Scott Lynch and Elizabeth Bear Accused by Alexandra Rowland

[JGP]

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

On the success and power of Scott Lynch: he might not be GRRM or JK Rowling but he's pretty definitely one of the most successful and visible authors of the last two decades in SFF. What that amounts to in actual power I don't know but it's definitely more power than, say, Alexandra Rowland. 

Just making an general observation here, but in my view in regard to these kinds of situations-- a gaging of actual power isn't relevant. If a person who felt victimized by an interaction believed their abuser had power over them, their abuser had power over them-- whether it was tangible in reality or no. Perception is largely an unconscious background present within [behind?] most interpersonal dynamics, but in cases like this it's king. 

[Little Valkyrie]

10 hours ago, polishgenius said:

This BS rehab thing is gonna get messy because on the one hand, even if every single thing said about her was true, BS was herself treated fairly abominably in the doxxing and the racist nonsense about how even BS might not be her real identity because she rights English too well, so it's fairly easy to conflate that with how much of her defense is lies. And additionally it's obviously coming up because a lot of people in SFF clearly have problems with Bear, some fair (she's clearly at the very least a prickly persona and has made mistakes in the past) some maybe maybe not, and are using the chance that she might have treated BS unfairly to distract from the fact that there's no evidence so far to support Rowland's accusation that this was a pattern for them rather than one bad relationship.

 

FWIW, there was also some speculation about the BS identity that was based on the whole "Requires Hate/Winterfox was an enormous dick to everyone, this Bee person is sweet and lovable!"  And she was quite good at playing the naif--she wrote a review of Kameron Hurley's Mirror Empire that included the line "And also my introduction to epic fantasy, which I usually don’t read – so while it took some acclimating at first to get used to the multiple points of view and many, many different cultures, the end result was thoroughly rewarding." which was, of course, a straight-up lie.  The personae were so different Ann Leckie scolded people who thought they might be the same: "spreading this rumor is hateful and hurtful, and I'm seriously unhappy about it. ... Not to mention their personalities.  That must be one heck of an acting job, on top of short story after short story in a completely different style from RH's."  (From a deleted LJ, but I have a pic of it, because my jaw hit the floor.)

[Andrew Gilfellon]

Slightly off topic. So Elizabeth Bear and Scott are married? According to that AH snippet I've just read where Bear hipchecked someone. 

I knew that Sam Sykes was the son of the Outlander author. 

But maybe this is what is stopping Scott Lynch from finishing his books? 

[The hairy bear]

19 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

If a person who felt victimized by an interaction believed their abuser had power over them, their abuser had power over them-- This whether it was tangible in reality or no.

That's true. It is, in fact, the same that Varys told us in his parable about the sellsword who was being told by a king, a septon and a rich man to kill the other two. As he says, "power lies where we think it lies."

That said, in order to call anyone "an abuser" we should have something "tangible in reality". There must be the option of evaluating it from an independent perspective. It can't be all in the eye of the beholder, or the word loses all its meaning.

[JGP]

Of course. In this case I was using the words to dileneate by context.

Personally, there's a difference between harm and abuse in general. In particular, those distinctions get muddy regarding sexual transgressions.

[williamjm]

7 hours ago, Andrew Gilfellon said:

Slightly off topic. So Elizabeth Bear and Scott are married? According to that AH snippet I've just read where Bear hipchecked someone. 

But maybe this is what is stopping Scott Lynch from finishing his books? 

Yes, they've been married a few years. In the post that started this whole mess Rowland mentioned helping organise their wedding in 2016.

Lynch's slow pace of writing goes back well over a decade. I'm not sure when his relationship with Bear started. Back in the mists of time when he was posting on here he was married to someone else (who also posted on here a bit), that was probably between the time of the first two books being released.

[Werthead]

37 minutes ago, williamjm said:

Yes, they've been married a few years. In the post that started this whole mess Rowland mentioned helping organise their wedding in 2016.

Lynch's slow pace of writing goes back well over a decade. I'm not sure when his relationship with Bear started. Back in the mists of time when he was posting on here he was married to someone else (who also posted on here a bit), that was probably between the time of the first two books being released.

Yup. Scott was married to someone else c. 2007, then went through a divorce and a major family bereavement simultaneously, which he has credited with starting a massive bout of depression and mental health issues which continue to this day, although things have apparently been better for the last few years.

[skyh]

On 6/30/2020 at 4:04 PM, Werthead said:

Of course, at the exact same time I was typing that, another story related to the matter broke on Twitter. Sigh.

This person has just admitted to being a sock-puppet - which pretty much guarantees that the story is a malicious lie.

[skyh]

On 6/30/2020 at 6:57 PM, Little Valkyrie said:

From a Twitter account with two posts ever made, and now a statement from Bear:

https://twitter.com/matociquala/status/1278113411914772481

 

If you're wondering why RH is back in the fray, she took advantage of Ann Aguirre's post naming names to forward her own "I was done wrong by the reports about me, full of lies" go at rehabilitation:

https://twitter.com/hatchmel/status/1277926903609880581

Link has a picture.

There were 2 accounts involved. One (@godfreywemmick)made the accusation, while @sashimiblue retweeted. Both accounts had (at the time), follower and following counts of 0; @sashimiblue has no tweets on any topic beside the "hip-check story, and no likes; @godfreywemmick had 1 other tweet and no likes.

@sashimiblue has since admitted that they're a sockpuppet, claiming they'd never concealed that fact:

 They also made a point of volunteering that they were a critic of Benjanun Sriduangkaew - which was odd, as she had appeared in the thread only obliquely, in reference to Karynthia.

The evidence strongly suggests that the story is fake, and that both @sashimiblue and @godfreywemmick are sockpuppets, very possibly owned by the same person. Whether RequiresHate or one of her minions is behind those accounts, I don't know - but it's certainly plausible based on her actions (and those of her followers) at the time.

[Kalbear]

I am amused that sockpuppetry is being leveled as an accusation by a poster with all of two posts, both in this thread, and only about this topic. 

But I'm sure that is coincidence.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I am amused that sockpuppetry is being leveled as an accusation by a poster with all of two posts, both in this thread, and only about this topic. 

But I'm sure that is coincidence.

I had the same thought, but for what it it is worth their twitter account is clear from the post, they have a thousand odd tweets mostly about topics of liberal/progressive interest. Still anonymous, but substantially less so than the apparent sock puppets who Bear believes were incited by RH.

I also have to say that we come up pretty high on Google for searches on the subject, so if someone felt they had relevant information and wanted to find a place where there was a reasonable amount of discussion, we'd be one of the places they'd go. 

[Kalbear]

Both are being used essentially for the same thing, however - to anonymously attack another person either on behalf of an aggrieved party or as an aggrieved party. Realistically there's no real difference. And creating an alt account on twitter to state things is not quite the same thing as sockpuppetry, in that there's no specific goal to look like there's a lot of agreement or whatnot. 

It's disingenuous, and the whole thing is deeply stupid, but I don't think it's particularly more credible one way or another.

[Ran]

Is it an attack to point out that one of the accounts has literally said they are a sock puppet, when it was merely speculated before? I did not know about this until it was noted here.

Said sock puppet also made it pretty clear they existed to "signal boost" claims against Bear and Lynch, presumably because they didn't want to involve a more public account.

Sky may be doing this as a friend of Bear or Lynch, or a fan, or as an enemy of BS, or any number of other things, I don't know. Entirely possible. But they're not a sock puppet as I understand the term.

 

 

[Kalbear]

As I understand the term neither are, because neither are the people in question using another account to look like 'someone else' is chiming in. Both are basically just anonymous cowards. 

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As I understand the term neither are, because neither are the people in question using another account to look like 'someone else' is chiming in.

'The use of the term has expanded to now include other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend, or support a person or organization" Seems to be converging a bit as a non-political form of astroturfing.

The admitted sock puppet is definitely a sock puppet under this definition, in any case. since they exist explicitly to amplify allegations against Lynch and Bear, and did so in part by amplifying another likely sock puppet.

Sky included their twitter handle, which was created long before this came out, much less long before Rowland, Lynch, and Bear had any connection, near as I can tell, and they post about other things than just this matter.

Quote

Both are basically just anonymous cowards. 

Says the anonymous coward? From the perspective of most outsiders, at first glance you're just as pseudonymous. Me too, for that matter.

 

 

[Kalbear]

 

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

'The use of the term has expanded to now include other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend, or support a person or organization" Seems to be converging a bit as a non-political form of astroturfing.

The admitted sock puppet is definitely a sock puppet under this definition, in any case. since they exist explicitly to amplify allegations against Lynch and Bear, and did so in part by amplifying another likely sock puppet.

Sky included their twitter handle, which was created long before this came out, much less long before Rowland, Lynch, and Bear had any connection, near as I can tell, and they post about other things than just this matter.

Fair enough - apparently I'm old school on what it means. 

For the purposes of this forum, however, it seems like it's right on the money for both people - an account specifically created to praise or defend someone, no? 

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Says the anonymous coward? From the perspective of most outsiders, at first glance you're just as pseudonymous. Me too, for that matter.

I guess? I'd probably be more pseudonymous as I understand it, and I'm linked enough that it's not particularly hard to find my actual name as a couple of  stalkers reminded me. And my twitter certainly isn't. 

I will say that at this point I'm pretty disgusted with all of the people involved, and as far as I'm concerned they're all losers. Randos from the internet coming to praise or denigrate them aren't really changing that view for me one way or another. It all sucks. 

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

For the purposes of this forum, however, it seems like it's right on the money for both people - an account specifically created to praise or defend someone, no? 

Sky here is Sky on Twitter. They didn't come into existence on Twitter to talk about the issue there, and they made explicit the connection when they came to share the info here.

I don't know, sock puppetry has to include some effort to hide something, and this person didn't whereas the sock puppet did until they were called out.

 

[skyh]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I am amused that sockpuppetry is being leveled as an accusation by a poster with all of two posts, both in this thread, and only about this topic. 

But I'm sure that is coincidence.

I've lurked in this forum on various occasions, mostly for the political threads (I'm morbidly fascinated by the excesses of Requires Hate and her ilk). I wound up here again by googling "Bear Rowland", and figured (based on past threads I've read here) that this forum would provide a balanced discussion of the issue.

If you feel that having only 2 posts disqualifies the information I provided, that's your prerogative. However I have plenty of history on Twitter, on a variety of issues (as another poster pointed out), so while I'm new to posting here, a reasonable person could conclude that I'm not a front for Bear, Lynch or one of their friends.

Irrespective, the information I provided is independent of what you choose to believe about my "real" identity. Unlike the Twitter "hip-check" story, which is unverifiable; sourced only by an account with no identifiable history anywhere, and boosted by an admitted sockpuppet.

[skyh]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Both are being used essentially for the same thing, however - to anonymously attack another person ...

Just as you are anonymously attacking my credibility. You're criticizing me for doing exactly what you've just done. 

Note: I have no issue with anonymity. Given the well-known vindictiveness of several people cited in this controversy, and the enormous financial resources available to one of them, I believe anonymity is necessary for self-protection. On Twitter, I also need anonymity as I want the freedom to express myself political without having to worry about alienating potential clients or employers.

The difference between my actions, and those of Bear's anonymous attackers, is that my claim is verifiable (by examining their Twitter profiles), whereas theirs is not. I've made no comment on their moral character, simply pointed out that their lack of any other history damages the credibility of the story.

[skyh]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

... they have a thousand odd tweets mostly about topics of liberal/progressive interest. 

 

A thousand? I had no idea it was that many - that's really disturbing! Clearly, I need to spend less time online.

PS: Thanks for defending me.