News of the settlement between Harlan Ellison and Fantagraphics has started to pop up around the media, as these ICv2 and Seattle Times stories make clear. As always though, it’s the blogs that always have the most interesting things to say. I’ll start with Don McPherson’s:
On the surface, it’s Ellison who comes out on top with this settlement. He gets what he wants, blocking publication of the material he perceived as offending his sensibilities. But Ellison may have neglected to consider another potential harm, one he might have done to himself. Ellison is a rare talent from the world of sci-fi and fantasy that’s managed to penetrate the mainstream consciousness of pop culture. He’s also a self-proclaimed defender of the First Amendment, but many have seen his actions in this legal proceeding to be contrary to that ideal. At 73, it’s possible that this may be Ellison’s last instance of publicity, or at least it may be this hullabaloo for which many in the comics and publishing industries will remember him.
Next, Jarett Kobek:
The moment that Groth’s statement goes up, twenty to thirty blogs will repost it in its entirety, thus ensuring that it never goes away. And you can cram a lot into 500 words. Other than length and duration of availablity on Ellison’s site, the terms of the rebuttal agreement are hugely favorable to Groth. Ellison can’t edit it, Ellison has to post it, and Ellison can’t sue or complain about anything that Groth says in it. Considering the earlier provision in the settlement barring ad hominem attacks, Groth probably can’t call Ellison a crapface, but that’s about it. He seems to be able to say anything he wants. Wasn’t that the gol’ darn problem in the first place?
And, finally, Matthias Wivel:
However, it is nevertheless sad to see what is essentially bullying tactics on the part of self-styled free-speech champion Ellison have an effect, no matter how diffuse. The major concession here is that Fantagraphics have conceded to remove the offending parts of their upcoming 30th anniversary book and company history, Comics as Art - We Told You So, despite having maintained and gone far to prove that these allegedly libelous statements are substantially true. Ellison has produced nothing that refutes the clear evidence backing up their statements in the book, provided by Fantagraphics in their motion to dismiss, and while he naturally should not necessarily be expected to do so in public and should therefore perhaps be given the benefit of the doubt, the evidence against him is substantial.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Simply put, if Groth felt as strongly as these posters about the lawsuit, it would still be in court.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Alan wrote:
Simply put, if Groth felt as strongly as these posters about the lawsuit, it would still be in court.
I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. Groth may just feel more strongly about other concerns, such as the financial well-being of the company, the employees or people close to him.
I don’t know that for a fact, mind you; it’s just supposition. But if fighting such a legal battle depletes the company’s finances, winning could be a pyrrhic victory.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
As an employee of Groth’s, I resent Alan Coil’s cavalier assessment of the settlement. Easy for you to say, Alan.
Mr. MacPherson put it well when he wrote, “Defending one’s principles is admirable, but if doing so proves to be a burden to the point of distracting from its core business and mission, a quick settlement at a low cost is a positive outcome.” To that end, I’m grateful for the settlement and so is *every* other Fantagraphics employee and artist that I’ve spoken to, unequivocally.
I know Gary did not want to settle; I know he’s confident he would have prevailed at trial. But eventual victory was predicated upon getting to trial without critically harming the financial health of Fantagraphics. That was the big dilemma.
Fantagraphics publishes hundreds of artists, employs about 20 to 25 people, and our collective livelihood was at stake with this lawsuit due to the financial strain it was putting on Fantagraphics. Legal Defense Fund donations, while helped, were only covering a fraction of the expenses. Ellison’s repeated claim that he never intended to harm Fantagraphics the company with this suit was either completely naive at best or a flat-out heaping healping of bullshit at worst. What other effect could it have had? For someone who has so much experience in the courts system, I find it hard to believe that naivete explains Mr. Ellison’s inability to appreciate how many other people he was hurting with this suit and I will likely never be able to forgive this, that he would have been more than happy to put strangers like me out of a job if it meant vengeance against Groth & Thompson. Which is all to say that as much as I’d like to see Gary and Kim stick it to him because I felt like Ellison was gunning for my own livelihood as well as theirs, it just wasn’t worth it.
In other words, how strongly Gary felt about the suit was not the deciding factor in settling; his responsibility to his company and the people in his life was. I for one am impressed; I’ve known Gary for almost 15 years and I’m not sure he would have ever entertained the notion in his younger days that discretion is sometimes the better part of valor. He handled this very responsibly.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Reading the settlement, I see Groth and Ellison are forbidden to speak of the settlement. Apparently that means the employees are free to speak.
Reynolds quotes MacPherson — “Defending one’s principles is admirable, but if doing so proves to be a burden to the point of distracting from its core business and mission, a quick settlement at a low cost is a positive outcome.” That is a good point, because it defines what one’s principles are worth in monetary terms. True principles are priceless.
Reynolds also says Fantagraphics “publishes hundreds of artists”. Wow. I’d need to see some evidence of that. More than 200? Because in order to be “hundreds”, the number has to be over 200. That’s quite a claim for the 1% or so of the market they have.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Alan Coil wrote:
Reynolds quotes MacPherson — “Defending one’s principles is admirable, but if doing so proves to be a burden to the point of distracting from its core business and mission, a quick settlement at a low cost is a positive outcome.” That is a good point, because it defines what one’s principles are worth in monetary terms. True principles are priceless.
You’ve ignored my earlier point about a pyrrhic victory.
What you’ve failed to appreciate is that responsibility to one’s employees and family members is an important principle as well. Settling the lawsuit isn’t a case of abandoning one’s principles. It’s a situation in which different principles come into conflict.
Reynolds also says Fantagraphics “publishes hundreds of artists”. Wow. I’d need to see some evidence of that. More than 200? Because in order to be “hundreds”, the number has to be over 200. That’s quite a claim for the 1% or so of the market they have.
Fantagraphics has a one per cent share of the direct-market comics industry. There are other markets out there as well.
I find it easy to accept that Fantagraphics has hundreds of artists represented in its library of offerings. The publisher has an extensive listing of backstock and publishes a number of anthologies. And don’t forget Eros, its adult-comics imprint.
You ought to do a bit of research before refuting the claims of someone (ie. Reynolds) who’s in the know. And your attempt to pigeonhole the concept of “hundreds” with an exact quantification comes off as a bit petty.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Alan, we currently have around 400 books in print (not periodicals) and have published 50 to 60 books a year for the last several years (not even counting Eros). Counting Eros and periodicals, I believe we have well over 1500 individual products in our warehouse. I do not believe I was speaking in hyperbole by any measure.
And you know, you’re right, true principles are priceless, but so is art.