Noted Female Blogger Breaks With Fangirls

This post is totally gossipy.

Valerie D’Orazio has announced (link no longer available) that she’s removing linkblog When Fangirls Attack from her blogroll because she’s stopped reading it. Of course, there’s a personal component:

Perhaps it’s my support of their occasional critic Dirk Deppey that soured them; to which I say that, despite the fact that Dirk has disagreed with some of my opinions (and has even been quite snarky with me on occasion), he has never addressed me with the sort of personal attacks that I have experienced from Ragnell at WFA.

My reaction: Ditto! And what took her so long to notice?

Although the WFA Mission Statement talks about their desire to cover the subjects of women and misogyny in comics, the reality is that the blog often makes the common mistake of assuming comics equals superheroes. That’s understandable, since the two authors’ tastes run firmly in that vein.

The result, though, is that some post where a woman puts up two lines about a guy-starring and -focused superhero comic with no female-oriented content will get linked, while substantive posts about the role of female characters in manga (for example) will be ignored. They’re not covering comics or the increasing female readership (which has happened outside of their favored genre); instead, they’re trying to draw more attention to girls who read superheroes. They’re not reporting even-handedly, they’re selecting to fit their political position — just as most bloggers do.

Given my notorious opinions on the subject, you won’t be surprised to find out that I’ve had my own run-ins with one of that team, nor that I am rarely linked by them. Likely, that’s because they don’t read this site, so they only notice me when one of the sites they do read point me out. And I’m not part of that circle, since I’ve moved far away from superhero comics as regular content here.

Now, announcing such a decision prominently may not be the best way to go about it. Reasons for: to encourage others to support you or agree or do the same thing. Against: it riles up those who want to “take sides” or love drama. But since Valerie recently said she’s started moderating comments, she’s ready, although I’m left wondering what didn’t make it through. Because I love drama when it happens to other people.

I don’t read Fangirls because I’m not interested in most of what they cover. But I do have sympathy for them, because doing such a thing (for over two years now, if I’ve got it right) is wearying. And constantly focusing on the outrage — oh, no, another sexist cover/story/image/piece of merchandise — gives one tunnel vision, a brittle temper, and a leathery shell. It’s hard to recover from. (And when you reach the point of wanting to talk only to those who agree with you, you may be subconsciously crying out for someone to make you take a break. Sample quote:

I would like the commenters who don’t like it to avoid pissing in my cheerios when I’m happy over Green Lantern. There is precious little that I get joyful about, and I would like these feelings of joy to be sustained as long as possible.)

I’d encourage them to find more comics that they could enjoy better, because now, there’s a whole wide world of them out there, but they want to stick to the franchised trademarks they’ve read most of their lives. Ok, their choice. But the rest is waiting for them whenever they’re ready. And it would be nice if their mission statement was more accurate, to avoiding perpetuating the mistake that one particular genre = the entire medium.

Similar Posts: A Good Blogging FAQ § Superhero Comic Sexism – A Futile Fight? § More Thoughts on Females, Superheroes, and Blogging § Another Take on Getting Women to Read Comics: Getting Men to Read Manga § What Would Happen If Comic Convention Panelists Demanded Parity?


37 Responses to “Noted Female Blogger Breaks With Fangirls”

  1. kalinara Says:

    You’re pretty much right on the reasons for why we tend to center on superhero comics. Mostly we link what we find and we’re better at finding material related to superhero comics. It’s also true that we should probably check certain blogs more often than we do. But we’re human and that sort of thing does happen.

    We like our mission statement because it gives us the opportunity to link other issues, however, when we do find them.

    I can’t speak for Ragnell, but if you and others who are disappointed by the lack of manga/indy type coverage by WFA wanted to create a similar group to cover what we tend to neglect, I’m sure we’d be very flattered and happy to add a link to it. :-)

  2. Johanna Says:

    I think it’s possible to write a mission statement that gives you the flexibility you want without the misrepresentation that your current one has.

    And “don’t like it? do what you want yourself” is a grand old tenet of the internet, but here, it seems like something of a copout when the solution is so simple: insert the word “superhero” a couple of times into your mission statement.

    I do appreciate you taking my post so even-handedly, though, and sharing your thoughts. Thank you.

  3. Tintin Says:

    “Because I love drama when it happens to other people.”
    Guilty as charged!

    It’s pretty momentous for the president of FoL to be publicly announcing the break, isn’t it? Especially one with a very public sympathy for the corporate superhero genre.

  4. Johanna Says:

    Oh, I don’t know. Much as I appreciate Valerie’s skills and ambition for the group, I don’t think FOL is that big or well-known an industry organization any more, and I think Valerie made it very clear that she was speaking for herself.

  5. Second Hand Source Says:

    I’m not one to gossip,
    and you didn’t hear it from me,

    But considering the post on Kevin Church’s blog and the stuff that cause the blog lock down of OS, it has little to almost nothing to do with gender and sex issues. People just kind of find her blog to be like the Ed Benes of the comic world.

    No real substance and full of errors. I’m surprised she didn’t get killed for that Bodog thing even if she deleted it.

  6. Brigid Says:

    It seems like a year or so ago I was picking up a lot of manga-related links from WFA, and they were linking to sites I normally wouldn’t see, too. I certainly don’t think they have an anti-manga bias. Speaking as someone who does a lot of linkblogging, it’s easy to just look at your RSS feeds (I subscribe to 130) and not wander too far afield. Maybe it would help if we non-superhero folks sent them links of interest when we run across them.

  7. Johanna Says:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about, Anonymous. Although judging from comments on BeaucoupKevin, there are more people than I suspected out there that enjoy taking shots at Valerie.

  8. kalinara Says:

    Brigid, that would be a fantastic help! Of course, we wouldn’t want to impose a huge chore on anyone or anything. But if you happen to see something that really should be up on WFA once in a while, we’d love it if you dropped us a line! Thanks!

  9. Val Says:

    Well, considering the volume of Lulu-related e-mail I get a week and the outpouring of support from the comic book industry on the sponsorship drive I’m completing, I wouldn’t think we’re *that* small either. :-)

    Somewhere in the middle.

    No, I spoke for myself, not Lulu. I am the president of a women’s organization but I’m also a human being who doesn’t like poo slung at me.

    I think the mistake I made was getting comfortable and thinking that the obsessive, insular, narrowminded, and occasionally vicious comic fandom community that I observed at the local comic shop when I was a teenager had somehow disappeared.

    They didn’t disappear. They merely allowed some women into the clubhouse.

    And though it is still my belief that they represent a relatively small amount of total comic readers, some are very loud and very angry. And I realize the contribution I have made to that online snake-pit insular comics culture. But I’ve grown out of it. It has made me reevaluate my place in this fandom and industry and reevaluate the purpose of my blog.

    Change and growth are good.

  10. caleb Says:

    I think Anonymous was referring to this, at least in the last line:

    http://www.schwapponline.com/2008/03/why-didnt-anyone-tell-me.html

    (You’ll have to scroll down a bit).

    Love or hate or are completely ambivalent to WFA, I don’t see the point of making a big to-do out of de-linking from ‘em. I understand what you mean about the narrow focus, Johanna, but I always thought the word “Fangirl” in their name covered it…

  11. James Schee Says:

    Huh, what an epihany here. I just realized how seperate I’ve become from comic fandom, gossip and stuff. Because I don’t know the what or who anyone is talking about here.

    Good luck to all the particpants though, may you do well!

  12. Tintin Says:

    About the calls for more link contributions to WFA, I think that’s great in theory, but what’s the point if you’re going to end up the target of some insult or passive-agressive remarks from one or both of the WFA’s maintainers? Who wants to contribute to a blog run by people who’ll take potshots at you? Though WFA may not be officially related to either Ragnell or Kalinara’s blogs, the views on the latter still reflect on the former- just as I believe Valerie’s public persona as a blogger, and the opinions therein, are linked her role as FoL prez.

  13. Blog@Newsarama » Variations on a Theme Says:

    [...] a discussion in the comments of one of her recent posts, Johanna Draper Carlson understands: Pedro, you make good points, and I’m not trying to defend Valerie against all criticism — I [...]

  14. Nenena Says:

    And constantly focusing on the outrage

    I’m sorry, but I have to raise my eyebrow every time that someone accuses the WFA linkpool of being constantly focused on outrage. Just looking at the five most recent posts to WFA (March 9th through March 17th) here’s the breakdown that I see: 33 critical posts, which only criticize/complain about whatever the subject matter is. 36 squee posts, which positively gush about and rec the subject matter without offering any criticism at all. 54 mixed/neutral posts, which include both the “I liked this but didn’t like this” style of review, and a few posts in which people just linked to something else and offered no additional commentary other than “This is interesting.” Plus 3 broken links.

    In those four batches, a great deal of the critical posts dealt with either For Better of For Worse (and oh god who can blame them?!) and Wonder Woman #18. Opinions were split about WW #18 and unanimously pissed about FBoFW.

    I hardly think that looks like a narrow focus on superhero comics outrage.

    Plus there were nine manga-related links. Paltry, yes. Room for improvement in that area, definitely. Do they cover everything manga-related? No. Is it reasonable to criticize them (“them” being two human beings with limited time and resources) for “ignoring” manga-related posts without actually sending them any links? I’d say no.

    You also mentioned that WFA “ignores” this blog. Do you send Ragnell or Kalinara links to your relevant posts? If you do and they ignore them, then you’ve definitely got something to complain about. But if you don’t, then I don’t think it’s a fair point to bring up, because you can’t expect your posts to just fall into their laps.

    I’d encourage them to find more comics that they could enjoy better, because now, there’s a whole wide world of them out there, but they want to stick to the franchised trademarks they’ve read most of their lives. Ok, their choice.

    That strikes me as an awfully condescending thing to say, especially in light of how much gosh-darn positivity actually is included in each batch of WFA.

  15. Nenena Says:

    Aaaaand I wrote that comment before I saw the most recent WFA post, which includes a ton of manga-related links.

    So yay for responding to criticism and improving?

  16. Johanna Says:

    A couple of clarifications: I wasn’t complaining just that they ignored manga (with its larger female readership) — I was also pointing out that they ignored substantive posts about women and comics that fell outside of the superhero genre while putting up almost content-free links that did touch on superheroes. Not just a genre comparison, but a “they wasted my time on THAT?” comment.

    Also, I don’t submit because, as I said, I’m not part of their audience, so there’s no benefit to me to taking the time to do so (and I risk possible detriment). I mentioned them ignoring this blog to be fair and open about my history with them so I wouldn’t be accused of ax-grinding or hiding a grudge or anything like that. The only change I want them to make is putting up a more accurate mission statement, one that doesn’t perpetuate the error that all there is to comics is superheroes.

    Thanks for doing the rundown — you have more patience than I. :)

    And yes, yay for changing in response to criticism. Has the mission statement been edited yet?

  17. Menshevik Says:

    Johanna,
    looks to me that you are taking a falling-out between two superhero-heavy blogs to go off on a tangent on the evils of focusing on superheroes. From my limited experience (I’ve been reading “Occasional Superheroine” for months but only checked in on “When Fangirls Attack” after Valerie D’Orazio made her dramatic announcement), but I’d say that, okay, you don’t like that WFA reflects the pro-superhero tastes of the women who run it, but that hardly sets that blog apart from the equally superhero-focused OS.

    So the impression I get that the real aim of your intervention in this dispute is to put those two little whippersnappers in their place, not least for ignoring your blog. Having read your account of your history with them and from your beef with the way their blog dares to reflect their personal tastes (which you in my view mislabel as a “political position”), I’d say, well, at least it’s not a hidden grudge. That WFA “ignored” manga and other non-superhero genres is a demonstrably false accusation (vide post #13), even before the “changing in response to criticism”[1], at least if by “ignore” you mean “to disregard deliberately, refuse to consider” (my Webster does not list “happen to be unaware of” as a meaning of the word). All one can say was that their coverage of manga matters was very much less thorough than that of superheroes – but you can’t really expect two people to cover everything either from the printed comics and trade magazines (the costs would be prohibitive) or the comic-related web community (who would have the time even to give everything a cursory glance?). But does an overrepresentation of superhero-related items prove that Ragnell and Kalinara assume that comics = superheroes? It does not. I find nothing wrong with their mission statement – it does not include a set of rules which comics genres are allowed and which are not, it is a statement of intent in which they set themselves a lofty goal. A goal that, given that there is just two of them, is probably impossible to attain, but if they do not propose to exclude matters pertaining to manga, FBOFW, Buffy or whatever, there is no need to change the mission statement, indeed it would be counter-productive as it would discourage people so send WFA links to posts and sites that escaped their attention.
    [Note: I came to this thread thanks to the link in WFA, IIRC this is my first visit to "Comics Worth Reading"].

    [1] I wonder if with this people are not seeing what they want to see, especially considering the way a person’s ego is warmed by someone else seeming to respond positively to their criticism. After all, it could just be a coincidence or be the result of readers bringing stuff to Ragnell’s and Kalinara’s attention.

  18. Johanna Says:

    It’s not “evil” to focus on superheroes. It is a mistake to use the word “comics” when you only or mainly mean “superhero comics”. That’s an error I’ve been fighting since I joined RAC 15 years ago, and it’s disheartening to me to see a younger, passionate generation fall into the same mistake. I’d hope they’d learn from what went before and go on to make their own, new mistakes. :)

    If people want to talk about superhero comics, great, I’m glad they can do that and find others to share their interests with. Just don’t use the term “comics” when you’re only focusing on an (increasingly narrower) subset of the medium.

    Ok, soapbox over. The rest of your assumptions, nope, not my point. I’m sorry that you found my comments misleading. I’m glad you came by, and I hope you’ll poke around a bit.

    One thing this is making clear to me is that I may be a rara avis in attempting to cover superheroes, indy comics, graphic novels, *and* manga. The other sites I can think of tend to focus a bit more (whether explicit about it or not), and maybe that explains our very different perspectives.

  19. Pedro Tejeda Says:

    I can see what you are saying Johanna, since it was mention by several people that if you look at what books were dubbed the best comics of the last 8 years, 3 of them were by female writers.

    There is something about superhero comics as a genre and as a serial narrative and for the most part plot focus that doesn’t attract female writers.

    It feels a bit weird to ignore them, but in WFA’s defense, they are really more about super hero comics than anything else, so it really is kind of where they are gonna mostly write about.

    In regards to the Val thing, I really don’t like how it’s being construed as a personal attack by Ragnell and Kalirina on Val. I find myself split in regards with their opinions on various topics but rarely have they ever made it beyond ideological opinions. I’ve seen Val take someone questioning the shakiness of her thinking and exposing the flaws as someone being a hater of females or a person trying to personally insult her. I could link to some of the stuff on her website that is questionable and really mean, but that appears to be Kevin Huxford’s new obsession. The new moderated comments just kind of support that she’s not okay with any level of criticism regardless if it’s from her fans or her peers.

    I still can’t freaking believe that she used the word “bitch” like that towards Ragnell. It was really mean and totally uncalled for, but in Val’s eyes Ragnell is the vindictive mean one.

  20. Nenena Says:

    Nah, maybe not so rare. I’ve noticed that high-profile bloggers tend to specialize in either superheroes, indies, manga, or whatever… But I think y’all are vastly outnumbered by the mass of largely anonymous fans on livejournal who DO blog about superheroes and indies and manga. Personally, I write about all three – and Indian comics – on my livejournal, as do most of the people on my flist.

    Mmmmm, maybe that has something to do with the high profile blogger vs. anonymous livejournal fangirl split? On a journal that you’re just keeping for fun, you’re free to write about whatever the heck you want, including whatever superhero or indy comic or manga you’re reading at the moment. Most people DO have diverse tastes – I know very few who read exclusively superheroes or exclusively manga. But, on the other hand, people with real “blogs” (as opposed to “journals”) tend to specialize in one subject, i.e., “this is my superhero comics blog” or “this is a blog about manga.”

    Or maybe I’m totally full of bullshit. This is just my impression, and unfortunately, I don’t have nifty numbers to back it up this time. :) Johanna, I agree that you’re perhaps a rarity for covering all those different types of comics, but only within what I will say is the category of “blogs that aren’t hosted on social journaling sites.” The vast majority of the bloggers that I read every day – basically, people on livejournal – have a tendency to blog about comics of every shape and stripe equally.

  21. Johanna Says:

    Pedro, you make good points, and I’m not trying to defend Valerie against all criticism — I disagree with her on several things that it’s not important to get into now — but I do think that moderating comments is a necessary action for ANYone running an active internet site, and it doesn’t mean the moderator can’t take criticism.

    I’ve been running fora since 1992 in one format or another, and without moderation (for behavior, not ideas), I’d be insane and/or long gone. Most people are fine, even when disagreeing — but there’s that 1% that are viciously poisonous, and there’s no need to put up with it.

    Now, some people do go overboard and use it to silence perfectly polite, well-behaved people because they can’t tolerate being disagreed with (ex. Byrne, Ellis), but I don’t know if Valerie is doing that or not. Based on my own experience, I take the complaints of those booted with a big grain of salt — they can’t all have been the perfect little angels they claim to be.

  22. Johanna Says:

    Nenena, thanks for educating me. I’ve never participated in livejournal, so I’m not aware of what goes on over there. That kind of divide makes sense — and it might also be affected by whether people are looking to read things more like articles or more like off-the-cuff diary entries. (That perception is why I’ve stayed away from those areas. I’ve gotten the idea, rightly or wrongly, that those kinds of posts tend to fall in that area.)

  23. caleb Says:

    but I don’t know if Valerie is doing that or not.

    She is.

  24. Johanna Says:

    I knew someone was going to assert that, but I’m not convinced. It may be. It may be that those who say so are bitter for being banned. Personally, I don’t care enough to figure it out for sure, and I’d rather give her the benefit of the doubt, having been in positions similar to that one.

  25. caleb Says:

    Oh, I’m not personally bitter for being banned. It’s not like I needed her comments thread as an outlet to talk about comics at all. If you’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt and me the, um, opposite of that (the defecit of the doubt?) that’s cool, I guess.

  26. Johanna Says:

    Oh, I didn’t realize you were speaking from experience, my apologies. I thought it was another “I know she is ’cause someone else said.” What happened?

  27. caleb Says:

    That’s cool. It’s a long, stupid story, really, and I don’t know if I can find all the links…

    wait…

    Okay, I can’t. Her decision to start moderating came after a series of fights between her and her posters, which often started with people challenging her familiarity with the characters (she misidentified one of DC’s few prominent black superheroes as another of its few prominent black supeheroes in one post, then she misidentified a third in a nother post, then there was an issue regarding whether Fire was a Latina stereotype or not.

    Here’s the misidentifying one: http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/02/three-from-wwii-twelve-2-jsa-12-project.html

    Here’s the follow-up, in which she misidentifies Jakeem Thunder, someone makes a joke about (known jokester Chris Sims) and she creates a skit about it:
    http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/02/extreme-jump-in-logic-of-week.html

    A few days later, poster Kevin Huxford repeats a rumor (not starts one, but repeats a widely circulatd one which you’ve heard yourself. Repeatedly).

    She deletes all his posts and, in part because of that, switches to moderated posts. BUT, she then has a post implying that Huxford might be a crazy stalker type who might try to assassinate Joe Quesda or stab her in San Diego or something:
    http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/03/should-comic-industry-people-be-so-open.html

    In the thread for THAT post, obviously Huxford can’t respond to her saying he’s essentially a dangerous nut job.

    Several of the posters there insult Huxford personally, including some of his known archenemies, one of which is very, very personal in his attacks against Huxford.

    This is after moderating, so D’Orazio read the whole post of insults and slurts against Huxford and re-posted it.

    I and at least one other person who used to work with Huxford tried to post, but ours weren’t put up. Mine was basically just that “Is it cool to disallow Huxford from posting over mentioning the personal life of a creator, but then to post personal insults about him?”

    See, I told you it was a long, stupid story.

    If I’m bitter about anything, it’s that. Can Ragnell get through to defend herself, or take the president of Friends of Lulu to task for saying she was “bitchy?” Can Sims get through to defend himself from posters calling him names? Because Huxford sure couldn’t defend himself, and, by moderating to this extent, it’s not just that posters say things to spite other posters, but now nothing gets through without her approval, making her culpable in all those insults (That is, she’s not just hands-off until it gets crazy serious like, say, Newsarama, but she’s reading them one by one and okaying the insults).

  28. Evie Says:

    I haven’t been part of the online comics community long enough to fairly evaluate any of these personal conflicts, but I do know that I read all of the sites under discussion because I’m a female comics fan who finds something valuable in each of them enough of the time. It’s pretty clear that the number-one criticism against topical bloggers is their inability to take criticism–and whether that’s fair or not in a given circumstance, it creates a circle of accusations that ends who knows where. As long as your content teaches me something or makes me laugh, I’ll come back, even if the day before I thought you were out of your fricking mind.

    Just two not very useful cents from someone who admittedly wrote one of those 36 “squee!” posts, although hopefully with a sentence or two of critical explanation, because I’m just not yet jaded enough. :)

  29. Johanna Says:

    Caleb — yikes. Sorry you went through that. It’s true that if you’re going to moderate, you need to be even-handed about it. If personal attacks aren’t allowed, then that should be true of commenters against commenters (or former) too.

    Although that someone has “known archenemies” in internet discussion makes me giggle.

    Evie, thank you for providing some well-needed balance and enthusiasm.

  30. caleb Says:

    Although that someone has “known archenemies” in internet discussion makes me giggle.

    Just filtering my language through comic book–er, I mean, superhero comics terminology :)

  31. kalinara Says:

    And yes, yay for changing in response to criticism. Has the mission statement been edited yet?

    Nope. We’ve discussed it and right now at least, Ragnell and I are fairly satisfied with the mission statement as is. We do appreciate the input very much, though, even if we don’t always ultimately agree. Thanks! :-)

  32. Pedro Tejeda Says:

    Johanna,

    I think there is a difference from allowing comments to go up and then removing bad ones later on then sitting through and clearing them through one by one.

    I was involved in several conversations about race on her blog where I questioned her opinions. I think at this point I’ve been black listed. I really haven’t tried too hard since then because of the delay those type of blogs have towards conversation. Last week I commented on a mistake Deppey made on TCJ and it was pretty much end of day before it got fixed and my comment got posted.

    I’m just not a fan of treating your entire audience as suspects.

    Either way, this is really besides the point. I just don’t think this break was as personal as it sounds.

    Ragnell has butt heads with Val over stuff previously before, which I would link too, but Val deletes any post that portrays her in a negative light.

  33. Kevin Huxford Says:

    I’m not one to completely dismiss comment moderation. If Valerie doesn’t want my comments there, that is fine. I did take exception to her spinning my deleted comments to sound even worse than they were (only her reaction was left, not my comments) when I tried to clarify that my bringing up the rumor in question was just a poorly chosen joke. In retrospect, I can see there wasn’t much chance of it being taken as anything other than completely negative, but it upset me to not have the opportunity to clarify what I meant. I was just an asshole (a sexist and misogynist one, at that) and banned.

    Still…her house, her rules. Yet, when she decided to make me the potential Mark David Chapman of comic books, she was taking shots at my character that were clearly meant seriously and to insult. And that’s fine. But she let through general insults from some and inarguably libel from others. It’s completely inconsistent with the reasons she gave for banning me.

    Given her history in the past of labeling anyone disagreeing with her as an internet troll that would be better served insulting a creator over at Newsarama (which appeared to be her attempt to throw digs at me before I even approached her board) and close down threads when a few too many of the comments disagreed with her, I’m pretty sure her rationale for going to moderation is transparent.

    I know of at least four people that tried to post a comment to her blog about me being a potentially violent stalker that had it blocked from going through (and the posts weren’t inflammatory, they just questioned the reasoning and the ethics of letting a bashfest go on when I couldn’t respond). I may pick apart many of her actions (like the puff piece she did on Calvin Ayre’s vanity project, when he makes his money off sexploitation), but ALL comments are welcome on my blog.

    Sorry for the lengthy comment, Johanna. It’s just a topic I’m very close to. ;)

  34. Johanna Says:

    If you want to portray yourself as an innocent victim, maybe you shouldn’t be running a hate blog at the same time, Kevin. I can see why you were banned.

  35. Geek Girls Rule! Says:

    Honestly, I quit reading Valerie ages ago after she quoted a line out of one of my columns completely out of context, and refused to back down even when several people (none of them me) took her to task for it.

    I find it very funny that she’s accusing WFA of the very behavior she’s directed at me, and others. But then again, I know well how you hate most in the others the flaws you perceive in yourself.

  36. corey henson Says:

    I can verify everything Caleb and Kevin have said. I’m the former co-worker Caleb mentioned–I tried posting on her blog in defense of Kevin, and called her out for not allowing him to defend himself from all the bashing that was going on in the comments thread. But my comments weren’t allowed.

    I’m not saying Kevin is completely innocent in all this, because he has made a few moves that he probably shouldn’t have, but he’s getting a bit of a raw deal in all of this. It’s ludicrous of D’Orazio to imply that he’s some potentially dangerous nutjob just because of the dust-up with Guggenheim and Slott at Newsarama. Especialy when you consider that Slott has been the one harassing Kevin for weeks. He’s sent multiple emails to Kevin, practically begging him to call him so they can “sort things out.” Between the two of them, I think Kevin’s the more rational. And whatever her feelings toward Kevin are, it’s incredibly unfair that D’Orazio allows anyone and everyone free reign to make insulting, libelous comments about him on her blog, but won’t allow him the chance to defend himself, or anyone else the chance to defend him.

  37. Kevin Huxford Says:

    I don’t really claim to be innocent, Johanna, other than being innocent of being a misogynist. At best, I claim that no one else involved is as innocent as they portend to be.

    Hate blog? Don’t feel that’s even close to being a fair and unbiased assessment. But you’re entitled to your opinion.

    Thanks, again, for allowing my previous comment to be posted (and stay posted) and for your earlier statement:

    If personal attacks aren’t allowed, then that should be true of commenters against commenters (or former) too.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to comment feed.




Categories:

Pages:



Meta:

Most Recent Posts: