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

[Lamahaha]

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/06/woody-allen-memoir-hachette-books?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR1a3DfLgDhcc4sRI2vpIcl2g8SP73_2gtqYAE2VCzwzFhQgy91eaTbqtTA

Woody Allen is a creep and he should not be given a platform.

But: if only there'd be staff walk-outs at companies which promote the transagenda!

I'm on the fence on this one. As far as I'm aware not one single person other than Dylan Farrow has alleged sexual misconduct against Allen. He wasn't prosecuted. (OK, we know the bar for prosecution is set very high.) One of Dylan's siblings has spoken up for Allen and make troubling allegations against Mia Farrow. The whole family seems pretty messed up to me.

I want people to make a stand on the basis of facts, tested in court where that's relevant and possible. The cancel culture bothers me.

He also married a woman who grew up in his household from a child.

Didn’t she live with Mia Farrow who lived in a separate house from Allen?

I’m not defending what happened but I don’t think she lived under his roof until much later.

It's a troubling relationship, yes, but Farrow and Allen never lived together. They maintained two separate households. Andre Previn was Soon-Yi's adoptive father, not Allen.

Having said that, even without the familial complications I'd be very concerned about a relationship between a 22 yo woman and a wealthy, well-known 56yo man.

FWIW, as far as I know they're still together 28 years on, and have been married for 23 of those years. They have two children.

I don't agree with this at all. I have a lot of time for Ronan Farrow but this is a huge misjudgment.

You (general you) can't squeal about "cancel culture" being wrong when it only affects your side.

You (general you) can't squeal about "cancel culture" being wrong when it only affects your side.

This^

He groomed and fucked a young woman he'd been a parental figure to from the time she was 8. This is a good article about it: theoutline.com/post/6264/woody-allen-soon-yi-previn-warped-reality

He married his own stepdaughter. he made his own biological son his brother in law. The man is monstrous.

I'm with @DidoLamenting on this one.

He didn't marry his own stepdaughter.

I'm not a fan of middle-aged men marrying much younger women, but it's not a crime, and it's not a reason to cancel a book contract.

The allegations by Dylan Farrow are at the very least unproven, and called into question by Moses Farrow's account. I think we should take all accusations of sexual abuse seriously - that doesn't mean that every single accusation is true.

I have huge reservations about him but he should be entitled to put his side of the story out.

and what exactly will this measure achieve?

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.

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

WA will not lose out. He will get to keep his advance, probably six-figures or more, and another publisher will snap him up for a new advance. The book will sell like hot cakes BECAUSE of this controversy.
It's a financial loss for the publisher.
That could very well have a knock-on effect for staff and other authors.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yes, he gives me the creeps. But I also hate censorship. And it doesn't work. WA's book will still be published, somewhere.

Hachette is my publisher. What if I decide to write a GC non-fiction book (no, I'm not thinking in that direction, but what if?), would the staff walk out? If it's the USA, I think they would. If Britain, in the current climate it's a toss-up.

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

I would not buy the book.

It is utter hypocrisy for posters to support this.

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

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?