledge, Googled the author of The Crystal Crown (Barbara Clough, I think?), or Susan Cooper, or any of a number of other authors I read in the 1970-1980s. I tend to Google authors when I'm currently reading them, or when I'm trying to figure out why they never wrote another book. I might Google James Blaylock to find out what he's up to, but I'm unlikely to Google Tim Powers, because I can tell what he's up to by the row on my shelf.
Which gets back to my key point -- it's perfectly reasonable and expected behavior to like books but not bother to look up the author.
Overgeneralizing, maybe? I'm still used to things not Being Instantly Available on the internet; I was on Fidonet as a teenager in the late '90s and then on internet from college onward, but my brain is still stuck back when if I wanted to know anything, I had to probably find it in a physical book, and even more stuck in the mindset that the physical book is probably not available in South freaking Korea in English. By default I don't look up authors (or things like the Triple Crown winner on my 3G smartphone, I keep having to be reminded I can do that now). In my head, because it was the case for so long, I am still in South Korea (where I spent high school) where (English-language) authors might as well be on the moon, or orbiting Alpha Centauri, because they sure as hell are not real live human beings that I could actually interact with; and forget hearing anything about authors' personal lives, or even what goes on at a con. Even before Korea, when I was in Houston, I was submitting stories to MZB's anthos/magazine (this would have been the early '90s) without even having heard about Breen and child molestation; I was in middle school doing that and I would never have even thought to ask a grown-up about that. (And who would I have asked? I didn't know anyone in the sf/f community.) Later when I did hear about Breen, I had not heard about MZB herself being directly an abuser rather than "merely" standing by until these posts of James'. I had assumed mistakenly that something that big would be well-known and therefore be mentioned actively and loudly. All this just to say, I am sure there are many people that do Google authors as a matter of course, but there have to be people who just are not in the habit of Googling for whatever confluence of reasons?
I can't remember the last time I Googled an author without putting the word "Twitter" after their name, and then it was solely to c&p their correct Twitter handle. I never looked down the page.
The availability and accessibility of information dramatically changes over time. Google results change based on what people are talking about and what has happened lately. When I wrote the article on 'Lesbian Science Fiction' for Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy, in 2008, I wound up looking up MZB on the internet really, really thoroughly, in order to track down the names and publication dates of her early SF stories in lesbian newsletters. Consequently, I found out about the Breendoggle and read her depositions... but while that information was out there, it was not on the first page of the results, or even the fifth. It was about as prominent as the info on those lesbian newsletters, i.e. you needed to be digging among pages of same-y search engine results intentionally looking for something different. I'm glad that this info has become more prominent, which I think is at least partly because people are more willing to talk about it and link to it-- certainly after I found out about the whole thing back then I emailed various people I knew to let them know about it, which would have gotten the deposition more hits.
So while this has always been Google-able information, it has not always been obvious, clear, comes-right-up-when-you-type-in-the-name information. I'm really glad it is now, and I feel we should all do everything in our power to make it stay that way. But I certainly don't blame anybody who Googled in 2008 and didn't go to page fifteen for not hearing about this, you know?
Huh. I remember vaguely liking the books, but even with authors whose works I actively pick up rather than just tend to notice and consider when I'm browsing bookstore shelves, it's never occurred to me to Google for them personally rather than for a list of the books they've written.
See, that is exactly my point. Google an author for their bibliography or whatever little bit of info you need, and you get Wikipedia and plenty of other websites in the results. These websites have more than just the bibliography on them. For instance, Googling marion zimmer bradley bibliography brings up three results on the first page which mention the Breen convictions.
Okay, so someone is just looking for the bibliography and doesn't notice the Breen stuff, doesn't go looking any further. That's fine... except it gets mentioned in almost every thread about MZB on a multitude of websites, including this very one we're communicating on right now, and has for years.
My point has been (probably deliberately, considering) taken the wrong way, as though I said people should have been Googling marion zimmer bradley molests kids and is worse than Hitler from the get-go. No. My point was that, considering the amount and type of info that's out there, it seems really odd to me that so many people now claim they never heard one word about MZB's involvement with Breen's crimes.
Suppose it depends on what type of folk you're talking to/about. I was not particularly for or against MZB as an author, and knew fuck-all about her as a person until James's first post linking to the "tribute" and comments.
I only know about it because I have a morbid tendency to look through THIS JOURNAL's threads for various shenanigans. Otherwise I would know absolutely nothing about MZB's life, and continue to know little to nothing about the lives of many authors I read, because in general I have little interest.
Clearly you approach reading differently, but it should not be THAT hard to imagine that people approach things differently from you.
I performed just that Google. Then I read the page as I would if I were looking for a bibliography.
Under her Wikipedia entry, I saw this (note that James's post wouldn't have shown up before yesterday):
"Marion Zimmer Bradley: It's Worse Than I Knew". Darkover series - The Mists of Avalon - Walter H. Breen - List of Darkover books
Now, I'm an MZB reader looking for books. Walter H. Breen means nothing to me. If I click through to References, as the Google result page suggests, I get nothing explaining who Walter Breen is or why he's relevant. If I scroll up to the "list of books" page -- remember, I'm a casual reader looking for a bibliography -- it says nothing about child abuse.
That is the only reference to "Breen" on the page. Furthermore, there's nothing on the results page that might, based solely on the Google results and summary, lead me to suspect something's wrong. ("The Strange Case of Marion Zimmer Bradley" is explicitly about a copyright dispute.)
Now, I personally own having missed the abuse of Ms. Greyland, because I read the Goldin pages. It's the global statement that "it seems really odd to me..." that I dispute. (Side note: MZB has an active set of fans defending her Wiki page, just as Anne McCaffrey's "tent peg" interview has disappeared from the Net. I suspect the reference to James's page will disappear soon as being not adequately substantiated.) The point I am defending is that researching the author, as opposed to the books, is not a universal behavior, nor should it be expected to be.
In contrast to Mme Hardy, the point I'm defending is that her enabling and being involved in helping Breen is easy to find; her being a molester on her own is harder to find. And there is a difference.
(And that difference isn't one that means I can dismiss her crimes as, "Oh, gee, that was nothing." Hell no. The people who enable and abet abuse are committing a different but still criminal act.)
I do think it's a valid point that the Goldin depositions, which have been out on the net for awhile, specifically reference Bradley's molesting her daughter.
Well, yeah, but I've already copped to being a negligent reader there. (More specifically, Goldin's intro texts focus on the Breen molesting part and the MZB enabling and basically encouraging that, and don't mention her own specific action in her daughter's case.)
Basically, it makes it clear there was a pretty extensive set-up for grooming, abuse, and molestation (not as extensive as at Penn State, but what is?), but only specifies Breen's molestation. Honestly, the grooming set-up was/is enough to have put me off MZB's writing awhile back. It's pretty depressing in its scope.
My point, I guess, is that I find it a lot less odd because it was completely news to me. Then again, so was the fact that MZB was one of the founders of the SCA.
I would expect that many of the "so many people" are like me, having a somewhat vaguely-positive opinion of MZB from having read a couple of her books and found them enjoyable if fluffy, and knowing of her as An Important Author In The Evolution Of The Genre, but having never really sought out anything else about her or read any discussions of her.
Because, as I (and several other people have mentioned) it's entirely possible and even likely that people had/have no particular reason to google up any particular author.
When was the last time, to pick a writer at random, you googled Stanley Weinbaum? I might have done so years ago, can't remember one way or the other, but certainly haven't any time recently and so would have no idea if something interesting had been added to his page more recently than that. Similarly, I've never had reason, ever, to go to the Wikipedia page of Richard Matheson. I know what he wrote, in print, movies, and TV, but the very first time I ever went to his Wikipedia page was just now so I literally only found out 30 seconds ago as I'm typing this that he'd only died last year (I'd assumed he'd died sometime ages ago but again: had no particular reason to look). Can't recall any obituaries, although I probably skimmed past them, so again, I would have no idea about anything about him except he's responsible for, among other things, Captain Kirk freaking out over a mini-sasquatch on the aircraft wing.
I've had reason to look up various things he'd worked on (such as what year I Am Legend was published), but since I didn't have reason to look up him in particular, I never once clicked on that link to him personally.
And if you're on multiple SF lists, sure, the topic may have come up.
But not everyone is on multiple SF-discussion fora, and even people who are don't necessarily read everything. Back on Usenet I certainly never read all threads on rasfw, and quite frankly any one that was obviously talking about MZB I probably would have skipped since she wasn't an author I read.
I've been reading SF/F since I was 8 years old - I turn 46 next week. I've been to two worldcons and some media cons, I've been on the internet since 1994 (ha, I first used email in 1984!) until recently had a small library of MZB's books, I work in a bookstore, and I had never heard of Breen or MZB's depositions until yesterday. When I'm looking up authors online I am looking at their bibliographies, not their biographies.
I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that the majority of fans have notheard of Breen, Breendoggle, etc.
Yeah. I'm 46, used to go to cons (but haven't since 1996), have been online since late 1993 (but haven't used Usenet since sometime in early 2000s, so have missed any rec.arts.sf.written discussions since I gave up on it), used to work in libraries, now work in a bookstore, and had always meant to read Darkover, so my research was mostly "What the hell order am I supposed to read these in?", not on MZB's personal life. As said, I'd heard of Breen's proclivities, but hadn't realized that MZB was fully-engaged in them, too. And as I posted earlier, some years of taking care of aged parents (not to mention work) was leaving me less connected and communicative than I should've been.
OTOH, I'm well aware of how OSC behaves (which has caused me to never read him again). Perhaps that's because he's alive and misbehaving where I can see him.
My wife, who not only reads SF and fantasy, but actually did read some of MZB's books in their entirety and thus knows who she is and as a professional librarian in one job was responsible for ordering books and preparing author biographies, knew nothing about it until I asked her yesterday to see if she knew about it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2014-06-10 09:02 pm
no subject
Do not put words in my mouth. "Not particularly convincing" doesn't equal "despise" on any level.
And though I was speaking mostly of regulars to James' journal, I find it extremely hard to believe that general fans would never Google MZB, and find, oh golly I dunno, one of the five results on the first page, including MZB's Wikipedia page, that mentions Breen and the abuse.
no subject
But, to explain my failure of knowing, the Goldin page is very explicit about Breen's culpability. It focuses on MZB's breathtaking enabling, but Goldin's page (and the timeline) don't mention MZB being a molester herself. And I never read Waters' deposition until now, because every time I try and read MZB's deposition, her absolutely breathtaking lack of insight and ability to excuse anything and everything renders me unable to have a brain for awhile.
So I do find it credible that one could know Breen directly molested people, but not MZB.
Edited because I don't know if a deposition is technically considered testimony.
no subject
Which gets back to my key point -- it's perfectly reasonable and expected behavior to like books but not bother to look up the author.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Actually, she was dead for about two years at that point. Seems to have slowed her down less than one would expect.
no subject
no subject
no subject
So while this has always been Google-able information, it has not always been obvious, clear, comes-right-up-when-you-type-in-the-name information. I'm really glad it is now, and I feel we should all do everything in our power to make it stay that way. But I certainly don't blame anybody who Googled in 2008 and didn't go to page fifteen for not hearing about this, you know?
no subject
no subject
Okay, so someone is just looking for the bibliography and doesn't notice the Breen stuff, doesn't go looking any further. That's fine... except it gets mentioned in almost every thread about MZB on a multitude of websites, including this very one we're communicating on right now, and has for years.
My point has been (probably deliberately, considering) taken the wrong way, as though I said people should have been Googling marion zimmer bradley molests kids and is worse than Hitler from the get-go. No. My point was that, considering the amount and type of info that's out there, it seems really odd to me that so many people now claim they never heard one word about MZB's involvement with Breen's crimes.
no subject
no subject
Clearly you approach reading differently, but it should not be THAT hard to imagine that people approach things differently from you.
no subject
Under her Wikipedia entry, I saw this (note that James's post wouldn't have shown up before yesterday):
"Marion Zimmer Bradley: It's Worse Than I Knew".
Darkover series - The Mists of Avalon - Walter H. Breen - List of Darkover books
Now, I'm an MZB reader looking for books. Walter H. Breen means nothing to me. If I click through to References, as the Google result page suggests, I get nothing explaining who Walter Breen is or why he's relevant. If I scroll up to the "list of books" page -- remember, I'm a casual reader looking for a bibliography -- it says nothing about child abuse.
That is the only reference to "Breen" on the page. Furthermore, there's nothing on the results page that might, based solely on the Google results and summary, lead me to suspect something's wrong. ("The Strange Case of Marion Zimmer Bradley" is explicitly about a copyright dispute.)
Now, I personally own having missed the abuse of Ms. Greyland, because I read the Goldin pages. It's the global statement that "it seems really odd to me..." that I dispute. (Side note: MZB has an active set of fans defending her Wiki page, just as Anne McCaffrey's "tent peg" interview has disappeared from the Net. I suspect the reference to James's page will disappear soon as being not adequately substantiated.) The point I am defending is that researching the author, as opposed to the books, is not a universal behavior, nor should it be expected to be.
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_V#Marion_Zimmer_Bradley_-_Child_abuse_claims
no subject
(And that difference isn't one that means I can dismiss her crimes as, "Oh, gee, that was nothing." Hell no. The people who enable and abet abuse are committing a different but still criminal act.)
no subject
no subject
Basically, it makes it clear there was a pretty extensive set-up for grooming, abuse, and molestation (not as extensive as at Penn State, but what is?), but only specifies Breen's molestation. Honestly, the grooming set-up was/is enough to have put me off MZB's writing awhile back. It's pretty depressing in its scope.
(Edited to add a lot.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I would expect that many of the "so many people" are like me, having a somewhat vaguely-positive opinion of MZB from having read a couple of her books and found them enjoyable if fluffy, and knowing of her as An Important Author In The Evolution Of The Genre, but having never really sought out anything else about her or read any discussions of her.
no subject
When was the last time, to pick a writer at random, you googled Stanley Weinbaum? I might have done so years ago, can't remember one way or the other, but certainly haven't any time recently and so would have no idea if something interesting had been added to his page more recently than that. Similarly, I've never had reason, ever, to go to the Wikipedia page of Richard Matheson. I know what he wrote, in print, movies, and TV, but the very first time I ever went to his Wikipedia page was just now so I literally only found out 30 seconds ago as I'm typing this that he'd only died last year (I'd assumed he'd died sometime ages ago but again: had no particular reason to look). Can't recall any obituaries, although I probably skimmed past them, so again, I would have no idea about anything about him except he's responsible for, among other things, Captain Kirk freaking out over a mini-sasquatch on the aircraft wing.
I've had reason to look up various things he'd worked on (such as what year I Am Legend was published), but since I didn't have reason to look up him in particular, I never once clicked on that link to him personally.
And if you're on multiple SF lists, sure, the topic may have come up.
But not everyone is on multiple SF-discussion fora, and even people who are don't necessarily read everything. Back on Usenet I certainly never read all threads on rasfw, and quite frankly any one that was obviously talking about MZB I probably would have skipped since she wasn't an author I read.
no subject
I think it is eminently reasonable to assume that the majority of fans have notheard of Breen, Breendoggle, etc.
no subject
OTOH, I'm well aware of how OSC behaves (which has caused me to never read him again). Perhaps that's because he's alive and misbehaving where I can see him.
no subject