And Again on Antonelli

The Antonelli saga continues ...

First, Carrie Cuinn, the Editor-in-Chief of Lakeside Circus, the journal that rescinded their offer to publish Antonelli's story, reported receiving rape and death threats:

Less than 12 hours before today's publishing decision led to getting emailed rape and death threats, because evil SJWs something something.

— Carrie Cuinn (@CarrieCuinn) August 9, 2015

She also reported on August 10th that she has been hounded by an internet hate-mob over the rescission. Apparently, Antonelli had posted an edited version of the letter that she had sent him, and had withheld important information:

When he posted the letter, he didn’t mention I’d sent it before he posted his apology. He removed the line about me hearing the podcast. He also added the name of my magazine, and my title. In short, he shared it, but he shared a version of it, that he’d edited. His post garnered 30+ comments from his fans, saying I was a bitch, a tool of the SJW mob, I was retaliating after the fact (of his apology), I was uneducated and unfit to be an editor (because I’m going back to school). The letter was referenced in other conversations he had online (including at File 770), with similar comments.

At no time did Mr. Antonelli correct anyone, or suggest they stop attacking me, even when some of the comments mentioned looking me up online, researching me, reading my blog, etc.

By later that same day, I was getting emails which contained both the same sort of comments as had been posted online, and threats of physical violence. (I won’t quote them because I’ve spoken to my local police department and the matter is under investigation.) I contacted Mr. Antonelli, told him specifically that I was receiving threats, and asked him to please ask his fans to stop.

To his credit, Antonelli did so on facebook:

Ok, if anyone I know out there is contacting Carrie Cuinn and castigating her for the decision not to publish my story, knock it off. She and Lakeside Circus have their right to free expression, also. Lambasting her is certainly not helping things.

People have, understandably, criticized this for the opening sentence which may be taken to imply that he is doubting what Cuinn is reporting. However, I think that is incorrect; I believe he is qualifying the statement believing that anyone he knows would not do such a thing. His use of the words "castigating" and "lambasting" does, however, downplay the threats she received.

He then followed this with a longer apology:

I want to make it clear than when I posted about Carrie Cuinn and Lakeside Circus' decision taking back their decision to publish a story of mine, I meant it as a cautionary tale - don't be a jackass like I was, because there are repercussions. Experience is a hard teacher. I don't begrudge the decision at all. I apologized to David Gerrold because I realized I did something stupid and I made a mistake. But I didn't think I made a mistake in revealing Cuinn's decision. Fact was. I thought people would commend her for it, and I thought there would be some people who would like to give her credit for it.

Now she says she's gotten threats over the revelation. That's not why I posted it! So I'm sorry again, in this case, because it never occurred to me her action would be seen negatively.

She said on her blog:

"He dragged me up in front of his fans and made a target of me. He knew people were defensive and angry on his behalf, and he gave them me as a target. Doing that, he took away my safety, too." I had no such intention. I mean, I hope I don't have any fans who would do such a thing. They're certainly no friends of mine. As for knowing people were defensive and angry on my behalf - I don't know if she had access to my subconscious, but I certainly didn't know that. I've been feeling pretty stupid and lonely myself. I don't have any followers in science fiction. A few friends, a few fans - certainly no followers. I literally don't know anyone who would do anything I would tell them to do. I've asked for advice, I've asked for help, but I've never given anybody any orders. If anyone has attacked Cuinn, I'm sorry if I gave them the idea. That didn't even occur to me. I thought people would applaud her action. I really regret what I did in relation to Dave Gerrold and the convention, and I completely understand what Cuinn did. Another whack from the fraternity paddle to keep me straight.

That's it. I don't know what else to say. Except I intend to say a lot less in the future. I'm sorry, Carrie, if that happened because of me, it didn't even occur to me.

For what it is worth, I think Antonelli is being honest here and I think his apology is a pretty decent one.

Second, the person (named Aaron Pound) that Antonelli tried to have fired updated his blog post on August 11th with new information about the encounter.

The entire text of his e-mail was as follows:

Geez, you're a LAWYER for the GOVERNMENT and you call me an ASSHOLE? I have a news bulletin for you, 98 percent of average Americans would say you're an asshole "prima facie".

My parents immigrated from Europe in the wake of the devastation of World War II. They didn't speak English. I was the first member of my family to be a U.S. citizen, complete a public school education, and attend college. I've had to work hard all my life, and I certainly never had a job with the government. I've been treated like trash by privileged Americans like you all my life.

I'll be in D.C. later this week, I have family members who live in Great Falls. I'll stop by the GSA and drop off copies of your Twitter insult. I think people need to know what kind of person you are. As a taxpayer, I resent having my pocket picked for your benefit.

and later:

I'll also note that this was his first communication to me following my single tweet. He escalated from "someone called me an asshole on social media" to "I'll try to get them into trouble at their workplace" right off the bat. Antonelli isn't someone who responded in a measured manner and slowly rose to this kind of threat. No, he's the sort of person who's first reaction is to threaten to do this sort of thing. Anyone who wants to see Antonelli admitting to doing this and issuing some rather inane self-serving justifications can read this comment thread from File770.

One might note that in the linked comment thread, Antonelli announces that far from dropping the matter because everyone other than him reacted like he had gone way overboard, he had decided to wait until closer to the 2016 political campaigns, because he wanted to get his representative to engage in a Congressional investigation into the matter. One might also note that for someone who claims to be libertarian in sentiment, he's pretty quick to run to the authorities over trivialities. Like most internet libertarians, he's a closet authoritarian at heart and a fan of jackbooted thugs so long as they are his jackbooted thugs. Just to be clear here: I called him an asshole on Twitter, he then confirmed my assessment with his behavior, and he thinks that this deserves to be investigated by Congress. Let that sink in before reading further.

I think it is fair to say that this does not make Antonelli look good. In fact, it makes him look like an asshole. I am not sure, however, that I can agree fully with Pound's conclusion:

Don't think for a second that the effect of Antonelli's actions is unintentional: He is a bully who has repeatedly attempted to intimidate and threaten others because they did things he did not like. He only backed off his threats against me when it became clear they were not going to work. He only apologized to Gerrold when it became clear that he was facing widespread criticism for his actions. He only told his fans to stop harassing Cuinn when it became clear that their attacks on her would harm his image. There's nothing surprising about his behavior: Antonelli threatens and blusters until it becomes clear it isn't going to work, then he moves on to a different target to start again. And the larger point is that Antonelli is just acting in the same manner as most of the other Sad Puppy authors, flying off the handle in vicious outrage at imagined provocations. Antonelli's lying, his underhanded tactics, and his attempts to smear others are all simply par for the course for the Sad Puppy leaders. He's not a terrible author - his work is merely mediocre - but like so many of the authors connected with the Sad Puppies, his actions over the course of 2015 have proved that he is someone that is probably too dangerous to try to work with.

Except maybe the last part ... Antonelli is probably too dangerous to work with.

Third, I came across Jim Hines's March 6th 2012 post about Antonelli's behavior when running for VP of the SFWA.

While I was leaning toward voting for Swirsky already, what solidified my decision tonight was an exchange in Antonelli’s blog where he had posted his platform. Author Nisi Shawl expressed being offended by his use of the phrase “Canine-Americans” to describe his dogs. Antonelli responded by calling her concerns esoteric, politically correct bullshit, and saying she takes herself way too seriously.

I’m not posting this with the intention of dropping the internet on Antonelli’s blog. But … well, I guess I take stuff way too seriously too.

To start with, I get really sick of white folks lecturing people of color on what they should and shouldn’t take offense to when it comes to issues of race and ethnicity. If you don’t get it, that’s one thing. I don’t believe there’s any shame in saying “I don’t understand.”

But this is a condescending, insulting, and flat-out shitty way to respond when someone calls you on something.

I get that it’s hard. I’ve been called out on stuff before too. Sometimes I’ve agreed, sometimes I haven’t understood, and sometimes I’ve thought about it and decided I didn’t agree. None of those responses require you to disrespect or insult the other person.

More to the point, whether you agree with someone or not, this is an utterly unacceptable way for a potential officer in an organization to respond to the concerns of a member.

Nisi Shawl's statement, Antonelli's response and non-apology, can all be found in the comments following the announcement of Antonelli's candidature. Once again, this reflects very poorly on Antonelli.

Fourth, Natalie Luhrs weighed in on August 10th with a more in-depth summary of Antonelli's past behavior. Most of what Luhrs reports on has been covered elsewhere and so there is no need to repeat it. One interesting tidbit, as much for what it revelas about the minds of Antonelli's detractors as for what it reveals about Antonelli, is this lengthy excerpt from an email to Luhrs about interactions at Armadillocon:

A man I’d never seen before walks up to Antonelli and congratulates him on his nomination. This guy wasn’t very tall, maybe 5’9″ tops, but he had one of those big booming Texas male voices that fills a room. It was impossible not to hear him, and honestly, he didn’t care who in the room did hear. He wasn’t hiding anything.

And he starts talking to Antonelli about how well this year’s puppy campaign turned out, and how plans were well underway for next year. Strange puppy did most of the talking, but Antonelli wasn’t arguing with him or trying to send him away. There was an obligatory slam against the SJW scum getting their comeuppance, and someone arrived to have Antonelli sign something. Strange puppy wandered away.

[…]

Fast forward to the Hugo panel on Saturday night and a packed room. Panelists were Antonelli, mod Michelle Munzler, editor Jacob Weisman, Justin Landon, and Marguerite Reed. The mod deserves a medal for keeping things as civil as they were.

So Antonelli is outnumbered and he knows it. He plays the humble card, the “I didn’t know what the puppies were up to” card, the yeah, maybe I got the nomination the wrong way but I wasn’t going to turn it down card. Because of the conversation I’d heard–steam was coming out of my ears. I knew he was lying through his teeth.

Marguerite Reed doesn’t pull any punches. She let him do the humble bit for a few minutes and asked him flat out, if he’d said the following: “In a time when typical literary s-f is dystopian slipstream pornography, it’s nice to be reminded that there is still core s-f out there.”

And Antonelli’s face…changed. The kindly, slightly embarrassed grandfather vanished, replaced by this calculating, sly…evil looking man. He looked Marguerite Reed in the eye and said “A man’s entitled to his opinion.”

For me that was really chilling and an eye opener. In that split second it was very clear he hated her, hated me, you–all of us. He didn’t have to know us, or to have read a single thing any of us had written. To Lou Antonelli we are all part of some vast conspiracy that keeps men like him, men who write real SF, from getting the acclaim he feels they so justly deserve. He hated us solely because we existed, and we dare to think ourselves his equal.

If I had any doubts that what I’d felt then was a misinterpretation, this blog post he wrote three days ago put them to rest.

You can’t reason with that kind of unthinking, blind hatred. You can’t change their minds, or try to be friends with any of the puppies, because for them–not you, them–it’s an all or nothing proposition. It’s not a difference of opinion, or taste in choosing what to read or nominate for an award, it’s ideology. The only thing that would EVER be good enough for them would be for you become a true believer.

Then they’d find a way to beat you up over it, because […] was right. They are abusers and they glory in it.

I don't think this report reflects badly on Antonelli at all. He did not explicitly disagree with the man who approached him to congratulate the puppies? So what. Why should he have? He does not seem to have expressed agreement, either. Instead, he seems to have acted solely to ensure a pleasant interaction with the fan. I won't judge him for that.

And as for his comments on the panel, I agree that he is entitled to his opinion. You don't have to be a card carrying puppy to agree with some of their stated opinions. I frankly doubt Antonelli, or most anyone else associated with the puppies, expected things to turn out as they did. And as for the writers impression that Antonelli let his mask slip and out peeked a "sly, evil looking man", I think they were seeing what they wanted to see.

So what are we to make of all this?  Antonelli is clearly a troubled individual with a filthy temper. At best, we can say that he is prone to act rashly and often displays poor judgment. I believe he clearly did try to get Aaron Pound in trouble, and he should be condemned for that. As for the rest, I think he mostly showed bad judgment and perhaps also some callous disregard for the effects his statements may have on people. But I think at the core he is truly sorry for some of the things that his actions have wrought. I hope for reconciliation at some point in the future.