The Removal of Junot Diaz

ORWELLIAN BEHAVIOR IN A POLITICIZED LITERARY WORLD

removedjunotdiaz

While looking into another matter, we stumbled upon this article by Matthew C. Winner. Or rather, a note from Mr. Winner about an April 24th podcast involving Junot Diaz and Leo Espinosa, “The Children’s Book Podcast #435,” which on May 5th was removed.

AS Winner’s own comment states, the removal took place within 24 hours of accusations of sexual harassment being made against Junot Diaz– a knee-jerk action after no reflection, no investigation, no waiting for any dust to settle.

WAS Matthew Winner caught up in the media hysteria over the matter?

Note that he refers to “an overwhelming number of women” making such charges. (There were four by this time. An ex-girlfriend chimed in ten days later.)

Winner also says,

I, Matthew Winner, and The Children’s Book Podcast will not support the works of individuals accused of misogynistic acts, sexual predation, or any other offense against women. That behavior is intolerable. . . .

Do you catch the jump in logic? He goes from “individuals accused” to “That behavior.” For Michael C. Winner, the accusation is enough.

To make his point he slaps a large “REMOVED” over the image of Junot Diaz.

Flushed down the memory hole?

banned****

-Karl Wenclas, New Pop Lit NEWS

Questions About Zinzi Clemmons

OUR COVERAGE OF THE JUNOT DIAZ CONTROVERSY CONTINUES

Zinzi-Clemmons-8051

We note that Zinzi Clemmons, one of the three initial accusers in the Junot Diaz matter, has been staying off twitter since her exchange with noted novelist Roxane Gay– which didn’t go well. Which brings up the question: Why have so many leading feminist literary personalities– Margaret Atwood and Joyce Carol Oates foremost among them– declined to sign the VIDA petition about the matter, or in any other way publicly support the accusers?

THE “POWER OF INSTITUTIONS” side would insist these women fear to oppose established entities which continue to back Junot Diaz– MIT and Boston Review among them. That viewpoint gives those places more influence than they may have in reality. Besides, if anyone can afford to oppose those mid-level bureaucracies, it’s Atwood, Oates, Gay, and Company.

COULD the reason for their lack of support be the perceived volatility of Zinzi Clemmons? From the start of the controversy, Clemmons’ combativeness has matched that of fellow accuser Monica Byrne:

Or–

In another tweet, Zinzi Clemmons gave Monica Byrne all credit for organizing the anti-Junot Diaz posse–

Like Monica Byrne, Zinzi Clemmons also said their accusations were the tip of the iceberg–

IN AN interview with the Johannesburg Review of Books on May 10th, Clemmons said “it’s worse than most people think,” and affirmed that many more women would come forward with allegations against Junot Diaz. Those women have yet to materialize.
****

WHATEVER Monica Byrne’s contributions to breaking the story– with media encouragement behind the scenes– the most pressure among the accusers was put on Zinzi Clemmons. Handed the task of confronting Diaz at the Sydney Writers Festival. (Remember, the accusations were planned and coordinated in advance.) Zinzi Clemmons did confront him. It could not have been easy. Did she drop off of twitter because the pressure of being at the forefront of the story has become too much?

Shovel_sculpture_at_Roy_Station

REGARDLESS, this commentator is discovering the more he digs into the story, the more complicated it becomes. Which includes Zinzi’s volatile, score-settling spouse, and another, different sexual harassment accusation in the book world, which I’ll discuss in a future New Pop Lit NEWS post.

-Karl Wenclas

How Does a News Story Go Viral?

PUBLICITY IN THE JUNOT DIAZ CONTROVERSY

epstein in cavern

I ADMIT IT. I’m amazed at how fast the publicity game has changed, thanks to social media. Compared to ten years ago, the creation of buzz moves now at lightning speed.

It’s the difference between military techniques in World Wars One and Two. The speed of blitzkrieg in the latter contest revolutionized the game.

As I’ve said a couple times in this series: Who wins the debate over the sexual harassment allegations about prize-winning author Junot Diaz will be decided by who’s better at PR. Institutions (MIT; Boston Review) cleared Diaz, but it’s out of their hands. In the new media age, static bureaucracies have been left behind.

A key post of ours in this regard is “System versus Zeitgeist.”

The Junot Diaz camp is now fully in the game with their army of twitter fans and trolls. They’ve moved quickly up to speed. Will it be enough?

We have two opinion armies maneuvering against one another online– across twitter, blogs, and media sites.

The accusers’ side has made significant mistakes– but their opening moves in the chess game which began May 4th were breathtaking.

CREATING HYSTERIA

epstein again

THE GREATEST publicity feat of all time was the creation of Beatlemania. Most people believe it was spontaneous. Yeah, yeah, the band was talented and young people liked them. As simple as that? Not really.

In November, 1961, Liverpool record store manager Brian Epstein saw an unkempt band playing in an underground club in that beaten-down UK working class city and thought, “I can make these guys bigger than Elvis Presley.” A hidden genius behind the scenes, Brian Epstein was in back of every step of the band’s rise. Some of the facts of how he accomplished this are known. For instance, mass hysteria in New York City in February 1964 when the little-known (in America) band landed for the first time. Reluctant Capitol Records was forced by Epstein to spend $70,000 ($570,000 in today’s dollars) to promote their arrival and the concurrent release of their single, “I Want to Hold Your Hand.”

The-Beatles-At-JFK-tarmac-530x353

WE ALSO know the mob of kids holding signs at the airport wasn’t a spontaneous happening. Their presence was arranged. The kick-off of Beatlemania was staged.

MAY 4 ANTI-JUNOT DIAZ HYSTERIA

I’m still amazed at how quickly fervor against Junot Diaz took place. Three threads of tweets from Zinzi Clemmons, Monica Byrne, and Carmen Maria Machado taking place in the middle of night, one right after another. By morning they’d gone viral. To such extent that The Cut’s Anna Silman was already contacting Monica Byrne for a statement.

Spontaneous? Byrne said to Silman, “The network was activated”– which might be clue enough for an explanation.

Monica Byrne’s unsupported rumors about Melania Trump in June 2017, which went viral, albeit on a smaller scale, served as trial run for this situation. This time out Byrne had at least a smattering of substance to the story, and other women on her side. Enough substance that even the mighty and respectable New York Times joined the generated hysteria.

QUESTION: Was the hysteria against Junot Diaz generated or spontaneous?

Another tweet from Monica:

AIDING buzz creation was dramatic language used by the accusers in the tweeted narratives.

BYRNE: “I’ve never faced such virulent misogyny in my adult life.”

MACHADO: “–a blast of misogynist rage.”

Promotional blitzkrieg on May 4th worked masterfully– on that very same day the accusations were news across the globe. The feat deserves a chapter of its own in the history of publicity. The planning and coordination worked– but not well enough to claim quick victory. No knockout. Junot Diaz apologized, but he and his institutional backers held firm. By now, today, the controversy has settled into trench warfare– both sides sniping at each other from steady lines, World War One-style.

For the time being, the controversy is at a stalemate.

wwI
****

WILL the stalemate continue? More to come from:

-New Pop Lit News-
https://newpoplitnews.wordpress.com/

-Karl Wenclas on the literary news beat.