Wednesday, January 16, 2019

BSI and their journal are in hot water again.

Yea, here we go again.
The BSI is in hot water again. Or more specifically the Baker St. Journal.
That's because they didn't print a piece by Lyndsay Faye. And to be fair, she did write a very good piece.
But the Baker St. Babes didn't like the fact that the BSJ didn't publish it.
They gave it good reviews, matter-of-fact, a great review. They said she did a great job. But thought it too 'Timely'. And they have that right.

But I guess the Babes have become so self-absorbed that they think they should have a say in everything and that everyone should listen.

And because the BSJ didn't except this one piece, we go back to the name calling and insulting.
They are, "but apparently there are still ancient pockets filled with dinosaurs".

I bet Lyndsay won't give back her investiture into the BSI. Now that would really convince me she was serious about her stance.

I read her piece. I was very well written. And had some very worthy discussion points. But to compare Holmes behavior in CHAR to Weinsteins behavior is just silly. 

You can argue these points from a playing the game angle or from a 'let's just view this in its context' angle.

If you don't think the BSI should be held in such high regard, then why do you think it is so important to have your work published there?

Why do you need ancient dinosaurs to approve your work?

Most people like me wish we could write as well as Lyndsay and her crew. And a lot of those writers are already riding on the coat tales of someone else's creation. 

Give it a break.

Rest on your own laurels and don't worry about what the BSJ thinks. Even when they say nice things about you.

1 comment:

  1. Submitted to the BSB blog comment section: Sadly, Lyndsay Faye and others have assumed that Alice has no agency in this matter, one that a close reading of the story can refute. "You can't help it, my dear Watson. You must play your cards as best you can when such a stake is on the table. However, I rejoice to say that I have a hated rival who will certainly cut me out the instant that my back is turned." One can justify this scenario: Holmes arrives at Appledore Towers as Escott the plumber with only the idea of getting the lay of the land. Alice, who is in a long-term engagement that's not going anywhere, sees Escott as a catalyst to spark a flame out of a low burning ember. Perhaps the hated rival is right there in the household. Holmes uses this hand that's dealt to him, knowing that his actions will have little effect on Alice personally. As Holmes might caution, we do not have all the facts on what when on between Alice and Escott. Further, whether we are dealing with "ancient pockets filled with dinosaurs" or "window-breaking Furies" the Babes should know that they are not dealing with "men afraid that if they let the ladies speak their minds just a little too much, people won’t be able to handle it," otherwise the Babes would not have been embraced by sections of the BSI so quickly and warmly as they have been. I realize that I look at this through the white male lens that I was born with, but the editors did not dismiss Faye's piece with a rote "this does not meet our current needs" but the manuscripts series book will "have a limited distribution" while suggesting that her article deserves "prompt and wide-spread circulation" which, in fact, Faye's name would insure the piece would have. As Faye also knows, editors sometimes have to make tough calls and I don't see this as a pat-on-the-head dismissal, but what do I know (besides my personal knowledge that sexual abuse knows no boundaries of gender)? I do think that the Babes have overestimated the gender politics of this specific event, but again what do I know?

    Thanks John for bringing this to my attention