So, I had the opportunity to read earlier drafts of this while Simon was working it out. I don't think I gave any particularly useful notes or advice, but I've had time to mull over the topic, thus I walk in ready to drop...
THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT THE TRIBE.
Humans have had ways of dealing with the disruptive, and the malcontent, ranging from shunning to expulsion, incarceration and beyond.
If there's a good thing going on and there's a cancer trying to take root, slice it out. Perhaps with regret, but with determination. Preserve the healthy tissue and grow stronger.
Otherwise, this essay once again brushes up on the "art vs artist" debate which hasn't quite (yet) been the main thesis for one of these newsletters. Others' opinions may vary, but I long ago reached my conclusion, which is I cab quite easily seperate both.
In the case of an artist still living and in copyright, once said artist's problematic ways come to light I can choose to no longer purchase new (or unowned) works by that creator, but I'm not going to throw away works I already own, or choose not to enjoy the creation.
Instead I merely mourn that Orson Scott Card, Larry Niven, JK Rowling, et.al. fail to live up to the standards set by their own protagonists. In the case of Card, Niven and Rowling I can hope they take the lessons of their own art and cease doing harm, while enjoying what I own and have read, while not purchasing more from them.
Sadly, in some cases, the creator's problems are what lead to the creation of the art. H.P. Lovecraft was a horrible racist. His fear of, and inability to come to terms with *the different* drives the entire Cthulhu mythos - a bleak, uncaring universe with soul shattering creatures who aren't evil or malevolent, but *indifferent.* Even Tolkien's sagas. Yeah, he built his dwarfs off stereotypes of Jews - but if one has read the creation myths in the Silmarrillion, it's pretty damn obvious he just wrapped Dante up in a new T-shirt and his own Catholicism is on every page. Yet these author's biases and fears are what inform their work and make them great. These biases may not even be immediately apparent to a modern reader (OK, Lovecraft's racism is obvious).
That's how I've reconciled things. Other's mileage may vary.
Although in the case of Rowling, well, I never bought the books. Guess she got a few cents from my movie tickets. Harry Potter was a book franchise I borrowed and was moderately entertained by, and a film series I saw as I dated (and later married one of) a string of women who were great fans.
But I digress.
Key points. If I'm around someone toxic, I'll try to see if I can educate and correct. If that fails, I don't need them in my life. If I appreciate a creative work and later discover the creator is slime, I still can enjoy the art, but will no longer do anything to reward the creator.
I probably missed something: Rowling I know about, and I've heard of the controversy with Card, but what happened with Larry Niven? I've only read Footfall and Lucifer's Hammer, but I did like those, and so I'm interested, y'see.
Niven came up with the idea to spread rumors ICE was arresting illegal immigrants at hospitals back around 2010/11 ish so Mexicans wouldn't seek health care. It was a "solution" to hospital crowding.
I love Niven's writing, and Lucifer's Hammer and Footfall are great books, but if you read your Niven (and Pournelle) carefully you'll see a lot of right wing ideas - he's into alpha males having lots of young women, and has the hard-core libertarian ideas only trust fund babies (Tucker Carlson, anyone) espouse.
I think it's Oath of Fealty which has the Arcology corporation only buying companies where they can legally cut pensions to nothing - and that's the "heroes."
Oh boy, yes, the "ethical purity" thing. Sigh. I guess the narrative that Substack equals Nazis is not going to go away, and it's probably only a matter of time before the next s**tstorm around it. I post versions of some of my stories on social media, so I get a fair bit of "ugh, SUBSTACK" when I do (and I've recently had a couple of paid subscriber cancellations over it).
The last comment I got was:
"This is a fantastic thread and I am very tempted to subscribe but - have you considered moving away from substack? The latest news has me very not interested in supporting that platform. I have no idea how difficult that would be for you"
This was my reply at the time:
>>"Thank you! Appreciate you saying this - I've had other folk "suggesting" the same thing, nowhere near as politely. 😄
>>It's tricky, yes: there are science comms I really admire on the platform, & others that have left because of past controversies & some truly awful people with publications there...
>>As for myself, I'm not yet ready to make the decision to make the leap elsewhere, which I'd hopefully do also for practical reasons (better functionality elsewhere) - but I respect the folk in science (some who are friends) who consider the whole platform a total no-no and act accordingly.
>>The other thing about sticking around on a platform with anti-science (and anti-democratic) voices so active on it is you can push back against them from within that system. There are folk on Substack with big followings doing that and I respect it very much. (I'm not really one - I'm small-scale.)
>>All this said - if anyone wanted to subscribe and read my newsletter totally for free, and never commit to giving me a single penny until I was elsewhere, I can respect that too. 😁"
I'm still not sure there is any "right answer" to all of this, and I don't have much patience with the extremely self-righteous yelling at Substack writers that they're endorsing Nazis by staying on Substack. Anyone claiming obviously complicated things are that simple and displaying such a lack of empathy has more problems than yelling at random strangers.
I appreciate how Mike Miller brought up Orson Scott Card in another comment, because that's such a great example of an author whose work I still respect even though I find his personal religious beliefs absolutely unpalatable. But generally, it's so hard to separate the creator from their work! I mean, I still love the first Avengers film on every level and I still love Firefly, and - they're both Joss Whedon. And for a more British example, I recently enjoyed watching the first few seasons of Coast, even though Neil Oliver has now turned into a conspiracy-trumpeting twit on GB News...
One example in fsf: I never really liked the work of David Eddings ("The Belgariad") despite multiple attempts at reading his fantasy trilogies - but I do wonder how it must affect his actual fans, which still number in the millions, when they learn he was a convicted child abuser. From Wikipedia:
"Eddings and his wife Leigh pled guilty to 11 counts of physical child abuse of their adopted children. They adopted one boy in 1966, Scott David, then two months old; subsequently, the couple adopted a girl between 1966 and 1969. In 1970, the couple lost custody of both children and were each sentenced to a year in jail in separate trials for extensive child abuse of both children. Though the trial and conviction of both David and Leigh Eddings was reported in the local press, the news was not widely disseminated, as Eddings was an obscure academic at the time. The conviction was consequently not remarked on after Eddings became a well-known author over a decade later; it was not widely publicly revealed until after his death."
Also, re Gaiman - did you see the allegations that he cribbed much of The Sandman from the hugely-underappreciated Tanith Lee? https://dmrbooks.com/test-blog/2025/3/2/neil-gaiman-vs-tanith-lee-when-the-sandman-robbed-the-empress-of-dreams In my case, I recently had a go at reading American Gods, after the allegations came out, and the story came across as so nasty and cruel that I couldn't continue. Maybe that was influenced of what I now know about its author?
So - I reckon it's a personal choice, and always a fiendishly complicated one. Chasing purity is foolish at best, malicious hypocrisy at worst.
Orson Scott Card is kinda where I had to solidify my art vs artists views when the Ender's Game movie came out (BTW, Card sold the film rights long ago on a cash only deal so he makes nothing from it).
At the time it was, "Shame Orson doesn't live up to Ender."
Ender's such a great character, and part of that is his going out of his way to respect everyone - as in his whispered "salaam" to Alai. Ender remains such throughout his books.
Then we get to the Bean saga - which I do like - but one can see how Card's grown more closed as he aged. Suddenly Bean is saying, "Islam isn't a real religion," and Petra has become, "my entire purpose for being is to make babies." Um, huh?
"American Gods" is a quite nasty story, but I think that's the point. Mythology as presented to us (along with fairy tales) has been cleaned up and sanitized greatly, and the nasty aspects largely removed - as an example the internet is full of jokes about Zeus being an unfaithful husband, without commenting on how Zeus's infidelities are also sexual assaults. Gaiman returned these Gods to older, more primal tellings and contrasted it against the nastiness of modern life.
Sigh. Even J Michael Straczynski has a nasty side. Never point out B5 fan animations to him or he'll run off to WB legal and badger for a takedown order.
Nods. The other thing is that many of those purists who say "get off of Substack!" are Ghost evangelists. But...Ghost has quiet financing issues of its own (very well hidden, however), and the big deal...unless you're made of money, you can't afford to go free on Ghost due to the fact that it has no free tier for creators. I don't monetize because I don't want to deal with Stripe (which has its own issues, and is Ghost's preferred financial provider).
Me? I offer three alternatives to Substack when I post links. I've not seen any activity on any of those alternatives. *Everything* goes on my website first, so that I can establish provenance and ownership--a habit I picked up years ago over issues with Facebook trying to claim copyright of things published there first. Then Ko-fi and Dreamwidth, and finally, Substack.
None of the purists follow through. I've directly confronted them about the lack of following when I left Substack for ten months. I lost subscribers during that era, and am only now getting back to that level. Since they won't follow through, I am at the point where I issue a hearty "f-you" to them, then block.
Armchair purists put a lot of time and effort into writing objections and signing petitions; less time into actual actions. I mean, I've been guilty of this over the years as well - I was a very annoying Twitter Activist back in the early days.
When I have no time for it is when the important thing seems to be to bully the writer (or the readers of that writer), rather than to support them if they do decide to move. Once the bullying is successful, the complainants move on to their next target. As seems to have been the case with your experience.
Performative.
Which isn't to deny that there are significant issues with Substack. But I think we're hard pressed to find a platform that isn't compromised in some way. Even the devices we're using to ACCESS the services are compromised. It's why the purity test, zero sum approach doesn't really get you anywhere - other than diminishing your own voice.
The best solution, I suppose, is to roll your own site, stay open source, and steer clear of larger companies. The problem there being that literally nobody will ever see your work - which, again, results in a diminishing of a group of voices.
I don't know much about the cartoon, but TFNation does sound fun. I'm almost afraid to ask what the general consensus was, if any, regarding the Michael Bay movies? (I only saw one, and parts of another.)
Because the TF fanbase spreads across so many decades, you actually get quite a cross-section. Some adults there were kids when the Michael Bay movies started coming out, and that is THEIR Transformers. A bit like how the Star Wars prequels are the main event for people of a certain age.
For the record, I thought the first Bay TF film was OK. Great soundtrack, a leap forward in visual effects and it's quite fun. I was excited for the sequels, as I thought they had an opportunity to fix all the bad bits and keep all the good bits, and end up somewhere quite special. Instead, they get rid of all the good bits, and it got worse from there. :(
TF the cartoon... Hmmmm. A few good episodes, but a LOT of cheese. My last re-watch with a buddy (who'd bought the 20th anniversary collection) we did laugh at how everyone who got shot was shot in the ass. My spot. "Ow, my rear axle!" "Ow, my afterburner!" That cheese factor is part of why the 1986 film (which I unironically recommend) hit so hard. From cheese to absolute carnage.
The Bay movies... The first, as Simon said (heh) is pretty good, with only a few dire scenes. The second movie suffered from a writer's strike and literally being shot with no script. The worst continuity thing - something that actually pisses me off - is the constant references to the "Arcee twins..." because there are THREE of them. That's just slop.
From there they get worse until the "Bumblebee" prequel when the new writer and director remember a movie actually needs likable characters. Doesn't hurt Hailee Steinfeld is a gifted actress.
But, again, as Simon said (heh), there's a generation of fans who discovered the franchise through the Bay movies. If they enjoyed them, I won't tell 'em they're wrong. They're just movies.
Yeah, Bumblebee was great fun and quite touching. Not surprising given the director’s track record. I actually thought Rise of the Beasts was decent entertainment, too, even if it was trying to be all things to all people.
Have you seen Transformers One yet, Mike? I also unironically recommend that one, even to people who have no interest in Transformers (e.g. my wife). It’s a solid character two-hander with stunning visuals and score, and an on-point script. It miiiiiight (whisper it) be my favourite, over the 86 movie (but don’t tell anyone).
Came for the TFN coverage, stayed for the astute sociological commentary.
I was at TFN as well and can corroborate that "joy" is the word everyone, including myself, has used to describe the weekend. Glad you had a great time!
Of note: in the bar, my friends and I got chatting to another group, including one guy who was clearly out of his comfort zone. He loved Transformers, but seeing such a broad and welcome LGBTQ+ contingent was blowing his mind and he was surprised at how "woke" it was. We didn't chat to him for long, but I hope he had a good time and that's helping him to reconsider his stance on things.
Interesting. I can imagine it is a surprise, especially for a franchise that started life as a toy commercial specifically for young boys, and then was defined in the 2000s by the lecherous Michael Bay films.
I was surprised (in a pleasant way) by the prominent LGBTQ+ crowd. I then wondered whether the inherent draws of the TF fiction is part of that. There are thematic elements within TF fiction that could very easily be metaphorically powerful there, in ways I hadn't considered.
Simon, I don't remember if I told you about the Transformer comic Kickstarter, or if you told me about it, but I do remember doing a "per issue" breakdown of the cost and saying, "That's quite reasonable for a collected hardcover."
I didn't bite.
But I'm glad you did.
I'm a bit older, so, while I watched G1 Transformers, and have a great love for the 1986 movie (an unused section of the soundtrack - a variation on Unicron's Theme - has been my default ringtone for over a decade), it's not that *formative* thing for me.
For you it is, and that makes it *important.* Re-reading those comics will be a nostalgia shot, right in the hippocampus.
And, of course, it's something you can share with your son. I hope the stories hold up for you in the, "Yeah, this is good stuff," way and not a "WHY in the HELL did I LIKE this SHIT?" disappointment.
I glimpsed a preview copy of the TF Kickstarter print edition at TFNation, and it's quite an exciting and ludicrously thick thing. I didn't actually know books could be printed that were that thick!
My son's seen a few bit and bobs of the UK comic (courtesy of some of the Titan Books collections, and the aforementioned bootleg), but is REALLY looking forward to checking them all out properly.
The quality will be all over the shop, I'm sure. There were artists I adored (Senior, Wildman) and some I really didn't care for. Similarly, any time it wasn't Furman writing it tended to not click with me as much. Budiansky contributed a huge amount to the overall TF story and wrote some excellent stuff, but it often felt more overtly driven by the toy releases. Furman had a knack for picking out weird characters that nobody cared about, and then he made you care.
It's the same with the G1 cartoon - its quality is all over the damn place and there's a lot of really quite bad TV in there. But when it gets it together, it's classic kids' TV and you can see why it imprinted on our brains.
The movie, obviously, is on a different level altogether (which is alsow weird).
You'll have to take a picture of the collection when you get it to see the scale. Single volume? I thought - if I remember the Kickstarter correctly - it was to be split in two.
The movie... Comes from the most utterly cynical motivation possible, but the writers and cast took the assignment seriously (not to mention Vince DiCola!), and put together a truly solid movie, almost in spite of themselves.
Except I wanna time travel back and fix the ending so Rodimus Prime is set up correctly. Rodimus needs two minutes to fight through Unicron, gather the troops, get to the core and unleash the Matrix directly into Unicron's brain, just so we get to actually see him be a warrior leader. Kup's seal of approval isn't enough to sell it.
Rodimus needed his equivalent of Prime's amazing gauntlet during the Autobot city battle. Hell, they could have basically staged it the same way, and even included the transformation jump pose - just to make the point that he's a worth successor.
I think it's a single volume. There was an alternative option which provided the UK and US comics in separate editions. The one I went for interleaves the stories into the original run, so it's all in (UK) story order.
Oooh, yes! Mirror staging Optimus' blitz through Autobot City would work. But lets make that against Unicron's defenses, because, in my "how I'd do this," Rodimus also gathers up the surviving Deceptions to further set up "Let this mark the end of the Cybertronian Wars," and fulfill "Till all are one!"
Then season 3 can open with a miniseries of Galvatron seducing Deceptions back to evil, and we can have some faction switching - a Deception or two can stay with the Autobots, while a malcontent Autobot (who blames Hot Rod for the death of Optimus) can join Galvatron - which would heighten Rodimus' s3 arc of doubting his leadership!
Are we asking too much of a mid-80s toy commercial?
Ok, the Kickstarter. I did remember correctly there was a two volume set.
I suspect I'm going to regret not jumping on that myself.
Ah, perfect. Saving Decepticons as well would have been a clever (you’ve got the) touch.
Still, it’s frankly a bit strange that we got a movie as good as it already is, given the circumstances. Have you watched moviebob’s essay on intent vs interpretation in art? https://youtu.be/_9iab0z6Kyg?si=hb1bsp9Aw766F5db
I've spent a while mulling the issue of late stage capitalism and how it's burning everything to the ground, including the platforms we need to survive. That's how they get you 🤣
Where I've landed on this: I minimise harm while doing my best. Scenario: a reader bought into the Kindle ecosystem back in the Before Times™ when Amazon were fighting for the little guy and deposing the traditional throne-holders of Big Publishing. The reader is balls-deep now, they can't get out without leaving their library behind. Do I not push to KDP because I think Amazon have a flexible moral compass, or do I try meeting readers where they are? Bearing in mind Amazon is NOT my top sales platform, I still elect to publish there, but I also don't prioritise them.
Same with Subtack. It's a great way to meet people and discuss [insert your topic]. I don't need to buy into the Hitler Youth to be here, and with luck my voice will serve as a balance to the noise. But I'm also not going to heavily invest here - I keep my website open for business with content replicated there. My audio goes to podcasts first, not Substack, and ditto with my video.
As a sort of additive note, no basket is robust enough for all your eggs. Diversification is important for digital survival, not just because CEOs are lizards in skinsuits: business is risky and your loved platform can be gone tomorrow (or bought by a psychopath).
Be wise, be gentle, and be where you need to be. Tribalism is the devil, and worshipping kings is as bad as any dogmatic adherence.
I enjoyed this article/essay for many reasons. I used to love conventions, but burned myself out after volunteering. They are a great place for people to connect with others in specific communities and fandoms, and I would love to get back to that aspect of it; the pure joy of it all. Separately, I support creators branching out from Substack. It's difficult to escape the branding, like how people who make videos on YouTube are "YouTubers." Are we all Substackers? I don't know. But I love that Substack is like a writing convention all the time. It's a wonderful place to feel inspired by articles such as this one. So, until that pure joy starts to fade, I don't see myself leaving any time soon. Thanks for the mention, Simon!
Oh, I hear you. I made the mistake of leaving for ten months in 2024 due to the initial Nazi furor and...my readership faltered. My sales dropped off, just when I was getting ready to release my best work yet, *The Cost of Power*. Visibility diminished. I'm getting it back, but...the cost was too damned high.
I'm not leaving again, unless things get really bad. Which can happen, as we saw with Twitter (I don't regret leaving Twitter). And having seen the cost of purity politics as an activist in the '80s and '90s, I'm definitely not a purist in many areas.
Plus I'm finding a community of fiesty older women to follow on Substack that just isn't visible elsewhere. That's well worth it, along with progressive farmer and ag voices. Again, hard to find elsewhere. Substack and Notes is filling a hole created by the implosion of Facebook as it becomes less useable.
It's tough out there. And when you left, that's an example of how it was one less voice, and that it didn't really serve much purpose in terms of a higher cause.
Regardless of anything, the purity approach simply hasn't worked, as demonstrated very clearly by the US. It's important to fight back against extreme right wing politics, but the self-shaming and purity tests aren't the way to do it. Anyone still going down that route hasn't been paying attention to the last decade, IMO.
In the time since that initial late-2023 initial controversy, Substack has expanded so massively and has an even broader spectrum of writers now, including subcultures like the ones you mentioned. And including left wing voices and centrist voices. If that's where someone's politics lean, time would be better spent trying to boost and assist those voices, rather than shouting them down.
So, I had the opportunity to read earlier drafts of this while Simon was working it out. I don't think I gave any particularly useful notes or advice, but I've had time to mull over the topic, thus I walk in ready to drop...
THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT THE TRIBE.
Humans have had ways of dealing with the disruptive, and the malcontent, ranging from shunning to expulsion, incarceration and beyond.
If there's a good thing going on and there's a cancer trying to take root, slice it out. Perhaps with regret, but with determination. Preserve the healthy tissue and grow stronger.
Otherwise, this essay once again brushes up on the "art vs artist" debate which hasn't quite (yet) been the main thesis for one of these newsletters. Others' opinions may vary, but I long ago reached my conclusion, which is I cab quite easily seperate both.
In the case of an artist still living and in copyright, once said artist's problematic ways come to light I can choose to no longer purchase new (or unowned) works by that creator, but I'm not going to throw away works I already own, or choose not to enjoy the creation.
Instead I merely mourn that Orson Scott Card, Larry Niven, JK Rowling, et.al. fail to live up to the standards set by their own protagonists. In the case of Card, Niven and Rowling I can hope they take the lessons of their own art and cease doing harm, while enjoying what I own and have read, while not purchasing more from them.
Sadly, in some cases, the creator's problems are what lead to the creation of the art. H.P. Lovecraft was a horrible racist. His fear of, and inability to come to terms with *the different* drives the entire Cthulhu mythos - a bleak, uncaring universe with soul shattering creatures who aren't evil or malevolent, but *indifferent.* Even Tolkien's sagas. Yeah, he built his dwarfs off stereotypes of Jews - but if one has read the creation myths in the Silmarrillion, it's pretty damn obvious he just wrapped Dante up in a new T-shirt and his own Catholicism is on every page. Yet these author's biases and fears are what inform their work and make them great. These biases may not even be immediately apparent to a modern reader (OK, Lovecraft's racism is obvious).
That's how I've reconciled things. Other's mileage may vary.
Although in the case of Rowling, well, I never bought the books. Guess she got a few cents from my movie tickets. Harry Potter was a book franchise I borrowed and was moderately entertained by, and a film series I saw as I dated (and later married one of) a string of women who were great fans.
But I digress.
Key points. If I'm around someone toxic, I'll try to see if I can educate and correct. If that fails, I don't need them in my life. If I appreciate a creative work and later discover the creator is slime, I still can enjoy the art, but will no longer do anything to reward the creator.
It took until my 40s to figure this out.
I probably missed something: Rowling I know about, and I've heard of the controversy with Card, but what happened with Larry Niven? I've only read Footfall and Lucifer's Hammer, but I did like those, and so I'm interested, y'see.
Niven came up with the idea to spread rumors ICE was arresting illegal immigrants at hospitals back around 2010/11 ish so Mexicans wouldn't seek health care. It was a "solution" to hospital crowding.
I love Niven's writing, and Lucifer's Hammer and Footfall are great books, but if you read your Niven (and Pournelle) carefully you'll see a lot of right wing ideas - he's into alpha males having lots of young women, and has the hard-core libertarian ideas only trust fund babies (Tucker Carlson, anyone) espouse.
I think it's Oath of Fealty which has the Arcology corporation only buying companies where they can legally cut pensions to nothing - and that's the "heroes."
Ah: yeah, that'll do it. Yikes. I honestly hadn't heard.
Thank you for the shout-out!
Oh boy, yes, the "ethical purity" thing. Sigh. I guess the narrative that Substack equals Nazis is not going to go away, and it's probably only a matter of time before the next s**tstorm around it. I post versions of some of my stories on social media, so I get a fair bit of "ugh, SUBSTACK" when I do (and I've recently had a couple of paid subscriber cancellations over it).
The last comment I got was:
"This is a fantastic thread and I am very tempted to subscribe but - have you considered moving away from substack? The latest news has me very not interested in supporting that platform. I have no idea how difficult that would be for you"
This was my reply at the time:
>>"Thank you! Appreciate you saying this - I've had other folk "suggesting" the same thing, nowhere near as politely. 😄
>>It's tricky, yes: there are science comms I really admire on the platform, & others that have left because of past controversies & some truly awful people with publications there...
>>As for myself, I'm not yet ready to make the decision to make the leap elsewhere, which I'd hopefully do also for practical reasons (better functionality elsewhere) - but I respect the folk in science (some who are friends) who consider the whole platform a total no-no and act accordingly.
>>The other thing about sticking around on a platform with anti-science (and anti-democratic) voices so active on it is you can push back against them from within that system. There are folk on Substack with big followings doing that and I respect it very much. (I'm not really one - I'm small-scale.)
>>All this said - if anyone wanted to subscribe and read my newsletter totally for free, and never commit to giving me a single penny until I was elsewhere, I can respect that too. 😁"
I'm still not sure there is any "right answer" to all of this, and I don't have much patience with the extremely self-righteous yelling at Substack writers that they're endorsing Nazis by staying on Substack. Anyone claiming obviously complicated things are that simple and displaying such a lack of empathy has more problems than yelling at random strangers.
I appreciate how Mike Miller brought up Orson Scott Card in another comment, because that's such a great example of an author whose work I still respect even though I find his personal religious beliefs absolutely unpalatable. But generally, it's so hard to separate the creator from their work! I mean, I still love the first Avengers film on every level and I still love Firefly, and - they're both Joss Whedon. And for a more British example, I recently enjoyed watching the first few seasons of Coast, even though Neil Oliver has now turned into a conspiracy-trumpeting twit on GB News...
One example in fsf: I never really liked the work of David Eddings ("The Belgariad") despite multiple attempts at reading his fantasy trilogies - but I do wonder how it must affect his actual fans, which still number in the millions, when they learn he was a convicted child abuser. From Wikipedia:
"Eddings and his wife Leigh pled guilty to 11 counts of physical child abuse of their adopted children. They adopted one boy in 1966, Scott David, then two months old; subsequently, the couple adopted a girl between 1966 and 1969. In 1970, the couple lost custody of both children and were each sentenced to a year in jail in separate trials for extensive child abuse of both children. Though the trial and conviction of both David and Leigh Eddings was reported in the local press, the news was not widely disseminated, as Eddings was an obscure academic at the time. The conviction was consequently not remarked on after Eddings became a well-known author over a decade later; it was not widely publicly revealed until after his death."
Also, re Gaiman - did you see the allegations that he cribbed much of The Sandman from the hugely-underappreciated Tanith Lee? https://dmrbooks.com/test-blog/2025/3/2/neil-gaiman-vs-tanith-lee-when-the-sandman-robbed-the-empress-of-dreams In my case, I recently had a go at reading American Gods, after the allegations came out, and the story came across as so nasty and cruel that I couldn't continue. Maybe that was influenced of what I now know about its author?
So - I reckon it's a personal choice, and always a fiendishly complicated one. Chasing purity is foolish at best, malicious hypocrisy at worst.
Orson Scott Card is kinda where I had to solidify my art vs artists views when the Ender's Game movie came out (BTW, Card sold the film rights long ago on a cash only deal so he makes nothing from it).
At the time it was, "Shame Orson doesn't live up to Ender."
Ender's such a great character, and part of that is his going out of his way to respect everyone - as in his whispered "salaam" to Alai. Ender remains such throughout his books.
Then we get to the Bean saga - which I do like - but one can see how Card's grown more closed as he aged. Suddenly Bean is saying, "Islam isn't a real religion," and Petra has become, "my entire purpose for being is to make babies." Um, huh?
"American Gods" is a quite nasty story, but I think that's the point. Mythology as presented to us (along with fairy tales) has been cleaned up and sanitized greatly, and the nasty aspects largely removed - as an example the internet is full of jokes about Zeus being an unfaithful husband, without commenting on how Zeus's infidelities are also sexual assaults. Gaiman returned these Gods to older, more primal tellings and contrasted it against the nastiness of modern life.
Sigh. Even J Michael Straczynski has a nasty side. Never point out B5 fan animations to him or he'll run off to WB legal and badger for a takedown order.
Nods. The other thing is that many of those purists who say "get off of Substack!" are Ghost evangelists. But...Ghost has quiet financing issues of its own (very well hidden, however), and the big deal...unless you're made of money, you can't afford to go free on Ghost due to the fact that it has no free tier for creators. I don't monetize because I don't want to deal with Stripe (which has its own issues, and is Ghost's preferred financial provider).
Me? I offer three alternatives to Substack when I post links. I've not seen any activity on any of those alternatives. *Everything* goes on my website first, so that I can establish provenance and ownership--a habit I picked up years ago over issues with Facebook trying to claim copyright of things published there first. Then Ko-fi and Dreamwidth, and finally, Substack.
None of the purists follow through. I've directly confronted them about the lack of following when I left Substack for ten months. I lost subscribers during that era, and am only now getting back to that level. Since they won't follow through, I am at the point where I issue a hearty "f-you" to them, then block.
Armchair purists put a lot of time and effort into writing objections and signing petitions; less time into actual actions. I mean, I've been guilty of this over the years as well - I was a very annoying Twitter Activist back in the early days.
When I have no time for it is when the important thing seems to be to bully the writer (or the readers of that writer), rather than to support them if they do decide to move. Once the bullying is successful, the complainants move on to their next target. As seems to have been the case with your experience.
Performative.
Which isn't to deny that there are significant issues with Substack. But I think we're hard pressed to find a platform that isn't compromised in some way. Even the devices we're using to ACCESS the services are compromised. It's why the purity test, zero sum approach doesn't really get you anywhere - other than diminishing your own voice.
The best solution, I suppose, is to roll your own site, stay open source, and steer clear of larger companies. The problem there being that literally nobody will ever see your work - which, again, results in a diminishing of a group of voices.
Nodding. The only platform that’s even close to being “pure” is Dreamwidth. Ironically, none of the purity crowd advocate going to it.
Me? I’ve been there ever since LiveJournal started imploding. It’s one of the places I mirror everything I post.
I haven't even heard of Dreamwidth! Will have to go look it up.
Obligatory: IIIIKAAARAAAAA!
I don't know much about the cartoon, but TFNation does sound fun. I'm almost afraid to ask what the general consensus was, if any, regarding the Michael Bay movies? (I only saw one, and parts of another.)
I was hoping you'd leap in with that! Ha.
Because the TF fanbase spreads across so many decades, you actually get quite a cross-section. Some adults there were kids when the Michael Bay movies started coming out, and that is THEIR Transformers. A bit like how the Star Wars prequels are the main event for people of a certain age.
For the record, I thought the first Bay TF film was OK. Great soundtrack, a leap forward in visual effects and it's quite fun. I was excited for the sequels, as I thought they had an opportunity to fix all the bad bits and keep all the good bits, and end up somewhere quite special. Instead, they get rid of all the good bits, and it got worse from there. :(
I see your "IKAAAARRRRAAAAAA!" and raise you:
Sinclair: I'm gonna try and make it mad.
Garibaldi: Make it mad? Are you nuts?
TF the cartoon... Hmmmm. A few good episodes, but a LOT of cheese. My last re-watch with a buddy (who'd bought the 20th anniversary collection) we did laugh at how everyone who got shot was shot in the ass. My spot. "Ow, my rear axle!" "Ow, my afterburner!" That cheese factor is part of why the 1986 film (which I unironically recommend) hit so hard. From cheese to absolute carnage.
The Bay movies... The first, as Simon said (heh) is pretty good, with only a few dire scenes. The second movie suffered from a writer's strike and literally being shot with no script. The worst continuity thing - something that actually pisses me off - is the constant references to the "Arcee twins..." because there are THREE of them. That's just slop.
From there they get worse until the "Bumblebee" prequel when the new writer and director remember a movie actually needs likable characters. Doesn't hurt Hailee Steinfeld is a gifted actress.
But, again, as Simon said (heh), there's a generation of fans who discovered the franchise through the Bay movies. If they enjoyed them, I won't tell 'em they're wrong. They're just movies.
Yeah, Bumblebee was great fun and quite touching. Not surprising given the director’s track record. I actually thought Rise of the Beasts was decent entertainment, too, even if it was trying to be all things to all people.
Have you seen Transformers One yet, Mike? I also unironically recommend that one, even to people who have no interest in Transformers (e.g. my wife). It’s a solid character two-hander with stunning visuals and score, and an on-point script. It miiiiiight (whisper it) be my favourite, over the 86 movie (but don’t tell anyone).
Not yet. Wanted to see that in theaters. Couldn't talk the wife into it.
Once we get varied internet issues worked out I'll stream it. Heard many good things about it.
Came for the TFN coverage, stayed for the astute sociological commentary.
I was at TFN as well and can corroborate that "joy" is the word everyone, including myself, has used to describe the weekend. Glad you had a great time!
Of note: in the bar, my friends and I got chatting to another group, including one guy who was clearly out of his comfort zone. He loved Transformers, but seeing such a broad and welcome LGBTQ+ contingent was blowing his mind and he was surprised at how "woke" it was. We didn't chat to him for long, but I hope he had a good time and that's helping him to reconsider his stance on things.
Interesting. I can imagine it is a surprise, especially for a franchise that started life as a toy commercial specifically for young boys, and then was defined in the 2000s by the lecherous Michael Bay films.
I was surprised (in a pleasant way) by the prominent LGBTQ+ crowd. I then wondered whether the inherent draws of the TF fiction is part of that. There are thematic elements within TF fiction that could very easily be metaphorically powerful there, in ways I hadn't considered.
Simon, I don't remember if I told you about the Transformer comic Kickstarter, or if you told me about it, but I do remember doing a "per issue" breakdown of the cost and saying, "That's quite reasonable for a collected hardcover."
I didn't bite.
But I'm glad you did.
I'm a bit older, so, while I watched G1 Transformers, and have a great love for the 1986 movie (an unused section of the soundtrack - a variation on Unicron's Theme - has been my default ringtone for over a decade), it's not that *formative* thing for me.
For you it is, and that makes it *important.* Re-reading those comics will be a nostalgia shot, right in the hippocampus.
And, of course, it's something you can share with your son. I hope the stories hold up for you in the, "Yeah, this is good stuff," way and not a "WHY in the HELL did I LIKE this SHIT?" disappointment.
I glimpsed a preview copy of the TF Kickstarter print edition at TFNation, and it's quite an exciting and ludicrously thick thing. I didn't actually know books could be printed that were that thick!
My son's seen a few bit and bobs of the UK comic (courtesy of some of the Titan Books collections, and the aforementioned bootleg), but is REALLY looking forward to checking them all out properly.
The quality will be all over the shop, I'm sure. There were artists I adored (Senior, Wildman) and some I really didn't care for. Similarly, any time it wasn't Furman writing it tended to not click with me as much. Budiansky contributed a huge amount to the overall TF story and wrote some excellent stuff, but it often felt more overtly driven by the toy releases. Furman had a knack for picking out weird characters that nobody cared about, and then he made you care.
It's the same with the G1 cartoon - its quality is all over the damn place and there's a lot of really quite bad TV in there. But when it gets it together, it's classic kids' TV and you can see why it imprinted on our brains.
The movie, obviously, is on a different level altogether (which is alsow weird).
You'll have to take a picture of the collection when you get it to see the scale. Single volume? I thought - if I remember the Kickstarter correctly - it was to be split in two.
The movie... Comes from the most utterly cynical motivation possible, but the writers and cast took the assignment seriously (not to mention Vince DiCola!), and put together a truly solid movie, almost in spite of themselves.
Except I wanna time travel back and fix the ending so Rodimus Prime is set up correctly. Rodimus needs two minutes to fight through Unicron, gather the troops, get to the core and unleash the Matrix directly into Unicron's brain, just so we get to actually see him be a warrior leader. Kup's seal of approval isn't enough to sell it.
Rodimus needed his equivalent of Prime's amazing gauntlet during the Autobot city battle. Hell, they could have basically staged it the same way, and even included the transformation jump pose - just to make the point that he's a worth successor.
I think it's a single volume. There was an alternative option which provided the UK and US comics in separate editions. The one I went for interleaves the stories into the original run, so it's all in (UK) story order.
Oooh, yes! Mirror staging Optimus' blitz through Autobot City would work. But lets make that against Unicron's defenses, because, in my "how I'd do this," Rodimus also gathers up the surviving Deceptions to further set up "Let this mark the end of the Cybertronian Wars," and fulfill "Till all are one!"
Then season 3 can open with a miniseries of Galvatron seducing Deceptions back to evil, and we can have some faction switching - a Deception or two can stay with the Autobots, while a malcontent Autobot (who blames Hot Rod for the death of Optimus) can join Galvatron - which would heighten Rodimus' s3 arc of doubting his leadership!
Are we asking too much of a mid-80s toy commercial?
Ok, the Kickstarter. I did remember correctly there was a two volume set.
I suspect I'm going to regret not jumping on that myself.
Ah, perfect. Saving Decepticons as well would have been a clever (you’ve got the) touch.
Still, it’s frankly a bit strange that we got a movie as good as it already is, given the circumstances. Have you watched moviebob’s essay on intent vs interpretation in art? https://youtu.be/_9iab0z6Kyg?si=hb1bsp9Aw766F5db
Yeah, you shared that with me last year. Although I should watch it again, as memory fades.
Yes, lots of segues, but your delighted TFNation experience-a convention with a big welcome mat-was a point well made.
I've spent a while mulling the issue of late stage capitalism and how it's burning everything to the ground, including the platforms we need to survive. That's how they get you 🤣
Where I've landed on this: I minimise harm while doing my best. Scenario: a reader bought into the Kindle ecosystem back in the Before Times™ when Amazon were fighting for the little guy and deposing the traditional throne-holders of Big Publishing. The reader is balls-deep now, they can't get out without leaving their library behind. Do I not push to KDP because I think Amazon have a flexible moral compass, or do I try meeting readers where they are? Bearing in mind Amazon is NOT my top sales platform, I still elect to publish there, but I also don't prioritise them.
Same with Subtack. It's a great way to meet people and discuss [insert your topic]. I don't need to buy into the Hitler Youth to be here, and with luck my voice will serve as a balance to the noise. But I'm also not going to heavily invest here - I keep my website open for business with content replicated there. My audio goes to podcasts first, not Substack, and ditto with my video.
As a sort of additive note, no basket is robust enough for all your eggs. Diversification is important for digital survival, not just because CEOs are lizards in skinsuits: business is risky and your loved platform can be gone tomorrow (or bought by a psychopath).
Be wise, be gentle, and be where you need to be. Tribalism is the devil, and worshipping kings is as bad as any dogmatic adherence.
I enjoyed this article/essay for many reasons. I used to love conventions, but burned myself out after volunteering. They are a great place for people to connect with others in specific communities and fandoms, and I would love to get back to that aspect of it; the pure joy of it all. Separately, I support creators branching out from Substack. It's difficult to escape the branding, like how people who make videos on YouTube are "YouTubers." Are we all Substackers? I don't know. But I love that Substack is like a writing convention all the time. It's a wonderful place to feel inspired by articles such as this one. So, until that pure joy starts to fade, I don't see myself leaving any time soon. Thanks for the mention, Simon!
Oh, I hear you. I made the mistake of leaving for ten months in 2024 due to the initial Nazi furor and...my readership faltered. My sales dropped off, just when I was getting ready to release my best work yet, *The Cost of Power*. Visibility diminished. I'm getting it back, but...the cost was too damned high.
I'm not leaving again, unless things get really bad. Which can happen, as we saw with Twitter (I don't regret leaving Twitter). And having seen the cost of purity politics as an activist in the '80s and '90s, I'm definitely not a purist in many areas.
Plus I'm finding a community of fiesty older women to follow on Substack that just isn't visible elsewhere. That's well worth it, along with progressive farmer and ag voices. Again, hard to find elsewhere. Substack and Notes is filling a hole created by the implosion of Facebook as it becomes less useable.
It's tough out there. And when you left, that's an example of how it was one less voice, and that it didn't really serve much purpose in terms of a higher cause.
Regardless of anything, the purity approach simply hasn't worked, as demonstrated very clearly by the US. It's important to fight back against extreme right wing politics, but the self-shaming and purity tests aren't the way to do it. Anyone still going down that route hasn't been paying attention to the last decade, IMO.
In the time since that initial late-2023 initial controversy, Substack has expanded so massively and has an even broader spectrum of writers now, including subcultures like the ones you mentioned. And including left wing voices and centrist voices. If that's where someone's politics lean, time would be better spent trying to boost and assist those voices, rather than shouting them down.