Woody Allen: staff walk-out at publisher leads to cancelled book deal

I think sunshine is still the best disinfectant.
Though I do think the publishers make a huge mistake when they publish fictional biographies as non fiction.

Mud sticks

I mean, I don't agree with censorship but I am pretty certain he could afford to self-publish if he wanted to

That misses the point. Suzanne Moore is probably reasonably comfortably well off but nothing like WA. Unless you would be happy with the Guardian staff refusing to print her articles it is hypocrisy to support this.

I reckon we haven't got the full story.

Hachette will take a big knock from this. Why were the staff so powerful? Was it ALL the staff? Had anyone had sight of what Allen had written?

Companies just don't show that much respect for employees' feelings ordinarily. It can't have been just strength of feeling that achieved this.

Also, I don't see this as censorship, it's a business decision which must have been based on risk. And I can't see how losing some staff would be a bigger risk than losing status as a publisher and sales from a controversial book, unless there is more information we don't have.

I loathe Woody Allen, I believe Dillon.

Therefore I chose not to watch his films or give my money to anything associated with him. However, he still has the right to make the film's, or in this case write the book and release it.

Free speech applies to everyone, no matter how abhorrent a human being.

As an aside, I thought the actions of the actresses in France was very powerful when they walked out of an awards ceremony when the rapist Polanski was honoured changing the narrative from his award to his crimes.

Partner's daughter

Marrying your partner's step daughter was very wrong and should have been illegal. He was in a powerful parenting role and much older. He'd also had years of fecking private psychoanalysis! I lost all respect gor him and would not pay to watch his films after that. His therapist or a friend should have told some truths to the vain abusive man.

You do not have to buy his book unless you were going to burn it.

Yeah, on the basis of censorship alone I would not think the book should be canceled.

As far as the sexual abuse allegations, I thing they are extremely problematic and I have pretty grave doubts.

Let me get my tiny violin out for the silencing of utter creep WA.

I mean, I don't agree with censorship but I am pretty certain he could afford to self-publish if he wanted to.

Has he been deleted off Twitter, Facebook, been refused advertising space, been refused access to public spaces to hold meetings, threatened with violence?

Oh purlease! THIRTY highly SUBJECTIVE interviews with people claiming to be innocent.

Compared to the millions of victims around the world every day who's lives really are ruined (of which I am one) AND the evidence we see every day of accused people being supported by family, friends, employers, employees, the media, fans if they are in any way celebrities...

Yea as I said common sense and bleeding obvious say otherwise.

Being accused DOES NOT ruin these people's lives that's blatantly clear the vast majority of the time.
Wrong: www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/impact-being-wrongly-accused-victims-voices

Nobdy outside of his editors (least of all Ronan Farrow) have read Allen's book. We have no idea if he has written anything about the accusation. Since he's said practically nothing about it in the last 28 years, I think he may well say nothing in this book.
As others have said, 'cancelling' can be used against anybody, not just the people you don't like; for example, what if the Guardian workers who protested against Suzanne Moore's threaten to walk out and bring the paper to a stop the next time it publishes something they don't like?

It is utter hypocrisy for posters to support this.

You either support free speech and the right to publish or you don't.

I think they were wrong to cancel the book on the basis of staff walking out.

I would not buy the book.

I'm glad this happened. I'm sick of repeatedly seeing these creeps not only get away with their crimes but being still feted for whatever their line of work is.

Being accused DOES NOT ruin these people's lives that's blatantly clear the vast majority of the time.

I believe the victims and I believe common bloody sense!

It's fucking weird and messed up to marry someone you were a parental figure to during their childhood and it absolutely smacks of grooming!

When did we lose sight of common sense? When did we start denying the bleeding obvious?

And yes I want to also see this happen to the trans people and activists who are perpetuating abuse and excusing/minimising the effects of aspects of trans ideology which put children and women at risk.

Fed up of all of it to be honest.

I'm hoping weinsteins conviction and the walkout at the french film awards against Polanski's win are just the start of the tide turning against these disgusting, abusive men.

I have mixed fealings about Woody Allen, but I do agree with Sephen King about the dangers of Censorship of books. (based on romours, unpopularity ect. ) He pointed out you can still get Mine Kampf.

I don't in any way condone Woody Allen's behaviour with Soon-Yi Previn. I think he behaved disgracefully, both with her and towards Mia Farrow and their massive complicated brood of children/stepchildren.

But this is a very unusual family set up.

Mia Farrow married Frank Sinatra when he was 50 and she was 21. So she knows all about the power imbalance between older and younger partners. She married Andre Previn when she was 25 and he was 41. Their relationship began while he was still married to Dory Previn. He left Dory because Mia was pregnant. (Mia claims to be a devout Catholic, btw. ) She took up with Allen shortly after splitting up with Previn and never married him, nor lived with him.

In all she has 14 children, 10 of whom she adopted, in some cases jointly with Previn or Allen, in other cases as a single woman. Three of the adopted children have died early in adult life. Moses Farrow claims that two of the deaths were related to addiction. The third was suicide. After the acrimonious end of her relationship with Allen when she found about his sexual relationship with Soon-Yi, she claimed that Ronan could be Frank Sinatra's child as they had never really split up.

None of this strikes me as indicative of a healthy, happy family.

I really disagree with withdrawing the book, it's an awful precedent. People can refuse to read it if they wish but they have no right to prevent others having the opportunity to read it. This is no different to no platforming.

I despise Woody Allen. I believe Dylan Farrow. I also hate censorship of any sort.

Allen's own story in his own words would have been far more revealing than anything his step/family can ever say about him.

And if you think staff walkouts won't be weaponised against women then I don't know where you've been all week.

He probably deserves a lot of the criticism but should also be able to answer it.

Once you stop people being able to do that then it is easier to silence other people who haven't done anything wrong.

He didn't marry his own stepdaughter

But he sort of did though

She was his partners adopted daughter, and they were a couple for 12 years.

He is married to his own son's legal sister

Ronan tweeted once :

Happy Fathers Day, or as it is my house, Happy Brother In Law Day

So that's certainly how Ronan views it

Torn between 'yay, he is a creep' and 'This is disturbing. A contract was signed and he hasn't been convicted of anything.'

On balance I think the staff were too late with their objections and the publishers should have honoured the contract.

It sets a dangerous precedent.