Thomas Parrott leaves Black Library

[Kelborn]

We are not in the position to judge upon anyone's mental health or whatsoever.

 

Better to focus on what we've got.

He explained the situation from his point of view. GW will most likely never respond to that. The same way they never dived into the situation with Arch or that one issue between that guy from FW and a fellow hobbyist during the Warhammer Fest (or World, not sure).

 

I highly recommend to give your thoughts about his leave, wether it was his choice or not. Theorizing about this and that won't help us, GW or especially, at all.

 

In the end, it is what it is.

[cheywood]

A few, more minor, GW authors have commiserated with him- Mike Brooks, Sarah Cawkwell and Josh Reynolds (who also recently left).

 

A former editor, lottie llewellynwells also said "I am so sorry and so angry this happened to you, although sadly not surprised. You are an amazing writer and an excellent person." I wonder if she will employ him in her new publishers?

 

Between this and Josh Reynolds seems like things might be bad in BL. Up until recently I had thought things were going well and most people were happy to work there.

This is all supposition, but from what I remember Reynolds also was spoken to about his social media use a while back. Something about his answers to people’s AOS questions. My guess is that the pitching/writing/publishing process is solid but there’s a lot of pressure on authors to avoid controversial statements about the lore, the fandom, the company, politics, anything that could generate uproar.

[Joe]

If you pay attention most GW staff include a comment relating to "views here are my own" or somesuch on their profiles. Plausible deniability or somesuch, I'm not entirely certain what the correct legalese is - however is it possible it has something to do with that?

 

He explained the situation from his point of view. GW will most likely never respond to that. The same way they never dived into the situation with Arch or that one issue between that guy from FW and a fellow hobbyist during the Warhammer Fest (or World, not sure).

 

What was the Warhammer Fest thing? The thing relating to the kid?

[Marshal Rohr]

It does seem the freelancers have a tighter leash and more oversight than the “big” authors. Gav is very vocal about politics and engages in the same kind of back and forth Thomas did. My twitter has a hundred word block List and most of Gav’s posts and retweets trip it. Even Mike Brooks criticized the IP about politics but didn’t get his contract terminated.

[DarkChaplain]

Josh in particular was muzzled over his wrap-up Q&A (purely subjective on his part, of course) regarding the Old World. GW legal did not want him appearing like he was delivering remotely official information about that setting or characters, and field at the very least a massive disclaimer that it's just his headcanon.

 

They're very touchy about authors, outside of official publications or established parameters, potentially influencing the IP or reflecting it badly. I'd assume that dragging the whole "fascism" angle into the open while also being in a controversial argument with some fan(s) in the first place *and* having a rather politicized Twitter account would qualify for reflecting badly on his employers and their IP. They clearly do not want their employees being part of :cussstorms - and justifiably so. Especially this year, all it takes is one black sheep visible or exposed on social media for the entire company to get absolutely trashed with bad press.

 

I don't regret leaving Twitter behind outside of a very rare tweet or for use of reaching out to a particular author. It's a cesspool of disingenuous, toxic "gotcha!" activism

[cheywood]

It does seem the freelancers have a tighter leash and more oversight than the “big” authors. Gav is very vocal about politics and engages in the same kind of back and forth Thomas did. My twitter has a hundred word block List and most of Gav’s posts and retweets trip it. Even Mike Brooks criticized the IP about politics but didn’t get his contract terminated.

I would stake good money on nothing happening to Parrott if he were a more established writer.

[Knockagh]

The age of fury and outrage. I’ll leave you all to your fury you all obviously enjoy it.

 

Like I said at the start B&C is no place for this. It’s a shameful thread.

[cheywood]

The age of fury and outrage. I’ll leave you all to your fury you all obviously enjoy it.

 

Like I said at the start B&C is no place for this. It’s a shameful thread.

I agree. There’s some truly shameful comments in this thread.

[Excessus]

Ok, I have painted with a broad brush here with the removing of posts, your posts may have been removed as collateral damage though you yourself did nothing wrong. I regret nothing.

 

Remember, you still need to adhere to the rules of B&C, so please keep it constructive while continuing the discussion in a civil way.

 

 

[Ubiquitous1984]

Without both sides of the story being available, what is the point in discussing if this is the right or wrong decision?  Until BL release their reasons (which will never happen) we are simply guessing at what’s happened here.  
 

It’s fine to be upset about a decision, but just remember that we don’t know the full story and likely never will. 

[Lucerne]

Without both sides of the story being available, what is the point in discussing if this is the right or wrong decision?  Until BL release their reasons (which will never happen) we are simply guessing at what’s happened here.  

 

It’s fine to be upset about a decision, but just remember that we don’t know the full story and likely never will. 

GW not commenting means they aren't disputing the author's statement of events so what we know is decidedly damning towards GW.

[caladancid]

 

Without both sides of the story being available, what is the point in discussing if this is the right or wrong decision?  Until BL release their reasons (which will never happen) we are simply guessing at what’s happened here.  

 

It’s fine to be upset about a decision, but just remember that we don’t know the full story and likely never will. 

GW not commenting means they aren't disputing the author's statement of events so what we know is decidedly damning towards GW.

 

 

That is not how that works at all.  Employment law has a lot to do with what a company can and cannot say, and as many people are finding out- 'It was said on Twitter' isn't an exception to the rules.

[Lucerne]

 

 

Without both sides of the story being available, what is the point in discussing if this is the right or wrong decision?  Until BL release their reasons (which will never happen) we are simply guessing at what’s happened here.  

 

It’s fine to be upset about a decision, but just remember that we don’t know the full story and likely never will. 

GW not commenting means they aren't disputing the author's statement of events so what we know is decidedly damning towards GW.

 

 

That is not how that works at all.  Employment law has a lot to do with what a company can and cannot say, and as many people are finding out- 'It was said on Twitter' isn't an exception to the rules.

 

Employment law doesn't factor into it at all. By definition, GW has not disputed the author's depiction of events, a lot of which were publicly viewable.

[DarkChaplain]

BL can barely manage to inform us about new and upcoming releases, did anybody really expect them to comment on decisions made in the upper management regarding human resources involved in controversies?

 

Parrott has a few shorts, a novella or two and an upcoming novel under their publishing label. Even most fans probably never heard the name, or associate anything with it. There's literally no reason to throw oil in a fire by commenting on something like cutting ties with a low-profile author, no matter how vocal he may be on social media - especially when he isn't going out and about outright slandering them. And if he did, they wouldn't make it public, and instead just send a cease & desist letter to the bloke, rather than cause a public ruckus. I'd argue that neither their investment (the advance for his upcoming novel & novella, hours spent editing etc) nor his standing with the community warrant them to speak up at all, and risk getting embroiled in an ongoing socio-political culture war.

[mc warhammer]

there's definitely legal considerations to take into account whenever a company issues a statement publicly in these situations. or even online backlash (like how some companies choose to comment on social movements etc).

 

there's always a minimum of two sides to every story and sometimes the truth is found in the middle, but also, there's time's when one side's version of events is complete trash.

[Lexington]

Given the BL authors that've publicly shown support of Parrott in various ways that suggest they think what he says is fairly believable (including Josh Reynolds' "his does not surprise me in the least" comment), I think the idea that everyone should maintain a neutral shrug towards this is...a bit much.

[Excessus]

Well, multiple reports about the topic since it was reopened and several removed posts shows that the discussion has run its course.