Silencing a writer after the book has been accepted for publication is a step on the slippery slope to censorship. Ronan Farrow is entitled to criticize the book and what Woody Allen has said. Working to keep it from being published is something he should know better than to do.
47
Ok. We believe the accuser. Get rid of people like Al Frankin, etc. Yes, even Harvey Weinstein. I'm 72. With 2 daughters. People are flawed. Women and men are predatory and opportunistic. Judge people as you would be judged.
4
Good move!
2
Cyril Connolly claimed that just as sadists often become butchers, people who are afraid of life tend to go into publishing. What a pack of cowards.
17
Very disappointing, this is mob justice and my opinion of Ronan Farrow went down the drain.
43
Still in print at Hachette: JOEY THE HITMAN, a memoir about a mob killer who admits to murdering 38 people.
42
His book should be published. Simple.
29
Woody Allen:
--did NOT marry his daughter.
--did NOT marry his step-daughter.
--did NOT marry his biological daughter.
--did NOT marry his adopted daughter.
--did NOT marry his wife's daughter.
--did NOT marry his granddaughter.
Why do so many commenters find it so hard to stick to the truth?
40
How is it even possible that anyone cares about this?
4
The ultimate issue here is one of censorship. Hatchette was wrong and stupid to hide its intentions of publishing Allen's book, but if the First Amendment still means anything -- a fair question to ask these days -- reneging on the deal because of pressure is worse.
History is my passion. On my bookshelf I have the memoir of Albert Speer, Hitler's armaments minister, published by Macmillan. That book has been alternately condemned as a self-serving apologia and praised as a window into the workings of the Third Reich. The important thing, though, is that it was published.
Whether Woody Allen is a pedophile, or the victim of a vindictive child is beside the point in this matter. Ronan Farrow is not judge, jury, and executioner. He shouldn't be a censor, either. In fact, for a reporter to advocate censorship at all is the height of hypocrisy.
35
A portrait in courage from the editors at Hatchette.
4
Just as criminals should not profit from their crimes, pedophiles and those like Allen, who end up marrying family members, have a moral price to pay.
5
Ronan Farrow is not the moral arbiter of what books we are allowed to read, period. How dare he?
46
Is there any loss by not publishing Allen's book? Is there any harm in canceling the career of this egotistical jerk (and his pretentious films)?
6
There is no consistent standard by which publishers decide what to publish and retailers decide what to sell. I can go online today and purchase Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, but David Duke’s latest rant can only be purchased out of a garbage pile somewhere. Both of these men are monsters, one more successful than the other admittedly, so surely the standard is not whether or not the author is disreputable. If the question is whether or not the author was or is historically or culturally relevant, then of course that begs the question of who decides. Hitler is clearly historically relevant. Duke at best is a historical footnote, and yet there are memoirs written by historical footnotes cluttering up the aisles of many bookstores. Is there no standard but amoral market appeal? I think that is much closer to the truth regardless of the publisher’s platitudes suggesting some higher calling to an open exchange of topics and viewpoints. I have no doubt that the publisher has done a careful cost-benefit analysis here and has decided the market appeal of a Woody Allen memoir is not strong enough to counterbalance opprobrium both in house and from other possible clients. It all comes down to dollars and cents, and my guess is that regardless of the public backlash to Woody Allen what really matters here is that he is just not as big a personality in the world of avant- garden cinema as he was in the past. He and his films just do not matter all that much anymore.
2
Glad to see this happen. People suffered major hurt from this “genius”. The publication of this tripe will only hurt more innocent people.
5
Woody Allen is the classic example of White male privilege. If he had been Black and accused of even a fraction of such behavior., he would be behind bars.
9
I wanted to read this book. (I want to watch Roman Polanski’s award-winning movie too.) Sod this. Now I will never buy another Hatchette book again. Political correctness that reeks of fascism and communism, stifling books, opinions, viewpoints. This is dangerous (no surprise in a country that knows nil about the Holocaust.) How do people not see that? Allen committed no proven crime. He was acquitted in court. And, one son, younger than Roman, has blogged about a very different memory of the whole affair, disagreeing with his older, more famous brother. Where is his story?
26
I could never understand why the burden of proof against Mr Allen is different that for anybody else.
Weinstein, Lauer, Rose, C.K, Cosby, even Franken. Each of these men fell with the #metoo movement after multiple and very credible accusations against them. But with Allen, all it takes is one single accusation that is far from being very credible.
Putting aside the witnesses that said it never happened, or the contradictory testimonies from the victim, we're supposed to believe that for one moment, Allen became this uncontrollable pedophile that decided to rape his own daughter while a party was happening downstairs, and with his own son outside the door. He had this one-time urge, and then decided "Nope, that's not my thing", and never did it again.
Pedophiles do not get cured. It's a life-long disease they have no control over. Just remember all the priests that couldn't stop even after being caught and had to be sent to some island to isolate them. Yes, Allen has an icky fixation with young girls and what he did with Soon Yi was deplorable, but certainly not illegal. And he has never been accused of molesting any child before or since. How did he manage this? If he found a cure for pedophilia, he should share it with the world.
The worst we can say about him is that MAYBE he committed this terrible act. But there's certainly reasonable doubt. And yet we've decided it's perfectly fine to destroy his reputation despite that. Shame on us. And shame on Mr. Farrow.
32
One of the last bastions of liberty in the 21st century is our freedom to read books about anything and everything by anyone under the sun. This is terrible news. No matter what you may think of Woody Allen, surely he has the right to write about his life and we should have the right to read his perspective on things and assess the veracity of his story and the ethics of his case. How disheartening.
317
@DRS Good grief. What is preventing Mr. Allen from offering his book to any other publisher, or even publishing it himself? No one is preventing him from writing about his life.
29
@DRS He has the right to write. Publishers have the right of refusal. Allen can seek other publishers.
29
@DRS He has the right! No one has said he doesn’t have the right. Hachette has simply declined to give him a platform from which to exercise his right. He’s free to exercise it through any other means that he finds suitable to him.
22
It is clear that Ronan (Farrow) Allen has deep ceded issues with his father. He is clearly being manipulated by the vitriol coming from his mother. Woody Allen has been investigated twice and has been exonerated. Are we all guilty forever even if we are proven innocent
Woody Allen is a great writer, Director, with a wealth of knowledge over a long and successful career to share
We decry loss of free speech in Iran, Saudi Arabia but just look in the mirror sometime
31
If there was a doubt in anyone's mind about Allen's pederasty - which there definitely was - why and how was he permitted to adopt two other little girls with his stepdaughter/wife?
11
Thank you Hachette for your excellent book promotion scheme!! An inspired move to break the monopoly Covid-19 had on public consciousness.
All those self entitled millennials whom pretended not to have fully researched Mia - sorry I mean Dylan’s “accusation” - smart move. Hope you instagrammed the “walk out” wink wink.
Life and work are so hectic - but I’ll be sure to pre-order a copy of Woody Allen’s autobiography - no doubt from a sister imprint who are in on the PR stunt. Congratulations on the millions in free publicity.
9
This is a man, who after several investigations, was never arrested nor indicted for the alleged accusations. He has denied the allegations that his daughter alleges. We will never know what happened. Ronan Farrow believes he knows, and he has taken his up position publicly. That is his right.
Doesn't Woody Allen have the same right?
21
Wow. Forget court. Forget the not guilty judgement. Oedipus Recks!
10
The disgusting witchhunt continues. Anyone who has looked at the case knows there is zero evidence and zero possibility that Woody Allen did what he is accused of, rather all the evidence is as the investigating authorities determined, that a violently jealous Mia Farrow manufactured the charges.
23
There are conflicting accounts by Mr. Allen's children, his own or adopted, on whether Mr. Allen was guilty or the target of an unstable wife and a bitter divorce. Perhaps you won't print this, but all sides (not including Mr. Allen's statements) must be considered. Perhaps absolute belief that he is a child molester is necessary to be correct and vengeful toward such perpetrators, but most have not even bothered to read all accounts by his children, which, as I say, contradict each other. Unless proven guilty as Mr. Weinstein was in a court of law, Mr. Allen should be given the benefit of doubt, which does not exonerate him but leaves room for doubt. Certainly current press coverage does not allow him that.
12
A fair representation of collateral damage from the #MeToo movement: an unapologetic intolerance, where a narrative is the sole true regardless of evidence, process or sentences. They are the modern-days fascists. We should start calling that out.
17
Ronan Farrow is a bully. I hope somebody publishes Woody's book. I would certainly love to read it.
24
Lately, news articles call Ronan Farrow Mia Farrow's son with Woody Allen. Forgive me when I say he looks an awful like Frank Sinatra.
Something's going on more with Ronan Farrow than with Woody Allen.
The bottom line is, Woody Allen was found not guilty, no one else has ever accused him of being a sexual predator (and sexual predators do not stop at one).
"Radio Days," among my favorite films, has a sensibility that points to Allen as a pretty good mensche.
And it's Nazis who ban books, burn books, and keep people's books from being published.
A bad precedent on the part of this publisher.
23
Cancel culture at it again.
11
I think this is cowardice. Ronan isn’t prosecutor judge and jury, and this whole thing sounds more like Fahrenheit 451 and McCarthyism. Maybe we should ban Ronan to see how it feels to have the shoe on the other foot. I have no idea what’s in this book but why is everyone afraid to reveal it? Moralists are such unwitting fascists, glorying in their little world of self justification. Repugnant. Allen has been accused of much, convicted of nothing.
20
Can't wait to read it!
98
Let's get this straight: those allegations were litigated twenty or more years ago and Allen was found NOT GUILTY. Does this count for anything?
The child was clearly coached by her mother, over several days, with a tape recorder. Prodded, "And did he do this?" "Did he do that?"
Children are incredibly insightful. They know what their parents want them to say. She was only trying to please her mother. By now of course she believes it herself.
I am sick and tired of #CancelCulture, the ugly cousin of #MeToo. I do not, and never have, believed that Allen did those things, but even if he had, it doesn't mean he ought to be rubbed out like some inconvenient pencil mark.
This is yet another strike of the politically correct self righteous movement. I see a clear connection between disallowing someone to have his own memoir published and a non-hispanic novelist to write about a Mexican woman fleeing with her child.
The publishing world needs to undergo a purge, but in the reverse of what's going on right now. Writers write, they write what they want, that's as it should be. It isn't up to activists to decide what readers are allowed to read.
181
I only judge him on the fact that he married Mia’s daughter.
That is creepy.
61
So the bakery has to make the cake for a gay wedding ... and the nuns have to pay for birth control. We try and do backhand elimination of abortion clinics -- and rightly stop it.
But the publisher .. can't publish ?
There is an age divide in this country over the 1st amendment -- it's a scary thing. There is a reason it's the .... 1st.
It's important
4
Wait. Didn't Ronan allow that he could be Frank Sinatra's child? His mother certainly did and that would indicate she betrayed her relationship with Allen sometime before he left her. How can anyone accept the revenge tale put forth by Mia, Dylan, or Ronan when the essential fact of who fathered Ronan is up for grabs? These are disordered minds intent on destruction.
Ronan's brother, Moses Farrow, issued an extremely plausible counter narrative to the molestation allegations that clear Allen of wrongdoing even if the courts hadn't already, but It's seldom mentioned. Ronan force feeds his self righteous fantasy of Dylan's alleged "abuse" into the info stream at every turn and gets away with it because he's made a career of #MeToo flogging and is using that to intimidate anyone who ever has or will work with Allen in any way. It's truly astonishing what cowards this movement has made of people who should know better.
22
A righteous decision. Woody Allen is a creep who had an affair with/married his own stepdaughter. I hope his book never sees the light of day, though I'm sure it will.
3
A pedophile doesn’t stop at one victim, and once one person goes public other victims come forward. And yet, Ms. Farrow is the only person accusing Mr. Allen of being a pedophile.
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe Ms. Farrow. I believe Mr. Allen is creepy, but I don’t believe he’s a pedophile.
7
well I put Woody ahead of the curve..... found him iffy 30 years ago with the whole "not my real daughter" stuff.
No woody, no Weinstein. (apologies to Bill Clinton)
3
The censorship mob is aroused! Clear the shelves! Censor the past, pile 'em up and burn 'em! Fahrenheit 451 is here! Fill the shelves with woe is me literature. Do I hear that song? That--Another done some body wrong song? As in wronged me? That's it, that's all we can read now. Woe is me.
8
Freedom of speech?
6
Thanks again, Ronan, for all you do to discredit these predators.
1
Many are citing the yuck factor in the age difference between Woody and Soon-yi.
What was the age difference in the Frank/Mia matchup?
16
Mr. Allen was never convicted of anything. He is the victim of a very scorned woman.
16
As for Woody Allen's "crimes" that have destroyed his career and attempted to ruin his life:
There is zero evidence. The child psychologist who interviewed then 7 year old Dylan Farrow (the girl he is accused of abusing) said there was nothing to it.
Mia Farrow, Allen's ex-girlfriend, is a bitter, angry, vengeful woman. She raised Ronan (Allen's biological son) and Dylan to hate him and believe these lies. Other, older, adopted children of Mia's have also denied anything happened.
14
This is absolutely sickening.
The number of book publishing houses has shrunken to the point where employees can now decide what sees print.
First- the NYT owes Mr. Allen a major correction- he never engendered children with his former wife, mother of the censored author.
Nor did he adopt them - I believe they were all adults at the time Allen and Mia Farrow were wed.
Second- If you don’t want to buy a book because you don’t like the don’t buy it.
Don’t stop me from having a chance to read it.
The attacks on Woody Allen’s character have been shown way out of line. His current wife - the adopted daughter of his ex-wife, has stated repeatedly there was no abuse involved in either of his relationships with mother or, once no longer married to her, her adopted daughter.
I am sure Woody will find another publisher and produce another fine best-selling work (his other three books have been pure humor- and I expect his autobiography will be a great read).
What we’ve got are four very public figures, two of whom are using accusations denied by the other two to harm them.
Mr. Allen has been found guilty in the minds of his former publisher’s employees of acts he did not commit.
Though he and his wife - and his ex-wife and her son are all public figures, I hope one of the world’s greatest directors is considerably enriched by a breach of contract suit.
11
Woody Allen has an interesting video interview clip on the meaning of life: "You start to think when you are younger how important everything is and how things have to go right . . . and then after awhile you start to realize that eventually you die, and eventually the sun burns out and the Earth is gone, and eventually all the stars and all the planets disappear, and nothing is left at all. . . . And you think to yourself, it is a lot of noise and sound and fury, and where is it going, not going anyplace. . . . Look, everybody's in the world now. We're all United States and Afghanistan and Israel and Arabs . . . and then every hundred years, somebody presses a button and a big toilet flushes and everybody on the Earth changes, everybody, all the Muslims are gone, all the Afghans, the Americans, everybody on the planet is gone. And a new set comes in. And they are full of worry and anxious and they are doing everything and then . . . the button . . . they are all gone. It just seems like a big meaningless thing.
"Now, you can't actually live your life like that. Because if you did, you just sit there and why do anything, why get up in the morning and do anything? So I think it's the job of the artist to try and figure out why, given this terrible fact, why do you want to go on living? What do you care about anything?"
Hachette or somebody must publish Allen's book. Obviously we need him, the artist, to feed meaning into our terrible and meaningless lives.
13
good for Ronan...
2
Back then Woody was on a roll. He took nude photographs of his partner's 14 year old daughter and later became engaged to her and married her. He couldn't keep his hands from Mr. Farrow's little sister Dylan Farrow. If you don't believe this, look up the photographs of Woody taken during the time period of the Dylan's's early years. Calling the victim into court as a witness would have been too much of a strain on her. So Woody got off but he was censured.
The judge's statement:
"In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”"
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
His victim grew up and publicly reaffirmed the molestation. Years go by and Woody attempts to tell his side of the story. The publisher's workers know the truth. I "rendered my own judgement" after reading Judge Wilk's decision.
8
If you had a publisher who made a profit from your work and then wanted to publish the work of a man you believed had abused your sister, would you say, "Yes! Gonna stay with that publisher!"?
Of course not.
The attacks on Ronan Farrow are ridiculous.
6
WOW!
So much rage on Woody's behalf, so much righteous indignation against Ronan for standing up for his sister. Not a trace of doubt, not a hint of ambiguity.
According to this crowd, Dreyfus was definitely guilty, OJ was definitely innocent, no guilty person ever escapes justice, and no innocent person ever ends up in jail or on death row.
6
I remember reading Woody Allen's defense of his marrying his young stepdaughter and every time I think of it, I feel nauseated. He was quoted as saying that "the heart wants what it wants." I still feel nauseated as I'm typing his words here.
Just think about what would happen if society had accepted his explanation without censure.
All fathers who abuse their daughters could point to Allen's defense as their own.
I've read that Allen sees a psychiatrist five days a week. This issue must have come up. It looks like he was paying the psychiatrist to be a "yes"
man. Allen was probably able to pay him good money to erase some guilt Allen probably felt breaking this taboo.
Interestingly, around this time he made a movie about a sister cheating with her sister's husband, so we know he's got issues around the idea of loyalty and trust in a family. As I remember the movie wasn't very good and I've never seen another of his movies since.
5
So, I don’t know about most of you, but even before Farrow’s adopted daughter accused Woody Allen of abuse, even before he took nude photos of his partner’s older adopted daughter, had an affair and then married her...
Even before that, as a young teenager in 80s I watched his “Take the money and Run”, which although very funny, there was something strange about it. I told my older sibling then, I don’t like him, there’s something which creeps me out about this man.
I was a young kid, but my gut instincts have never failed me in life.
Every weird, creepy and strange news that has come from Mr Allen’s side since then— nothing surprises me.
His behaviour with Previn was beyond reprehensible. And I also know pedophiles, don’t need stop or start at one.
There are hundred of such men who have not been convicted. Doesn’t mean they’re innocent. It is very difficult to prove distant sexual-abuse.
HW would have gotten away with all of it, until many someones decided to ditch caution and just lay it all out there.
I know I have absolutely no desire to read the book and by the way... since that movie long ago, I have stayed about from anything Woody Allen.
21
Just because there is freedom of speech, etc., doesn't mean criminals should get book deals, like that non-Pulitzer Prize winning ouvrage, I Want to Tell You, by the "innocent" O.J. Simpson. Just because someone is a talented artist, like Michael Jackson or Roman Polanski, doesn't absolve society's obligation to not overlook their damaging, criminal actions in real life.
14
Hachette took the wrong decision. There is lots of evidence that Woody Allen never committed the crime he is accused of. The powerful Ronan Farrow should never have interfered into the publication of his fathers' or any other book and a publisher should not bow to pressure from other authors and employees.
61
Ronan asks 'what if this were your sister?' If my sister kept pulling the nonsense his sister keeps pulling, I'd urge her to get psychiatric help and to stop going public with private pain that can't help her and needlessly hurts others. I'd ask my sister to grow up.
62
Ronan - obsessed with projecting his mothers anger. Woody’ ex- publisher should be boycotted.
52
Power to the people. Why does it take mass demonstrations to know when to do the right thing? What kind of morals do these executives have?
38
@Orion
Free speech is the right thing. Censorship is definitely not the right thing. What kind of value judgment do you have?
20
Are the “people” in favor of censorship? Why not just burn the book in piles once it is published? I recall that being popular at one point in history.
20
Orion, I recommend you read the various articles and letters written by people involved in this sorry affair. Specifically Dylan’s accusation, Woody Allen’s denial and his other son, Moses Farrow’s own recollection of the circumstances surrounding the alleged event.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion but I urge you to analyze both sides of this particular accusation.
18
People, look up the meaning of word "censorship."
Woody Allen can do with his book what he likes, just not publish it through Hachette. I'm sure there are plenty publishers outside of the big five who would be happy to help.
Or if the book is more important than money, he can easily publish it on his own.
381
@Dominik It seems that the self entitled brats that protested, forced Hachette to censor itself.
How is that for a definition?
44
@Dominik - this ain't censorship. It is succumbing to mob rule - which in the long run will be more ruinous to a free society.
86
@Dominik, Well said. If he came to me to publish it, would I be obligated? Of course not. That isn't censorship, that's the choice of a private organization.
23
Awesome. The less of a voice predators get in this country, the better.
59
@Andrew And you know the accusations are true? There are so many problems with the story, I don't see how anyone can even form an opinion, much less cast judgement.
15
@Andrew the less power, the voice we need to know and study to create interventions to protect everyone from further harm.
You're wrong. If you understood the First Amendment you'd feel differently.
2
I can't watch 'Manhattan' nor 'Another Woman' anymore due to the now obvious parallels to Allen's pedophillic tendencies. The majority of his other movies like 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' and 'Match Point' portray women who 'asked for it' and were killed by a male who had 'justifiable' reasons.
Misogyny disguised as art.
Glad to hear the book was dropped.
38
Thank you for your response as many don’t feel the importance of his behavior.
10
@Terri Cheng
You don’t need the analysts couch anymore.
1
So I shouldn’t be allowed to read it because you don’t want to?
8
It’s a sad day, and a devastating comment on our times, when a book no one’s even read is cancelled, only because a rich, powerful family believes it should be. This isn’t “woke” - it’s asleep. This isn’t democracy; it’s how the mafia operate. Ronan Farrow’s personal score to settle will not be resolved by mobs of uninformed millennials too young to remember the details of this case. I cannot believe Hachette capitulated to this bully. I’m furious.
1030
Couldn’t agree more. It’s very sad, it’s worrisome, and it’s antidemocratic.
172
@Jean Leduc Thank you for this post. This, a million times. The final decision should be made by the readers, not the publishing company.
142
Indeed, “Ronan Farrow’s personal score to settle will not be resolved by mobs of uninformed millennials too young to remember the details of this case.” It will be resolved by Ronan Farrow, himself. The epic story of a son avenging his mother’s public humiliation and the desecration of the family she created will be a story of triumph. Woody Allen isn’t being silenced, however. He’s justly not getting paid. There’s a difference. Amen.
103
This is a fine example of the democratic process in motion and could be a model for our current administration.
9
I disagree with Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive of the free-speech nonprofit PEN America, who said, “If the end result here is that this book, regardless of its merits, disappears without a trace, readers will be denied the opportunity to read it and render their own judgments.”
There are not two sides to this story and often times there are some humans who are not worth hearing from. Woody Allen is one of them. As a species, we have and continue to enforce positive societal norms by shunning those who. Ilagenorms.
3
@Greg D.
There are always two sides to a story. Only two people know the truth as to what did or did not happen on the day of the alleged incident. Allen and a 7 year old child who was manipulated by her vengeful mother. I know who I believe.
12
I believe that Woody Allen is probably guilty of what his daughter says he did to her.
But there is a much larger principle at stake here. We as a democratic society cannot simply refuse to allow people with opposing opinions to express them.
How can you, someone with zero personal knowledge of the facts, take the position that, “There are not two sides to the story...”? I’m sure the Nazi’s believed there were not two sides of the “Jewish question”.
Hachette did all of us a disservice today, including those who disbelieve Woody Allen and had no intention of ever reading his book.
4
Glad they canceled this publication, which is apropos of something!
Oh Come on Woody!
You never give interviews but now you want to publish a memoir? You're either "off the grid" or your not! You can't have it both ways! Sheesh!
3
I understand that Ronan Farrow hates his father, but I think it is wrong of him to tell the rest of us what we can and can't read.
23
Hachette, it seems to me, set itself for this trouble by keeping the deal for Allen's book under wraps. It should have been unapologetic about its pursuit and acquisition of the book from the get-go.
5
I propose, plain and simply, that anybody who disagrees with the decision of Hachette (as I do) boycott the publisher for a period of time. A month, maybe a couple of months, is a perfectly sustainable amount of time to avoid buying any of their books and make them understand that there is a mostly silent, but much larger share of the public opinion that has lost all patience with these spoiled children tantrums.
8
Obviously any business should be able to fire somebody or deny service to an individual if an important client or supplier doesn't like that person.
Business is business.
3
Saying this isn't censorship because it's only one publisher & there are plenty more of those around is sort of like saying killing only one person isn't murder. After all, there are plenty more of those around, too.
3
Convicted by a court is not longer necessary to destroy one's career.
Allegations are enough.
This is chilling.
13
I don't like Allen, but I'm appalled that Hatchett gave into the "cancellers".
It is concerning to me, as a reader, that our literary culture is increasingly being shaped, and forcibly so, by a very small and increasingly homogenous group of very woke, urban, millennial women who Tweet, and who see publishing as adjacent to their activism and their politics.
9
Instead of muzzling the declared "bad" (although, of course, no one really knows, maybe not even his accuser) Allen, Hachette should have fired the lot of the intolerant, oh-so-woke, employees it has managed to assemble.
10
We’ll publish his book, no problem. We still go and see his movies, the great ones and the not so good. You guys don’t even do that. Woody Allen is a creative genius and he is wacko but I never believed he had abused his daughter and I thought he had been declared innocent twice !
14
Publishing a book is to make money for both the publisher and the author. The publisher may choose a book for publication or not. The manuscript may ultimately be such that the work needs more editing or rewrites. The work is intense. Then there is the decision for the reputation of the publishing house. James Joyce had to publish abroad. That is not censorship, but a choice of taste and alignment with existing authors. He could take it to Europe and publish it there. In the end, it is a business and artistic decision.
In the U.S., we burn people first or at least their reputation. but never books unless the book is banned such a Catcher in The Rye!
1
I am repulsed by Woody Allen as a person. A man who took nude photographs of his girlfriend/(partner)'s teen -age daughter and then married her, justifying his behavior "the heart wants what it wants" makes me want to avert my eyes.
But this reversal by the publisher does strike me as censorship.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion- this is not. And I doubt that many people will be interested in buying the book, since we already know what he'll say. And it won't be a bombshell confession that he is guilty after all.
1
I hope he finds another publisher. Artists shouldn't be prevented from expressing themselves because they don't fit someone else's idea of moral correctness.
If the book is published I'll certainly read it.
8
Surely Mr Allen has the money with which to self-publish. And that solves the problem of letting those who wish to read his thoughts (if any) do so.
2
The world is I think a better place thanks to Woody and his son. It is an American tragedy and has been a human tragedy since we never feel comfortable revealing our personal truths. Diogenes the Cynic was the wisest man on Earth and rumoured to be the wittiest and happiest.
He lived like a dog and ate the scraps from the table. He slept in a barrel but above all only told the truth.
2
My main problem with Woody Allen is that I've never found him funny, and his "serious" films are modeled after those of one of the world's most tedious and prolix directors, Ingmar Bergman. But that's a bit beside the point, I suppose. When I want to be entertained by a Woody, I'll stick with the woodpecker.
My point here is that publishing is a business, and Hachette probably decided that, ultimately, his (probably ghosted) book wouldn't sell very well and would end up piled on the remainder tables in bookstores, priced at two dollars a copy.
Point two, one of the few Allen movies that I've managed to sit through is "Manhattan," in which Mr. Allen's character lusts after an underaged girl. Could that, possibly, be telling us anything about the real-life Woody Allen?
Possibly.
I've not watched a Woody Allen film in a number of years and have thought less of the actors and actresses who continued to work with him.
Thank you, Hachette, for listening to your employees, and thank you Ronan Farrow for standing by your sister.
2
I was amazed at the number of comments attacking the publisher and Ronan ... and equally surprised at those who wanted to be moral defenders of Allen. Can’t a person be talented and also be morally reprehensible? Harvey Weinstein comes to mind.
Additionally, to those who disregard Allen’s daughter’s account because it was a long time ago, based on the majority of abuse cases, victims often don’t report childhood abuse until well into middle age. Imagine how much more difficult when it is your own father.
As to the publisher, we have free markets and they can decide to publish or not publish at will.
If one wants to be be outraged, how about freaking out about the mistreatment of children at our borders? THAT is an injustice. Whether or not Allen’s book gets published has no moral significance.
5
Nothing preventing him from putting it out as an e-book if he can’t find a traditional publisher, I suppose. That seems to be the trend for vanity projects these days. I won’t be reading it, mind you. I have found just about every celebrity autobiography I’ve so far tried to be unpardonably exculpatory and self-absorbed. Call it a generalization if you like but the ones that I have — in my opinion — wasted money on have been predictably self-indulgent yawners.
Mr. Allen will never have to worry about self-publishing his autobiography, thank-you. I'd fire all the Hachette protesters for blowing one of the most important publishing coups ever. What a joke. Talk about looking out the other end of the telescope!
7
Make sure you have copies of all of your favorite Woody movies. The thought police will be coming for them next. Boycott Hachette. I wanted to read this book. What right do they have to tell me I can’t? The staff should have been given their pink slips.
13
Ronan Farrow, like Nicholas Kristof a few years ago, calls Allen guilty of a crime for which no court has convicted him and of which accepted authorities hold him innocent. I understand that he is a successful and wealthy artist who married (and remains married to after many years) his wife’s adopted daughter, and if people wish to detest him for those things, so be it, but it seems to me that until proof is offered, he is being unfairly victimized. His former wife’s motivations and her manipulation of the allegedly abused daughter, are far from beyond suspicion.
Anyhow, having followed his career going back to stand-up on Ed Sullivan and through movies great and not-so-great, I’d like to read the book.
Until I do, maybe I should boycott Hachette.
21
It was perhaps silly to pitch the book to the son’s publisher. But if if Allen was investigate twice and not convicted, why this ? This is censorship and extralegal punishment.
8
Ronan Farrow seems to be a walking (and ceaselessly), talking trigger warning. Where is the line that separates sanctimony and censorship? Where is the line between art and the artist? At what point will publishers, museums, schools, libraries be completely cowed and sanitized by self-righteous zealots who decide what we can read and see and think? It has happened before. Have Farrow and his ilk seen the annual list of banned books in the libraries and schools of the US? We already have a president who attacks the press. We are lucky he doesn't read; not so lucky to have people like Farrow who do and who want to decide what we read.
18
When was the trial in which Woody Allen was found guilty and condemned to never being published? I seem to have missed it.
There are are whole lot of people (including my own kin) who should be defending freedom of speech and instead are stomping all over it.
Remember, it's not the voices that everyone agrees with that need protection.
17
This reeks of McCarthyism. Allen was never charged with a crime. What a disturbing turn of events. We are rapidly becoming our own worst nightmares.
18
This is disgusting. As if Hachette had any integrity to begin with. They publish dreck after dreck after dreck. Always in search of the best seller. No interest in quality. Now they smell trouble and cave. I've had with modern-day, top-heavy, only-in-it for-the buck publishing.
12
I don’t think there is a clearer example of mob rule than the “activists” in this instance. Shun and lynch someone who they dislike who has never been proven guilty. Bully all of those around him. Ughhh
12
Ronan Farrow seems to be a walking (and ceaselessly), talking trigger warning. Where is the line that separates sanctimony and censorship? Where is the line between art and the artist? At what point will publishers, museums, schools, libraries be completely cowed and sanitized by self-righteous zealots who decide what we can read and see and think? It has happened before. Have Farrow and his ilk seen the annual list of banned books in the libraries and schools of the US? We already have a president who attacks the press. We are lucky he doesn't read; not so lucky to have people like Farrow who do and who want to decide what we read.
6
And yet another person is deleted because of a totally unsubstantiated allegation, one that has twice been investigated by the police yet has not resulted in any charges. Is that fair? No it isn't. It is troubling that people can have their reputations ruined even when they have gone through due process, as Allen has. What about being innocent until proven guilty? That cornerstone of human rights has been trashed by some in the #metoo movement and I find that the most troubling thing of all.
13
Writing a book about a sexual assault doesn't give one special powers of knowledge and wisdom on the subject such that a one size fits all approach applies to every accusation. Not even if your sister alleges said assault. That's why we have a legal system to resolve such matters instead of you, the relative author, playing both judge and jury. Apparently all writing a book does do is give one a chance to smear another person's reputation in the absence of any court conviction. Crying, "How would you feel if this were your sister" tells you Farrow's motivation is something other than finding the truth. He's seeking revenge.
17
Well, now I’d like to read the book. I appreciate the suggestion to look at Moses Farrow’s blog as well. Interesting details. Ronan Farrow is a very intelligent man, but I’m quite capable of judging a book all by myself. I find cancel culture abhorrent. I hope Mr Allen finds another publisher.
15
People are going to try to cancel one of the great comedic geniuses over some unproven allegations? Disgusting.
13
I am just surprised that the great Woody Allen called his book "Apropos of Nothing" meaning, "with reference to; concerning...nothing". Doesn't he know that Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David already did the whole "it's a show about nothing"? And, there is self-deprecating and then there is just plain nonsense. His life has been far from nothing, both good and bad. That could be my autobiography maybe, but not his. If the book is published, a better title, please.
3
No one seems to mention or remember that he took lewed photos of his then step daughter that Mia Farrow found in his apartment while he and Mia were still a couple, despite living apart. After this all broke is when he married his step-daughter, 35 years younger. Come on.
2
It is a horrible thing to be repeatedly accused of a terrible crime despite complete lack of evidence, especially when there are sworn statements by psychological experts that no molestation took place.
Years from now, when sanity has returned, people will look back on this sorry episode and agree that It was tragic that a talented woman felt compelled to destroy her ex-lover and to elicit the cooperation of her own children as well as the Media in that effort.
It is of course completely illogical that Woody Allen would be a one time and done child molester. Be scandalized, if that is your preference, about Allen’s marriage to Farrow’s adopted daughter, who was in fact fully of legal age. But please stop short of using it as proof of perversion, since time has proven it to be a lifelong commitment.
Since I cannot abide the actions of a lynch mob, I will buy Allen’s book when it is finally published, as it will be.
12
Allan "Woody" Konigsberg is an embarrassment to himself and to the motion picture industry.
Good for Ronan Farrow for once again, as he has done for the Me Too movement, articulately standing up for the truth and what is right.
What many wonder is how "Woody Allen" can even show his face in public.
3
Have never been a fan of Woody Allen's weirdo films and don't understand why they are considered "art." I bought Ronan Farrow's extremely well researched book, "Catch and Kill," that left no doubt as to what happened to his sister. It's gratifying to know the same publisher that published Ronan's book is withdrawing the same support for unattractive, nerdy Woody, who also married another of Mia Farrow's adopted children. Fortunately for him, he is not suffering the same fate as Harvey.
2
We must be protected from what he may write. Remember Orwell.
4
I look forward to purchasing Mr. Allen's book when it is published . . .
9
Woody Allen is a mess but has never been convicted of a crime. He is a cultural icon and reference point, like it or not. We have books by former Mafia hitmen, anti-Semites, avowed racists, eugenicists, architects of unjust and illegal wars, and O.J. Simpson. Let him have his say. Not to mention Mein Kampf. This is a slippery slope. If we eliminated books written by misogynists, predators and unlikable characters we'd be left with quite an insipid selection.
51
This sounds like Big Brother.
26
Props to Hachette for doing the right thing.
15
Free advertising for both. This audience is right on target for both as well. Win win.
1
I understand that Amazon offers a pretty easy self-publishing program. Maybe Mr. Allen could use that platform, if he's so desperate to publish a book.
6
The thought police was striking again! People are being judged and punished by other people, not by courts of law. This sounds so similar to a communist state.
21
I thought surely Pietsch was going to stand firm. But I don't blame him for not wanting to die on this hill. It was a business decision, not a moral one, to publish it (or Ronan's book, or Bill O'Reilly's book, or anyone else's book). It was a business decision to cancel it. His duty is to his company's shareholders, not to the cause of free speech. I'm disappointed in the ignorance of Hachette's employees. This "our team vs. your team" mentality devoid of any rational thought is why we have Trump. Hachette's employees are too self-righteous to understand that they are exactly the same.
26
I just don't grasp how accusations without legal proof equal justice. If that's justice, then none of us are safe.
46
Read about this case and why he wasn’t convicted. It’s infuriating.
2
I bet that when Woody Allen was in the movie "The Front", he never thought history would repeat itself in America, only this time not from the Right but from what passes itself off today as the Left.
I wonder if the A.C.L.U. will quickly and unequivocally condemn this move, or has it, too, done a U-Turn on its traditional principles?
23
@Steve Fankuchen The ACLU no longer supports "hate speech" and the Hachette employees, as well as similarly-inclined commentators on this article, have declared Allen a purveyor of hate speech, so among the bien pensant, he is toast.
2
Why doesn’t he just publish it himself? Keep all the money. I would read it and I’m sure many people would. I can’t just have an opinion on a man who has never had a fair trial. People started judging him for marrying his adopted daughter which she was totally in consent of. I wonder why she has never stepped forward to defend him publicly... and they are still married right? I mean it might not seem to right to many but I don’t think it’s crime. I love his work. I think the man is talented and and pretty genius. It’s just my opinion.
15
She did in a New Yorker piece
I think I'll watch a Wood Allen movie tonight and get a few laughs from one of the great American artists.
An artist by the way, who has not been charged with crime through two investigations.
Hachette caved into pressure from a man with a vendetta, shame on them.
Allen will find another publisher with some moxie and that company will make a fortune.
35
How many employees? Did they refuse to be interviewed? How many did not walk out? Did they refuse to be interviewed?
I'd really like to know what kinds of people are being employed at book publishers these days.
13
Hachette's decision is a bit reminiscent of Salem, Massachusetts in 1692.
37
But without anyone dying. A rich men doesn’t get richer. That’s not the same.
2
Although I find Woody Allen's marriage to his step daughter creepy, I have mixed feelings on whether his words should be censored and his movies boycotted.
Who gets to decide which human transgressions result in censorship? It's complicated.
For me it's a matter of breaking a contract. If Hachette had moral qualms about publishing Woody Allen then they never should have signed a book contract with him to begin with. Allen's behavior has not suddenly changed.
A free press should discuss all ideas, not just the popular ones.
13
I've not been willing to read any of Woody Allen's books or articles, nor watch his movies since he married his partner's adoptive daughter. Many people don't think of adopted or step-families 'real families', but family relationships within such families are very real.
But Mr. Allen began a sexual relationship with a very young woman whose mother was also his sexual partner. I consider the behavior of Mr. Allen to be incest, despite the lack of biological ties. And would it be impossible to for such a man, with so few moral boundaries, to stop at abusing a child? Looks like a pattern to me.
23
@Diane Hillmann
And this is why we are here today. The censoriousness and prudishness of the left has become as bad as those of the right. Having a consensual relationship with a young woman over the age of consent is light years from abusing a child. You may not approve of his relationship but it wasn’t in anything other than bad taste. It certainly should not subject him to a witch hunt led by his ex wife.
8
There were a few regimes that judged people on their assumed patterns of behaviour. You do not want to live such laws I can assure you.
5
@Diane Hillmann What something "looks like" to you may look quite different to someone else. That's why we have investigations, which occurred in the case, and trials, which didn't occur because the investigations did not turn up sufficient evidence to charge Allen with a crime. While you are entitled to your reading and watching preferences, your fantasies/beliefs should not be a basis for action by the rest of us.
6
When does Ronan Farrow have the audacity to tell a publisher what to publish or not. Maybe Farrow should take a dna test to see if Sinatra is his father.
32
What’s the difference? He was his social father.
1
Yes! Since Mr. Farrow has chosen to treat allegations as facts, why are we not discussing Ronan Sinatra here? Double standards abound!
5
I just can't hate Woody Allen. His movies have meant a lot to me, and I think at least in my case they've made me a better person. I don't demand that movies be moral, but his seems to point toward a world with more kindness, curiosity, love, etc. You bet I'm going to read his memoir. I'm going to watch Midnight in Paris right now. It's a cold, cold world that can't find the love for Woody Allen. I need him, you know? Maybe you do too.
44
So maybe it’s true that freedom of the press belongs to those that own one.
17
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical. Kudos to Hachette Book Group for making the right decision, and kudos to Ronan for taking a stand.
19
Right decision? I am sorry that your moral universe has become the new publishing guideline in the United States along with the employees who walked out, but don't have the guts to quit.
Allen has not been convicted of a crime. Public opinion is not a court of law. And your opinion is not the law of the land.
Somebody needs to publish Allen's book if only to show support for the First Amendment. I promise to preorder my copy.
5
Who decides what’s ethical or moral? Society does at any moment in time. That’s the society that elected Trump. The ethics and morality practiced in the Bible sure aren’t the ones we have now. At least we don’t kill folks for adultery and disobeying their parents or for being gay (generally speaking). When talking about ethics and morality speak for yourself but consider the origins. There are no absolutes no matter how much you think there are or should be. Many have died over this point.
3
I would be FAR more inclined to believe Allen was guilty of abuse if there were others who claimed it. To those who are so certain of his guilt, where are the other victims?
16
@Indestructible So one woman cannot be believed? what is the formula? How many women need to be abused before a woman's account is believed over a man's. Is it 2 or 4 or 6 or an even dozen? Let's make one thing clear, Dylan Farrow's account of abuse occurred when she was a child and it happened over a period of many years. She spoke out as a child. She continues to speak out about her story. She knows what happened. Of course Allen is denying it, this is the pattern of child sexual abuse. Accuse the accuser. For a society that gives a lot of lip service to protecting children we really fail them when they courageously speak-up and then negate their entire experience simply because their accuser was never charged.
Also 28 years ago when they looked into it we had a different understanding of the nature of these abuses and then as now these things are difficult to prove. But that does not mean that they did not happen.
Also, doesn't having a sexual relationship with your teenage step-daughter strike you as immoral and unethical? He started a relationship with her when she was in high school and it's a pattern in Allen's relationships which are openly depicted in his films.
If anything points to validity of Dylan Farrow's account it is this. Don't accuse the accuser.
12
@Cynthia Nagrath This "always believe the women" and "always believe the children" gave us the witch-hunting outrages that began with the McMartin Preschool Scandal. People who don't know history tend to repeat easily-avoided disasters.
3
Actually, when he was accused we were also in a time where there was a spate of wrongful accusations of child abuse in this country. Many men and women served prison sentences for crimes they did not commit.
Women should be believed, as a general rule, yes. But, this case fits more closely to those cases involving ‘suggested false memory of the child’ than to a genuine case of molestation. (I’m a forensic psychologist lest you think I pontificate without knowledge).
Moreover, those who wish to use his (now decades long) marriage to Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter as proof of child abuse allegations struggle for credulity. Suyeon was *20 years old* when they began to date. You can call the relationship (at the time) ill-advised, strange, immoral, bizarre -even disturbing if you’re so inclined, but you can’t call it evidence of a prior crime of sexual abuse of child.
4
This Woody Allen manuscript has been kicked around for years. It was well known in the publishing industry as an orphan project that major NYC publishers were unwilling to take on, chiefly because of the anticipated blowback just visited upon Hachette. Publishing is a business; they were perfectly within their rights to take into account such a negative backlash when considering taking on this project, or any other book. Yet Allen was said to be unwilling to publish the book with a 2nd tier house outside of NYC, which he still could do, quite easily. So this all seems like an inexplicable own goal blunder on Hachette's part. They knew they were going to take massive incoming flak on this project; and they should never have agreed to publish it if they weren't going to follow through.
7
What a sad day for those who support freedom of the press and freedom of ideas.
Even though Woody Allen has been exonerated by a team of Yale experts who stated it was their strong opinion that Dylan was coached to lie about what happened, the very fact that Allen was accused demands he must be completely cancelled. To be charged is to be convicted.
I suspect this will be a watershed moment in the #MeToo movement. Evidence is no longer relevant. A pattern of behavior no longer important. Fairness is not at all the point.
And at the heart of this matter is Ronan Farrow, a man who is almost certainly lying about his paternity and who was a mere toddler when these alleged events took place, yet his word is taken as gospel.
Kafkaesque is a description Woody would likely agree with.
49
This is not a fair or accurate retelling of what Yale experts and the judge decided.
They decided he wasn’t likely to be found guilty and that the cost of prosecuting was too high to the family, but not that Woody Allen’s behavior was decent.
1
The mainstream press has put Ronan Farrow on too much of a pedestal. He and his sister and mother have waged an obsessive revenge war in public against Allen using the Me Too movement. And the press has openly sided with them and participated in their war, which is not the press's job. I don't know what really happened in Mia Farrow's house years ago and neither do most of the people passing judgment. I just know that it's really bad when anyone uses their power to get a book banned. I hope Mr. Allen self-publishes it.
48
Does anyone really care about Woody Allen anymore? He is so yesterday. As are his recent cinema attempts. Time for retirement, Woody.
6
@Karen O'Shea I, too, find Allen's films a bit repetitive and have stopped watching them, but the issue at hand is whether a person's voice can be successfully blocked by a group of overly-woke bullies -- even if the alleged perp has been largely exonerated of a crime which is difficult to prove in the best of cases.
3
The cowardly Hachette gives into the censorship mob led by Ronan Farrow. Woody Allen is not only presumed innocent, he was never even charged with a crime, so he is innocent.
25
He was thoroughly investigated, passed a lie detector test, and fully cooperated. They didn't charge him with anything.
But let's cancel him anyway. Because wokeness!
41
Ronan Farrow is the architect of the #metoo movement. And that is a place where the victim must always be believed (like Keisha, who accused her manager of raping her when she was trying to get out of her contract with said manager.) And where what the accused has to say in his defense is not evidence. Only what the “victim” (woman) says is evidence. No one should ever listen to what the accused has to say. He’s already guilty by virtue of being accused. And that is exactly what this is. The Farrow family put pressure on the publisher to stop Allen from being heard. He’s not even allowed to tell his side of the story. And any publisher who lets him do so is surely violating the Farrows. Only they should be heard. Allen should never be allowed to defend himself. And how many of the employees who protested actually know anything about the case, which was thoroughly investigated at the time. I doubt many. They know he’s accused and therefore must be guilty.
36
When the alleged incident happened in August of 1992, Ronan Farrow was 4. His older brother, Moses, was 14 and claims it absolutely never occurred.
Mia was out shopping with a girlfriend, so she can't possibly know what happened.
Moses in his post on the topic (google it) also claims Mia was incredibly emotionally abusive and speaks of horrific punishments for minor transgressions. He notes two of Mia's children committed suicide and another engaged in highly self-destructive behavior and died impoverished in her 30s.
He mentions that Mia's uncle was imprisoned for child molestation and suggests Mia was a possible victim. Points out that at 21 she married Frank Sinatra who was 50 and after they split up, she lived with the Previns and broke up their marriage after having an affair with Previn and the wife was institutionalized. Yet, none of this is ever given any weight.
The question is, would a woman with this history weaponize her daughter after being publicly betrayed and humiliated. Are you sure?
59
@Sparky, and don’t forget that Mia is good friends with Roman Polanski. Mia defended Polanski after he pleaded guilty to sex with a minor; after he fled the US while awaiting sentencing; and Mia continues to defend him to this day. But then Mia Farrow has never been in an acrimonious legal separation lawsuit with Roman Polanski.
7
I disagree with the comments here, or at least most. Woody Allen married his daughter. Ronan was present. What do you readers know? Nothing. Anybody can publish his bio, and maybe beside Ronan’s book it’s a bad look.
4
Shame on Hatchette! Mr. Allen has been through enough of the ranting nonsense of the Farrow clan. In spit of extremely high profile exposure, there has never any actionable evidence of a crime being committed. Certainly charges would have been brought by now if any evidence actually existed. Woody Allen has as much right to defend himself as the Farrows have to accuse him. Hatchette had a moral obligation to stand behind its decision to publish. Providing an open forum is admirable, not doing so is cowardice.
23
Read into why charges were not brought. Just google it. It’s not because they didn’t have evidence. The prosecutor said they did but chose not to put the victim through the trauma of a trial. All the court documents are online.
3
Someone will publish it and I will buy it.
15
Someone should investigate Ronan Farrow. He is so wonderful and perfect and everyone else is not. Woody Allen is a genius and certainly he has made mistakes ( maybe big ones), but who hasn't? We are here to love and forgive and we should respect Woody's amazing talent. What talent does Ronan have? Hate? His book is purely self serving. We all care and respect women and the human race. Now it is time to forgive our human errors ( yes, sometimes enormous errors).
14
When will Ronan Farrow address his brother Moses’ assessment of this situation? According to Moses, Dylan’s account is dubious at best. If anyone is interested in the other side of this story, you can find Moses’ lengthy blog post online.
The employees of Hachette who walked out don’t seem to be interested in Moses’ fascinating account. And these are publishing professionals??!!
31
Comments vilifying Ronan Farrow disturb me as a 70+ woman who has been on the receiving end of a powerful perpetrator's smear campaign. Until we get this right in this society, the sexual predators win while anyone standing up to them risks all.
As Farrow say, "a company being asked to assist in efforts by abusive men to whitewash their crimes" needs to be boycotted.
10
Good.
I don't believe in censorship but we've heard more than enough from Woody Allen over the last 50 years.
10
Just look at Ronan Farrow. Woody Allen is not his father and despite claiming he is, Mia Farrow has also floated some maybes about other possible fathers.
There is great dysfunction in this situation. Nothing is clear.
Read all about it at the blog of his brother Moses.
14
He fooled around with his stepdaughter. Despicable, but not a crime. And none of my business. This stuff happens in a lot of families. Heavens, the stuff that’s happened in my extended family makes the Allen scandal look like a PG rated movie. Plus, Allen and Soon-Yi are still together, which tells me a lot. I for one enjoy Allen’s films, and will continue to watch them.
18
People are really misusing the term “censorship”in these comments.
This is not censorship. Allen can easily self publish the book in print or online.
No one is stoping him from “sharing his story.”
6
Mia Farrow isn’t credible. Her son isn’t credible. He is carrying out a vendetta for his spurned mother, a notoriously difficult and unstable person. Whether or not the allegations against Mr. Allen are true - and there is precious little evidence that they are - Hachette has no business mucking him about. He should sue. I am personally very confident Woody Allen is telling the truth. This is not about “believing the women”. I generally do believe the women. In this case I simply do not believe the demonstrably unreliable and at times untruthful Mia and Ronan Farrow, one of whom (one might note) is putatively male.
20
It's the Chinese cultural revolution all over again. Courts don't matter, evidence doesn't matter, just envy and rage matter. Woman writing.
16
Ronan Farrow is a good brother and a loyal one. Any sister would want to have a brother have her back like that. He also has the back of women everywhere, especially those who have endured abuse and whose story has been muzzled or refuted.
It’s very hard to prove cases of child sexual abuse in a court of law, so acquittal does not mean it did not happen. We must listen to the voices of children or adults who speak up years later, because the nature of the abuse makes it very hard for children to articulate effectively what is happening to them at the time. Often it can take years. Look at the Michael Jackson victims. The abuse is not just sexual or physical; it’s psychological and can take years for victims to muster the courage to speak-up and speak-out. I applaud Ronan Farrow for his excellent book and shining a spotlight on these abuses and the damage to the victims.
It’s only natural that he did not want the same company that published his book which dealt with this painful topic, give his sister’s abuser a legitimate voice and a platform for denial. Because we don’t have to read the book to know he’ll have some whitewashed version of what happened. The proof is in the pudding he had an affair with his step daughter and married her. Wake-up people!!!
11
1) She was not his step daughter.
Soon-Yi was the adoptive
daughter of Andre Previn and
Mia Farrow.
2) The proof is not in the pudding.
It never was. The proof of the
pudding is in the eating.
(An eternally losing battle this one.
But I digress...)
6
Why do companies cave to the slightest PC pressure? It’s terrible living in a society like that!!
12
So happy! Giving Mr. Allen the forum of a book would be a travesty. He made some great movies over the years which I enjoyed for a long time. But ....
The allegations, for which Mr. Allen has not been indicted nor convicted, are so troubling, and the people alleging are so highly credible, one cannot become blind to them.
I would not have read the book.
8
So Hechette sees fit to publish books by Trump Jr. and Newt Gingrich, but Woody Allen is anathema to them? Seriously?
38
Had this publisher disclosed to Ronan Farrow that they were planning to publish Woody Allen's book — in other words, if they'd been transparent with their prize author about this matter — then Ronan Farrow would have had the option to take whatever action he'd seen fit. But they kept him in the dark by withholding this information. Their actions can reasonably be viewed as unethical, deliberate and highly deceitful. Herein lies their dilemma, and the need to do damage control.
7
@King Michael Yes, one popular author should determine the business decisions of a publisher. Got it.
2
I believe Mia Farrow's son, Moses Farrow. He stated that Mia filled the families minds with ideas. Frankly, if my ex had taken my daughter as lover and then wife, I might have turned the rest of the family against him. I think this goes deeper then an accusation by a 7 year old daughter that was not substantiated. Parents can put ideas in young children's minds. I think Allen is a creep for what he did. No doubt he has the psychology of Jeffery Epstein. In this case, I think that's really what gets to people. He can say it's not incest but in fact, it kind of is. It disgusts people.
7
Well said. I agree with you- and I wrote a defense earlier cause I don’t believe he deserves artistic censure or cultural cancelation- but- leaving molestation aside- it was very sleazy behavior then and now. And everyone knew it.
@Oona So fine, don't buy the book, but please don't pretend that fantastical and largely-discredited accusations are a basis for bullying disfavored people.
5
As Tocqueville predicted, there is no free speech in America, and, as George Romney realized, we've all been brainwashed.
None of us will probably ever know what happened in this family's life, but censorship will arrest any public debate.
(Hey Wood, use your capital to self publish -- keep more profits for yourself)
But to me, Ronan Sinatra Farrow and Woody are small potatoes compared to the really big things most Americans can't get the facts about, like how much do we spend on the military industrial complex?
Why is our medical care the most expensive in the world?
How do lobbyists run congress?
What are the dimensions of our pharmaceutical rip off?
How has Israel dictated our Middle East policy for 50 years? What is the history of the catholic church's political involvement and why are they so opposed to family planning?
etc. etc. etc.
5
Dear NYT:
Ronin Farrow has a legitimate beef with Woody Allen, though his denunciation of the publicsation of Allen's book by Hachette as a "betrayal" is absurd.
This is a classic familial incest saga, with no definitive proof on either side, but plenty of hatred.
Mr. Allen, a brilliant Academy Award-winning filmmaker, has been attacked by Farrow and other prominent voices in the triumphant Me Too movement, to the extent that major publishers have passed on Allen's book, and he is unwelcome in the usual Hollywood self-adoration ceremonies.
Cancel culture is ascendant, a genuine (but morally suspect) artist is silenced and the new moral order is upheld.
Why does this all feel so smarmy?
12
If this is the future of publishing in regards to biographies and autobiographies ..... well then folks ... we'd better start pulling all the bios on DaVinci , Einstein , Picasso .. every Rock Bio ever written .. every Jazz bio ever written .. every film star / director bio ... in fact anyone famous from day one of the written word etc etc at al off the shelves .
Because the fact is ... all geniuses and truly talented people are riddled with flaws ... many having to do with sexually inappropriate behavior .
Seriously .. it is time the politically correct get off their precious high little horses and start dealing with reality ... .. recognizing THEY ... should they ever reach even a modicum of fame .. will have just as many if not more flaws in their own character .
Assuming that is they don't already .
Rant over .
25
I’m not sure what this accomplishes really.
I support the Me Too movement but I also think people should be allowed to speak. I’m not planning to see Louis CK or buy Allen’s book but I support their rights to express themselves and try to move on with their lives as best they’re able. They’ve made their livelihoods in the public eye since forever, and I’m not sure it’s fair to insist they crawl into a hole to live out the rest of their years. We have all made mistakes.
Let Hachette publish the book, and then let it really not sell well. That seems like a more fitting conclusion to this story to me.
9
A safe bet, then, if Hachette decides to publish Roman Polanski's memoir, there won't be a peep in protest from his friend Mia Farrow.
Or Ronan, the best little boy in the world.
15
@Steve Paradis, good point. Mia Farrow has always defended Roman Polanski (who pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing when he fled the US) and Mia continues to defend him to this day.
3
Of course it’s censorship, the next publisher who tries to pick up the book will be subject to exactly the same campaign.
Woody Allen has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Child abusers do not abuse exactly once and then do nothing for 50 years. This is a concerted campaign by Mia Farrow to ruin her ex husbands name and she has coopted her journalist son to lead the battle.
18
This is a great example of how, if Americans can consolidate their voice and their passion, real change can be achieved. Congratulations to all who participated and made their voices heard! We need to unite in this next election to make things happen — this gives me hope that we can make positive change! Well done!
4
Free speech? The individual’s right to free speech does not impose on publishers an obligation to provide a platform.
6
I'm a little uncomfortable with this decision. I certainly would never purchase it - I have zero interest in hearing from Woody Allen. However, it makes me a bit queasy to have a publisher essentially bullied into self censorship. If people detest Mr. Allen, they shouldn't buy the book and the publisher will lose money - maybe the best punishment of all.
10
Where is this book going to be for sale? I'll line up to buy a copy. Convict a man in a court of law and I'll make a decision as to whether or not to support his book. Until then I'll go see his movies I'll read his books and I'll act as if he's innocent which he is until proven otherwise.
22
I can’t imagine Allen is devastated: This stunt by the publisher is giving him free advance publicity for the book, which will surely be published elsewhere.
15
Firstly, I’m not interested in reading the book either by buying or borrowing. But I decry the censorship here. Mr. Allen has never been charged with a crime and the charge has been investigated by authorities. Mr. Farrow parrots his mother and in my opinion lacks standing. Who appointed him to censor anything. And "he married his partner's daughter", yes, true, but they’ve been married for 23 years. They’re not related and who are we to point fingers. In the entertainment industry a marriage of 23 years is saying something. So, shame on Hachette for declining to publish because there employees walked out. The patients running the asylum. I’m sure many of them would be on the front lines of any protest decrying a lack of freedom of the press or of expression. I’d like to see how many would’ve walked out if that meant their job. It’s easy to protest with nothing on the line. I would’ve liked to see them put their money where their mouth was.
44
Good for PEN! I feel that they speak for writers who may have an unpopular point of view to express, and who deserve an opportunity to express it, regardless of how many people disagree with it.
As an art critic, I have learned that art is one thing and personalities another. My professional activities would be much pleasanter if there were any sort of correlation between talent and personal niceness. There is not.
Woody Allen might not be somebody you would want your mother to marry. That doesn't mean that he isn't capable of producing a book, which is a work of art, and deserves to be evaluated as such.
My own suspicion is that the #MeToo movement has now become so powerful that Hachette concluded it couldn't make money with Allen's book. Hence the decision not to publish.
23
There is nothing, of course, preventing Allen from publishing his words. This is the Internet era. If he wants to share his story, he can.
This story isn’t about him being unable to share his story. It’s about him being unable to profit from it, in money or prestige.
11
If he's guilty, he's deplorable. But so far no actual proof. Do we silence anyone based on what are still unproven charges from someone who seems obsessed with a desire for vengeance? I find Ronan really disturbing as well, but he's a hero? This is not a moral decision from a publisher but fear of Farrow's strident attacks.
24
Good [albeit late] move Hachette.
7
Perhaps a dip in “Catch and Kill” sales or Farrow not “trending” adequately or is it the need for another high profile TV interview? I’m a long time divorced parent whose ex inappropriately used offspring in a vengeful fashion (though not to this extent). Using young children to make your ex “pay” for the pain and humiliation that is frequently part of divorce is common. This case was on steroids. However, the Allen-Farrow thing seemed odd enough that I entertained the possibility that Woody might be guilty. Now, I think Farrow douth protest too much! A reread of old stuff brings new info to light, at least for me, and I’m less inclined to think Woody is guilty which means I can now go back and rent all his movies again, go listen to him play clarinet and read his book when it comes out. Many may think Woody weird and that he has acted in an ill advised fashion more than once in his life but he is no Harvey Weinstein and deserves to tell his story. Mr Farrow, thanks for allowing me to enjoy your father’s work again.
22
Mob imposed censorship. Bill of Rights endangered by sanctimonious self referential narcissists. Don't like the book? Don't read it, but don't cancel the right of others.
38
I really don't care about Woody Allen. hardly anybody in my circle knows who he is, or would care. so a publisher decides not to publish his book. it's their right not to but it sure seems fishy the so called son has more money making potential for the publisher. so, Mr Allen, whoever you were, take your book some where else. I won't be reading it anyways.
1
This is an absolute disgrace- much like the failure of any film distribution company to release Allen's most recent completed movie in the United States. There are only two people who know for certain whether he actually abused his adopted daughter: Mr. Allen and the daughter herself. There is no evidence whatsoever that he did anything inappropriate, and no charges have been filed against him. There is, however, a good deal of evidence to the effect that Mia Farrow, the alleged victim's biological mother, was livid over the fact that he had broken off with her and had subsequently romanced and then married her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. Mr. Allen should either be arrested, convicted and incarcerated- or otherwise be permitted to live his life, make his films and write his books without his name being sullied and his career curtailed as a consequence of rumor and innuendo.
48
When should we start burning books written by “unacceptable” people?
310
@JQGALT In this day and age, there are many ways, including unprofitable ones such as publishing the book as a free ebook online, that would spread Mr. Allen's message. I personally applaud the decision of the publisher not to be party to such a man's profiteering of his past exploits.
21
@JQGALT
No one is burning any books. Apropos of capitalism, a business decided it's interests would be best served by dissolving a business relationship that reflected poorly on it, once widely known. Allen can and will publish with a house that deems their relationship mutually beneficial. Hatchette never should have pursued the book when already in consort with Ronan Farrow and that seems too obvious. Woody Allen as marginalized voice... now that is comical.
20
@JQGALT When do we stop pretending that everyone has to give anyone the platform they demand?
When did we lose our right to call out people and businesses when they profit from exploitation?
No one's burning books or stopping free speech. I'm sure Allen can afford to self-publish.
19
Today's decision by Hachette is infuriating. Woody Allen was not charged with a crime. Two independent investigations concluded it was far more likely that Dylan Farrow had been coached into making her claims. Media outlets such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and CBS News have given Ms. Farrow a forum in which to tell her story, but none of those three did the same for Moses Farrow, who accused their mother of child abuse. When Moses made those allegations, Ronan Farrow brushed them aside--precisely the sort of my-word-against-yours, I'm-more-powerful-than-you behavior he has gone after others for. That the media lets Ronan Farrow get away with his self-aggrandizing hypocrisy is bad enough. But if publishing houses are going to start canceling book deals because of him, or because employees have decided they don't like an author and don't want the rest of us to read what he has to say, then we have entered dangerous times, indeed.
50
Check out the song Beware of Young girls on YouTube, written by Dory Previn after Mia Farrow moved into the Previn's household then basically stole her husband, Andre Previn, from her. Interestingly enough, another song on the same album is entitled With My Daddy in the Attic. Sound familiar?
24
I guess freedom of the Press in the US is probably dead if political/moral opponents are able to silence publishers. its bad enough that many people are assumed guilty by just accusations kept silent from 20-30 years ago. Now mere harmless appearance complements by some are enough to get outstanding newsmen fired?.
10
Male celebrities over the years have had their way with women, and no doubt underage ones. I recall Yves Montand’s stepdaughter accused him of abuse after his death and a woman claimed to be his child. The French courts went so far as to have Montand’s body exhumed for DNA and found the woman to not be his child. Perhaps the Metoo movement will show the current generation of men that those days are over and spare us these decades old accusations.
1
This is malicious interference with existing contractual relations and prospective economic advantage.
11
People, it isn’t censorship. While Hachette Book Group was working with Ronan Farrow on his book, they were also working with Allen, unbeknown to Farrow. Would Ronan have published with Hachette had he known? Of course not. It was a tacky and offensive move on Hachette’s part. What were they going to do, sell both books side by side? Profit on a family’s pain? And before you continue to cry “censorship” stop and consider this question. Why aren’t any other publishers interested in Allen’s book? Are they guilty of censorship too?
14
Allen can’t get his book published. Coulter and other right wing speakers are cancelled by colleges. Seems like Trump is not the only threat to Democracy when we use duct tape censorship for the public forum.
Don’t buy the book if you think it is an injustice. But don’t claim to support free speech if you cannot read and judge the book on its own merits.
11
Mr. Allen was investigated twice for sexual misconduct and was twice not indicted. He wasn’t acquitted at trial; he was not indicted. What does that signify? Not enough evidence to indict. And yet, in the court of public opinion he is guilty. But what is he really guilty of in the public mind? He is guilty of marrying his ex-wife’s adopted daughter, which is not a crime, but is so reprehensible to so many people that Allen must be guilty of all the rest. He will never be rehabilitated in the public mind because of his marriage, not because he is, or is not guilty of sexual misconduct. The charges, that are unproven and possibly unknowable by anyone but Mr. Allen and Dylan Farrow, cling to him because of that one fact and that one fact alone.
18
A publisher can choose not to publish any book for any reason. They are not required to do so just because they initially said they would. I hope, however, that another publisher will pick up this book as I think Woody deserves to have his point of view heard. He is a major American cultural figure and it would be a great disservice to future scholars and readers if his voice is muzzled. Knowing what we know about him, it would be fascinating (if perhaps repugnant to many) to see how he presents his side of the story. If we prevented anyone who has ever done anything wrong or whose morals we disagree with from having their say, we would lose much valuable information and perspective.
7
This is not censorship. This is a company deciding that it is not in their best interests to publish the book. Mr. Allen is free to self publish or find another company who will sponsor his book.
8
True. Publishes have monetary interests and then prohibition against limiting speech attaches to governments not publishers But I think there are detrimental effects to society when publishers cow-tow to vocal minorities who make baseless claims. Publishers have profit motives yes- but so so corporate owned newspapers... Do we want to live in a world where our access yo controversial figures (note I personally don’t think Allen abused his daughter) and their ideas is determined by monied interests. I don’t.
1
Those applauding the decision not to publish the book have never even read the book! This is like the old (and reprehensible) Catholic League of Decency denouncing a movie without ever having seen it. It's amazing that this kind of behavior has made a comeback in our supposedly more tolerant age. Judge facts, not hearsay.
17
I do not think publishing decisions should be made by a group of employees rather than by the usual process of judgment followed in the business. Remember when the fatwah was issued against Salman Rusdie's Satanic Verses and there was widespread western outrage. People can decide for themselves whether to buy or read the book or not. Anything else is censorship. Allen was investigated and cleared twice. Whatever the truth, I do not like the idea that censorship by either individuals or groups is deciding what will or won't be published in the U.S.
10
What a terrible decision by Hatchette. Essentially this is an act of blatant censorship. And if the staff at Hatchette can't accept the fact that everyone has a right to tell their side of the story then they should get the axe. There is more and more of this type political and gender based bias and militancy going on in the publishing industry and the industry is being hamstrung by it. If this were the case in the past many of the greatest books ever written would have never been published at all.
11
It is possible that one of the reasons for the publisher's decision regarding the Allen book was financial. Mr. Farrow has two top selling books right now. Allen's book is an unknown as far as how successful it would be. If Farrow took his next book elsewhere to be published that could mean quite a loss of income. They might have been making the 'bird in the hand is better than one in the bush' choice. The employee protests were just icing on the cake.
6
You can be inclined to believe Dylan Farrow and support the publication of Woody’s book. It’s disconcerting especially to see liberals oppose publication of this book. I remember when they embraced the free expression of ideas no matter how odious, and it was the sole province of hopelessly staid conservatives to oppose the expression or broadcast of anything that violated cultural norms. No more. Now both have Cotton Mather running through their blood. But it isn’t surprising really to see Woody’s book shouted down. For all our talk about freedom of speech and the evils of Socialism, try reading Marx or speaking another language in public. You’ll get an earful from someone who has forgotten that being American means having the freedom—the obligation, as I see it—to be different, to support radical ideas that challenge conventional norms, and even to have bad taste. If we truly believe in a free market of ideas, and free expression, then let the book be published. You’ll have my support if you choose not to read it.
6
I had made a decision to cancel my subscription to Elle Decor, published by Hachette, even though I like the magazine. I was going to call on Monday. I am happy that I can continue to receive the magazine, but I did feel strongly enough to cancel it if the company had not acted.
3
I hope this is the apogee of a Soviet-style suppression and burying of books. Haven’t the Hachette employees (or the media Javerts) heard of the fundamental American rights of presumption of innocence and basic principles of fairness? The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they saw this. Woody Allen has not been accused of any crime despite two police investigations, and the record shows evidence that Dylan Farrow had no memory of being abused by her father until the vengeful Mia Farrow told her she was when Dylan was a teenager. There’s no way for poor Dylan to know if it was a memory planted by her mother or not. She will work that out in her life eventually.
Meanwhile, like many I am desperate to read Woody’s memoir. I hope a braver publisher will step in and publish it.
15
These pseudo-woke, faux-outrage people who are the first to say (rightly) “don’t like abortion, don’t have one but it’s my body, my choice” are not giving us a choice about what we want or don’t want to patronize. Enough with the cancel culture. My money, my choice.
16
What's with all these hysterical cries of censorship? This was a simple business decision not to move forward with the project. This happens everyday, around the world.
Woody is now free to find another publisher.
He is not being censored.
Please, save the panic for real abuses of our First Amendment Rights.
6
Woody Allen was not exonerated by the police, that’s not their job. There was according to prosecutors enough evidence to indict him but they chose not to put a 7 year old through further trauma of a trial.
The facts are not up for grabs, the man did marry his step-daughter at a very young age. It’s creepy while not illegal, it’s certainly questionable behavior in light of the accusations from his other daughter.
The publisher lied to Ronan Farrow and was engaged in purchasing the rights to the Woody Allen autobiography at the same time they were publishing “Catch & Kill”. Unethical.
The employees can protest this & Mr Farrow certainly can call them on it.
Finally an end to profits for perpetrators.
12
@Dog Walker
Woody and Soon-Yi didn’t have a father-daughter relationship, step or otherwise. She was his girlfriend Mia’s adopted adult daughter, nothing more. Soon-Yi’s father was Andre Previn.
Prosecutor Frank Maco couldn’t proceed with the trial and so tried to save face by saying he didn’t want to expose Dylan to a trial. If he truly had probable cause, the trial would have happened, given the severity of the alleged crime. He’s still alive, though. Perhaps he could tell us all what the probable cause was?
7
All of this just guarantees the book will be a best-seller once it does get published.
3
There is no injustice being committed here. If Woody Allen wants his story told he can make it available on the Internet anytime as a free download.
Only his own greed would stop him.
4
Just the other day, Hatchette said it would publish the book despite Farrow’s protests. They said Farrow didn’t have a right to determine which books they publish.
What really happened here to change their decision?
Maybe Farrow should write a book about how the cancel culture shuts down voices they don’t want to hear.
Are there any publishers today who aren’t cowards?
8
Ronan Farrow is a liar when he says there is "mountain of evidence" against Woody Allen. There is none. If there were he would not only have been charged as he never was but convicted as well. That is why and because the whole story contradicts logic and common sense I have never believed it, even when it was first reported in the middle of contentious divorce. Ronan Farrows sanctimonious "what would you do if she were your sister" (her other brother Moses answered THAT question!)
and Dylan Farrows aggressive and entitled demand that the publisher should "fact check" autobiography (!) is just horrifying. Their demands stemming from Mia Farrows hatred that Allen has to be punished - always - and all the people without an ounce of integrity and brain who follow suit because today it is an expedient thing to do - that is horrifying as well. Publisher who lets go and lets public censorship prevail is horrifying also. Dylan Farrow is obviously a victim, but she is the victim of her mother's, NOT her father.
29
I wonder if a plastic bottle maker.’s employees would walk out and protest non degradable products? Or workers at oil refineries walk out and protest for renewable energy? A publisher is in business to sell books, and make money. It appears that Farrow wants to be an editor, not an author. In his opinion pieces printed in newspapers and magazines, did he threaten boycotts if other opinions he didn’t agree with were published? I don’t remember Farrow demanding a walk out at MSNBC for not allowing his opinions to be aired. He didn’t walk out when puff pieces on Weinstein and Clinton were being aired either. Workers have the right to protest, not walk out on company time. Burning books is bad. Not allowing them to be printed and published is worse
12
To all of those commenters describing Hachette's decision as "censorship," may I suggest that you are being a little hysterical? Absolutely no one--certainly not the government, which the term "censorship" potentially applies to--is trying to muzzle Allen. He is free to say anything he wants. He could turn his book into a pdf and make it available for anyone to download on his website, if he wanted to, and no one would stop him, and no one would care. He could print out a thousand copies and stand in front of a supermarket, passing them out to anyone who would take them, and no one would stop him, and no one would care (except insofar as it's just annoying when people do that).
But Hachette is a private company and has the right to publish or not publish anything it wants. Who on earth are you to be demanding that it must publish Allen's book? Why don't you publish it yourselves, if you are that keen on it?
10
when it gets published, I'm gonna read it
18
I believe Woody Allen. Even if what he did were true, spare me the public sanctimony, pity me, and desire to ruin Woody Allen's cultural contributions. I was sexually abused by my step father for years and my own brother still doesn't know. I never wanted to ruin my step father's life. it happened. I've moved on and am not spending my life asking for pity and people to take my side. Wouldn't change anything. And my step father went on to do many wonderful things in his left that helped many people. Same for the actors who won't work with Mr. Allen. Shame on them.
12
@TC
Truly interesting, and good for you to have moved on in such a mature way.
Many of us, and I do mean us, were sexually abused, and if there’s no violence, it’s possible to simply leave it behind and continue.
Unless your mother happens to be Mia Farrow.
And of course if, as I believe, the accusations are false, then Farrow is not only guilty of a crime, but a terrible abuser herself.
2
This is both stupid and disgusting. To take Mr. Farrow's word and not take the word of Woody Allen is a stupid and unwarranted abuse. Mr. Allen was cleared of the charges made against him, but I guess that isn't enough for the publisher. I will not buy any (!) books published by this company and I hope other people feel the same as I do. I am sure Mr. Allen will find another way to get his book out to the public and I, for one, can't wait to buy it.
14
I just checked - Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" can still be purchased at amazon.com. Why isn't the "woke" mob going after that?
18
Even O.J. Simpson was able to find a publisher for his “novel” about the murder of his ex-wife.
13
This is disgraceful. Woody Allen was cleared of any wrongdoing by two separate groups of professionals in court. Clearly this is Mia Farrows revenge and was confirmed by Ronan’s own brother Moses as a hoax made up by Mia.
Ronan may have done a good deed with outing Weinstein, but his behavior towards Woody is deplorable. Experts have officially concluded that nothing happened!!
I would have bought his memoir. We should boycott Hachette for participating in this bully act. Time for Ronan to move on with his life and stop tormenting Woody. It should be illegal to harass someone like this!
34
For an interesting perspective on this, I recommend reading the related blog post by Mr. Allen’s other son. Google “A son speaks out,” by Moses Farrow.
23
Hatchette was out to make money - money - money - money -- off of controversy and pain. I've had enough. I don't want to read about Woody Allen's wasted talent and life or the strife and discord in other's lives. It doesn't matter. He's not that interesting or that important and he's obviously hurt people who loved him at one time. Capitalizing on people's pain for leisurely enjoyment in the name of art or literary - - maybe that time has ended.
6
Well, I was looking forward to reading his book, and I will read it when a new publisher is found. Woody Allen has been a major character throughout my entire life, and I’ve always admired his eccentric work. I know he is a flawed character, as most geniuses are. But he may have a compelling explanation that inspires forgiveness or understanding. Or he may not, and I’ll find that interesting as well.
7
Insanity coupled with mind-blowing levels of weakness.
This isn't publishing: it's pandering.
23
Ridiculous. Bowing to pressure from consumers. I guess Hachette wouldnt dare publish a book on Abortion either.
Woody has been convicted of nothing. 2 police investigations too. Leave the guy alone.
29
This is part is a bad trend. Allen was investigated at least twice and no charges came of it. That makes him guilty of nothing despite the charges by Ronan Farrow. For the employees to try and succeed in dictating what their employer can publish is nothing more than the mob taking over. And letting them win will only lead to more examples. The cowardliness of management is stunning and they will ultimately rue their choice here.
30
Thank goodness the employees of this publishing company acted to save us from this book. How would we have survived if it was published? I wonder what other books these self-appointed censors will void for our own good? Lucky we have them as guardians of our morality though not our civil rights. Left wing demagogues. Right wing demagogues. A pox on both.
29
This comment stream could function as a case study for a sociology professor studying attitudes among America's various economic and cultural tribes.
Woody Allen is a name instantly recognized by the well educated, the literary types, the film school teachers/students, and most of all by New York City natives of a certain age. It helps but is inessential for you to be a Manhattanite and of the same ethnic milieu so as to "get" some of the inside jokes and humor.
That said, this group is small. Most of middle America could care less. They vaguely have heard of him and only because an exited fan-teacher insisted they watch some of his early or late films. Many have not, and would never pay money to see his works. Our fellow Americans are very much a fairly unread and non-intellectual bunch. When his biography/memoir finally is published, in much of this land a collective yawn will issue. That sounds mean but it is all too true.
7
The Hachette Book Group tweet is about as pusillanimous as a statement can get. I agree with PEN America "...that once a book is slated for publication, it should not be withdrawn just because it’s controversial or gives rise to vociferous objections.”
19
I don’t think the piece says that Ronan Farrow wants to kill Woody Allen’s book. I think, rather, that Ronan’s concern is with the hypocrisy of the publisher playing both sides of the street.
Woody will get his book published somewhere else. All this “negative” publicity will help sell even more volumes.
9
actually, allen has had a difficult time selling his book to us publishers. no one in tbe us would touch it. and then hachette hid the sale even to its own staff.
7
Allen was exonerated by the police who investigated these alleged crimes. It seems even a full exoneration is not enough to save a man accused of sexual assault in the #MeToo era.
For those celebrating this outcome, even a videotaped confession from Mia Farrow admitting that she poisoned the minds of her toddler children to hate their father will not be reason enough to question their blind prejudice against successful men.
Shame.
20
there are so many other publishers.
I have read the evidence for years, ever since Woody Allen broke up with Mia Farrow and moved in with Soon-Yi Previn.
I don't pretend to know what really happened. But of this I am certain: There isn't nearly enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Woody Allen did what Farrow claimed he did.
30
Glad to see there are decent reasonable New York Times readers who know a sham when they see one. Guilt is established by trial and jury. Not mob, Facebook and Insta-whatever.
20
I might wait for the movie - or not
It's like a Greek tragedy except without any grandeur. The king's son, to avenge his sister, unleashes thousands of social justice warrior harpies against the king. The king can't be heard for their screeching. How will it end? I'm not sure but we have here another instance of why many people don't care for liberals and their woke cancel culture mob mentality.
12
@Peter , except it seems widely acknowledged, with a wink, that Ronan Farrow is not even the king's son. It's like the queen (Mia Farrow) took up with Sir Lancelot (Frank Sinatra), bearing Sir Lancelot's child, but Sir Lancelot did not want her full time, and so she stayed with the king, and the strange feelings around all of this inevitably deeply impacted the relationship of all involved, and reached forward forever, right here up to this moment into 2020. . . Even HBO's Bill Maher directly called Ronan Farrow on this, to his face, in an interview.
3
"Mr. Allen was not charged after two investigations." So the justice system is wrong and the crowd is right?
Time to watch "Fury" again, 1936 film from Fritz Lang. About lynching.
19
Hatchette is a book publisher - perhaps they decided not to get themselves involved in lawsuits.
3
In a news exchange with a friend of decades, also an admirer of Woody Allen's film-making, before her return to Manhattan, I mentioned that Hachette, a favorite publishing company to this American brought up in Paris, had declined to publish his autobiography.
'Apropos of Nothing' is causing quite an uproar, and it is going to take a formidable publishing house to take a matchpoint chance in the timing, and arguably let readers form their own views of the life of a brilliant American comedian and movie producer in his own voice.
A lot of 'pithy' comments here, and maybe we will have only stardust memories of what could have been an autobiography to keep us awake past midnight.
4
Hopefully Woody Allen will sue.
9
Perhaps he should sue Dylan and Ronan Farrow.
5
This is not censorship. Allen simply wants money for his life story, and no one is obligated to pay him for it. If it’s so important to him to release it, let him release it for free online.
10
This is the end of publishing.
I don't care what journalism prizes Farrow has won. I wanted to read that book, as I'm sure others did.
When publishers decide not to publish because of accusations about the author, freedom of the press is a thing of the past.
22
this is hardly the end of publishing (Oprah wjll decide that for us lol), this is a good development in the relationship between a publisher and its employees. we take our books seriously, we will not promote books we do not believe in
4
Maybe this will signal the beginning of the end for publishers and let authors just self publish from now own like you can do with Amazon.
And let the market decide if the books get sold or not.
6
My, that was awfully darned cowardly of them.
13
responding to the values of their employees is a smart move. and next time they will know better than to hide a deal they know that nobody will support
5
@kcb , because their employees do not believe in civil liberties, the right to due process, and want to empower someone who is angry that Frank Sinatra did not marry his mom?
1
Tired of Ronan's self-righteous grandstanding and his family's problems. The whole lot is dysfunctional from Mia on down. Let them deal with their internecine troubles amongst themselves through the legal process. Sick of everyone being dragged into their public relations trials. Meanwhile, I want to read Allen's memoir.
37
Insanity! Ronan Farrow is now a judge and jury? I would love to read Woody's memoir. I will read it when someone else publishes it! Awful decision making and lack of judgment on the part if Hachette.
36
This is akin to burning books. Brought to you by the woke left.
23
So Woody Allen doesn't deserve to have his story told because of his mistakes, whether alleged or true. Twice he was acquitted of the allegations regarding Dylan Farrow, while Mia Farrow had an affair with Frank Sinatra when she was nineteen. Would anybody censor her work/life/writing out of moral righteousness? To do this to Allen is blackmail on Ronan Farrow's part. Building a career pointing fingers at others is opportunistic, especially given that it's in the family in this case. Or is it?
20
allen is old and rich. he doesn't need money and he doesn't need to explain himself so what is he doing? i doubt this memoir has any frank account of cild abuse.
5
I guess Hatchette Book Group gave Woody the axe.
4
Looking at the outcomes, the Farrow household was highly dysfunctional and laid the groundwork for the present day issues. I am not a fan of Woody Allen, but his inability to publish with Hachette seems directly due to the pressure brought to bear by Ronan who clearly can not be objective. There was no evidence that Woody Allen whitewashed his "crimes"or committed a crime. Ronan's personal involvement overrode his journalistic ethics. As for the employees, many young women seem to think "me too", accurate or not, overrides all other concerns and obviates the need for fairness.
22
Rather than burn books the middle class, over educated identitarian left cancels books written by people they hate..... Be afraid. Be very afraid. This is a scandal. Hachette is not fit to be considered a publisher. It is a censor bowing to a mob.
20
Harvey Weinstein is guilty
But Woody has not been tried or found guilty. And his guilt is based on his adopted daughter childhood memories.
Hanging mobs must withhold judgement.
18
There are enough publishing companies in the US to pitch a book and it would seem there is no coincidence that Woody Allen selected the same publisher, Hachette Book Group, for his own book after his partner's son, Ronan Farrow, had just published a book on Harvey Weinstein. The whole incident reflects badly on Hachette Book Group for their lack of professional ethics and transparency about their plans before attempting to greedily publish both authors, Ronan Farrow and his mother's former partner, Woody Allen. And no one at Hachette Book Group had a problem withholding that information? Wow... it certainly speaks volumes about Hachette Book Group.
11
There is an entirely different take on this story that most people have never heard. So many of you have allowed yourself to be convinced of Allen's guilt without even bothering to listen to those who know and defend him.
Like his other son, for instance:
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html
You only hear one side, and you think you know the truth. But you don't.
23
Suggest that the ill informed, quick to condemn read “A Son Speaks Out,” by Moses Farrow.
19
Publisher should let staff go & replace them for not advocating free speech.
11
It heartens me to see how many commenters feel as I do, that there's something very wrong here. I have no idea if Woody Allen is guilty or innocent. Why are so many others 100% certain?
19
Innocent till proven guilty. Some of us would be interested in reading about the life and vision of Woody Allen. Have never believed any of the vicious accusations by Mia Farrow’s camp. Hope another publisher will step up!
23
It's very possible that Woody Allen is a brilliant person AND a child molester. It's also very possible that Ronan Farrow is a credible journalist AND a family member with an axe to grind. As the saying goes, the truth is always somewhere in between. These are two family members with a complex past, and nothing with them is black and white. I am uncomfortable with Ronan's holding this over the publisher. If it was a good book, Hatchette should have published it, period.
11
@ajbown The truth is often somewhere in between, but not always somewhere in between. Sometimes one side is a big fat lie and the other side is simply the pure truth.
4
@ajbown Agree with all of your comment, except..."If it was a good book, Hatchette should have published it, period."
OK, asking the obvious, what makes a book "good" from someone this controversial? Does "good" mean that somehow a truth can be discerned from the pages? Or is entertainment enough to make it good?
1
Appalling. Me Allen was investigated and cleared of child abuse charges by two separate police departments in NY and CT. He was cleared by his own therapist, by the entire Yale investigative team and passed a polygraph. My God. Some people choose to believe the worst about a person based on an unfounded accusation and that is their right. But you don’t condemn and convict on NO evidence! Especially since his sole accuser was heavily influenced by an angry parent. This man has been in public life for over half a century. And the single negative thing you have ever heard about him came from one extremely biased source. Think about it. This is shameful.
24
Woody Allen has denied the accusations. Several investigations have not produced enough evidence to bring charges. Ronan Farrow is entitled to his opinion - and that is all he has: opinion, Without reading the book or knowing anything about it, it is hard to imagine that anything Woody Allen has to say would hold a candle to the kind of hate books that are routinely published by *many* publishers. "Mein Kampf" is available on Amazon in at least TEN editions. One of those is available as a Kindle book FREE; none are very expensive. Even if we believe about Woody Allen everything that Ronan Farrow believes about Woody Allen, not even Ronan Farrow believes Woody Allen holds a candle to Adolf Hitler. Ronan Farrow claims to be an investigative journalist - but apparently he feels that the targets of his investigations should not be allowed to tell their own stories independently of his reporting. I have no desire to read Woody Allen's memoir; now I seriously mistrust Ronan Farrow's reporting.
23
Shame on Hachette for pandering to the demands of New York publishing's current "It boy," a young man whose talents will never eclipse those of his father, who, as we know, has never been convicted of anything. This is "Me, too" run amok.
19
When I heard he had married his stepdaughter, he was never funny again.
10
Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married and never lived together. Woody Allen had his own apartment across Central Park from Mia Farrow. Soon-Yi Pevin’s father was the late composer, Andre Previn, Mia Farrow’s second husband. Soon-Yi was never Woody Allen’s stepdaughter but their relationship caused serious damage to Mia Farrow’s family.
3
Looks like the staff at Hachette Books gave Woody "the axe."
Woody gets to keep a pretty sizable advance plus all this extra publicity will make the book more valuable to a new publisher. Hachette is out the advance, must destroy tens of thousands of books already printed, and looks like a coward to future authors.
7
you're out of your mind if you think any author is going to turn down an advance because of this. maybe roman polanski ...
@Rick That's what an advance is. It's money paid to an author who agrees to write a book.
Allen agreed, Hachette paid ..... as required by law.
The law apologizes to Rick for his unhappiness.
For heaven’s sake it is more than high time for this family to get to very serious therapy and stop hanging out their stinking laundry in public! I’ve had enough of this drama. Enough Ronan Farrow creating a sensation left and right like Mr. Cool itching for yet another headline (though the Weinstein scoop was good). Enough of Mia Farrow egging her children on for decades. Enough of a Dylan Farrow playing out her self proclaimed abuse for the world to relive year after year. Enough of W. Allen going to Hachette as a provocation. Enough of all of them having to have the last word while they deposit their droppings into our brains. Get thee to a therapist and ... zip it!! The only one with any sense seems to be Soon-Yi who keeps her mouth shut. By the way, Woody’s movies were/are fantastic and this family drama has no bearing on his talent.
19
@Hortencia I do understand. If you've really ''had enough'' of this story, you might try not reading it anymore. There are lots of others to choose from.
Thank God. Finally people are listening to women. I think it is a great move to not publish this book. It shows accountability and also recognizes abuse towards women. And that success and talent don't give you a free pass to abuse people with impunity. A step in the right direction.
5
Last I heard America was a free, capitalism-based country and Hatchette was a successful publishing company.
They can publish what they want. It’s not censorship. I’ll send them MY autobiography, wait for the rejection notice and returned manuscript, and then scream censorship.
I’m sure Woody Allen has enough money that he could self-publish the thing and rake in millions in profit.
While I enjoyed his humorous movies and his books from his early years (playing cello in the marching band), his self-importance became increasingly grating to me. I found the stories of his personal life to be creepy.
And no, most older men (I’m 64 and teach elementary kids) don’t dream of canoodling with children
5
I’m torn about Woody. His actions with Soon Yi were a terrible betrayal that had predictable results in the family. But I have read conflicting accounts of what went on behind closed doors and he was investigated. On the other hand, I don’t like the implication that because there aren’t other women, just Dylan, it is less believable. It implies, as we have seen in other cases, it takes many women to accuse before the claims look credible.
4
@Joanne yes, Joanne, in the absence of proof, it does take the testimony of someone other than the claimant. Sorry you're torn by that.
1
I, for one, was looking forward to Mr. Allen's memoir. I have delighted in his two collections of short stories, many of his films, and his three standup albums recorded in the 60's. He has influenced other comedic filmmakers. I recall Billy Wilder at a WGA talk chiding the attended young writers about their aping of several signature style techniques from "Annie Hall". He said something to the effect of, "You all want to be Woody Allen, but you don't have his understanding of structure, or his talent". It was not a popular comment at that moment, but it was probably accurate. In any case, Ronan Farrow's successful attempt to stop the publication of his father's book strikes me as nothing less than an attack on free speech. Unlike Harvey Weinstein and others, including the current occupant of 1600 P, there isn't a phalanx of women lined up to take Mr. Allen down. It's only Ms. Farrow's daughter and her brother. Other women who know and have worked with Mr. Allen have come to his defense, and a trial has acquitted him. Hachette or some other publisher should put the book out. If anyone objects, they needn't buy it. But, in this day it isn't likely to happen. Just as we in the U.S. probably won't have the opportunity to see Polanski's Cesar-winning timely adaptation of "An Office and a Spy" about the Dreyfus affair.
14
i also loved his first 2 books and his double album of standup comedy. but beginning with september and another woman i stopped being a fan. those are terrible movies. and he hasn't really done anything great since then. the humor is bland and uncreative. now if you watch manhattan you see how gross it is: sex with an underage girl, and anti-lesbian jokes. he's not a god. it's ok to let him go
2
If listening to victims, include Soon Yi Previn and Moses Farrow. They've also spoken about their (& their siblings') experiences with abuse: physical, mental, emotional.
Moses in particular has written multiple essays about how his adoptive family functioned- and his perspective on what happened/ is happening is worth seeking out (esp for anyone trying to chart own moral response)
Always seemed odd that their voices (granted they've mostly stayed silent) have carried virtually no weight at all.
So are they worthy of our attention- or, must they seek to block their accused abuser (Mia) publically in her endeavors to be so?
Debate about how to practice ethics within publishing industry aside; their victimhood has been overlooked by most discussing entire situation.
14
I bet that when Woody Allen was in the movie "The Front", he never thought history would repeat itself in America, only this time not from the Right but from what passes itself off today as the Left.
I wonder if the A.C.L.U. will quickly and unequivocally condemn this move, or has it, too, done a U-Turn on its traditional principles?
9
I wonder if those opposed to the publication of Mr. Allen's book realize that there are any number of individuals throughout history who have been convicted of crimes but who then later go on to publish books.
They probably do realize this and have thus adopted this logic: Since the legal system chose not to prosecute Woody Allen, those people who are convinced of his guilt have decided to exact their own judgment and impose their own punishment on the filmmaker.
I suppose there is some reasoning behind this approach. When OJ Simpson was acquitted on two counts of murder, those who believe that the justice system failed maintained that Mr. Simpson should not be able to escape without some penalty, for example, through public shunning and the inability to profit in any way whatsoever from his notoriety.
While I understand this logic, in the case of Woody Allen it would seem that the evidence clearly points in his favor and that he did not commit the acts that have been alleged (many other readers here have posted on the lack of credibility of the charges leveled against him by his daughter).
In the interest of fairness, my inclination is to side with Mr. Allen who I think has been unfairly treated in this matter.
9
It was a business decision for Hatchette to publish Allen’s book. They thought they would make money. At the end of the day, it was a business decision to
withdraw it. They thought the backlash they were getting, especially from their own staff - and probably more than a few authors - wasn’t worth the money, and the public reaction may even cut into their profits.
So why are many commentators talking about what serves the “public discourse”? If there’s no profit (and I mean reputational and ability to recruit as well as monetary), there is no motive for the publisher.
What surprises me is how in the world Hatchette thought publishing Allen’s self-serving “memoir” was a smart move to begin with.
6
It's not censorship. It's a boycott by employees who were kept in the dark about Hachette Book Group's planned publication.
Hachette decided the employees meant more to the company. Remember when employees were respected and appreciated? You know, before shareholders became more important.
Allen's memoir isn't censored. He can find another publisher or self-publish.
1
@WVW yes, we remember when a publisher decided what to publish without polling its roster of 4,500 employees to seek permission.
3
A much closer look should be taken at Mia Farrow.
14
This will be remembered as an age of witch hunts.
30
Most people don't understand 'nuance'. To me, its clear as day that Mr Allen did not molest his child and that his wife has in fact, 'trained' her daughter to say what she does. Its fairly easy to brain-wash a child, especially when they grow up around you. Its profoundly sad when social movements inflict pain as collateral upon innocent people.
32
@Anirudh Sharma
That’s what the doctors at Yale medical school opined.
3
Once a fan of Woody's comedy, I initially thought that Mia Farrow might have unintentionally influenced her daughter, Dylan, to accuse Woody of abuse following the disturbing revelations of his sexual relationship with their other daughter, Soon-yi. But I read a series of articles that investigated these allegations and I became convinced Dylan had been telling the truth. Please try reading up on the full series of events, including court findings and testimonies, before pronouncing Woody free from guilt.
7
@Lisalena
I have read up on it. I’m also a lawyer who has been involved professionally in hundreds of child sex abuse cases. Funnily enough, I came to the exact opposite conclusion and am convinced that Mia Farrow brainwashed her daughter. Where are the other victims? Weinstein and Spacey had many victims. Child sex abusers don’t just do it once.
182
Cowards. Lynch mentality. Not one but two investigations have cleared WA of wrongdoing. In any case censuring ideas and perspectives are not going to help us find the truth, wherever this might be.
31
I bet that when Woody Allen was in the movie "The Front", he never thought history would repeat itself in America, only this time not from the Right but from what passes itself off today as the Left.
27
The memoir will be published some day, and I will gladly give my money to whoever publishes it. Hachette, your loss.
24
THE RULE OF THE MOB, this is FASCISM. When self-appointed censors deprive people of justice, the rule of law, and plain fairness, we have a fascist dictatorship. What Ronan Farrow and his followers are doing to Woody Allen is a witch hunt. I hope Woody's book is published alongside a re-edition of "The witches of Salem" to signal the power of public hysteria manipulated by a man devoid of any scruples. Allen was subjected to trials and found innocent. One of Rowan's siblings testified about the brain washing that their mother subjected them to and her hatred of Allan, her former partner. Ronan Farrow's relentless vendetta against his father, his self seeking fame, lack of scruples and contempt for laws and decency makes him a very dangerous man. He appeals to and incites the worst in people. He, and not Allan, is a corrupter of norms and society in his appeals to mob actions and power.
43
Fine, I will never buy another book published by Hachette or read anything by Ronan Farrow (who's clearly let his little bit of fame go to his head). If writers and publishers are afraid of controversy, where does that leave the free exchange of ideas?
47
@Menckenistic
Pedophilia isn't "controversial."
1
1 - Woody Allen married his step daughter.
2 - His accusers are his other children.
3 - Not everything is binary, there are some things that do not have the ability to be proven as absolutes. Examining this in shades of grey though, I’d call this one a “charcoal.”
4
No one has censored Woody Allen's book. A publisher has backed out of a contract, and suggested Woody take his book elsewhere. If there is a publisher somewhere that believes money can be made off of publishing Allen's autobiography there will be another contract. Or - if Woody really wants to have his say - he can self-publish. There's nothing stopping him.
16
Let’s just cancel everything before this century.
ok?
Do we need any of that?
When should we start burning the books, music art, knock down the buildings, repeal the laws?
In fact, is there anything from before 1945 that is clean?
Maybe we do need commisar Sanders?
Cultural revolution time?
18
There may be people who want to read both sides of the story. If you've already made up your mind, then you may not want to read Allen's book.
This cancel culture infuriates me, scares me. Down we go.
29
do you think Allen's book is going to address child abuse? you won't get even his side let alone both sides
Looks like the Sinatra kid's going to turn the book into a cause célèbre. It likely wouldn't have sold all that much better than those authorized Eric Lax books but now, whenever it does become available, I doubt I'll be the only one who buys multiple copies on principal like I did The Satanic Verses. Meanwhile, I'd think long and hard about buying a book from Hachette or any of its imprints listed here: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/imprints/
As to the walkout: Are you telling me there aren't 500 prospective applicants for every one of the people who walked out?
29
@Jon Silberg
Note that Trump Jr. and Newt Gingrich are among the authors they've been willing to publish...
10
So, this is little more than telling people they cannot think for themselves, nor come to their own conclusions about the veracity of the story, nor the content of the character of the author. I'm no particular fan of Woody Allen, but I'm less a fan of censorship and that is all this is.
25
The left plays a dangerous game with this cancel culture attitude (and I read and supported Ronan Farrow’s work and own copies of his two books). If Harvey Weinstein had weighed in and said, “Don’t publish Ronan’s book” and Hatchette had complied, there would have been appropriate outrage that a writer was being silenced. The same thing holds here and, while I’m sorry through a set of curious chances Allen’s publisher was part of the same group as Ronan’s, Ronan should have either kept quiet or said, “please don’t buy this book”.
So, at the “left wing book burning” what titles can we expect to see tossed on the fire next? Even as a Democrat, I see the left has become much more censorious than the right ever dreamed of being. And, fwiw, no, I don’t believe Dylan Farrow either.
22
For me, Allen's "legacy" was tarnished by himself when he chose his adopted daughter as his "partner".
If he was capable, and willing, to seduce a daughter ... I have no problem believing Dylan Farrow.
And kudos to her brother Ronan! For protecting his sister, for calling out abusers, and let's not forget - for sparking a long overdue movement: women being treated as any human being wants to be treated.
Dream big. Fight hard.
8
Shame on Hachette for pandering to the demands of New York publishing's current "It boy," a young man whose talents will never eclipse those of his father, who, as we know, has never been convicted of anything. This is "Me, too" run amok.
24
Frank? I think there’s a mug shot of his father, Mr. Sinatra.
3
A sign of our overwrought and increasingly self censored times. Bottom line: he is or was a talented director whose iconic films embodied their moment and brought something new into art. After a lifetime in cinema, why wouldn’t I be interested in what he has to say? Oh right. Because his kids say he’s a lying monster. I’m sorry but that is no reason not to be interested in an artist’s work.
23
@Kozloff
No one told you not to be interested in his work.
So much confusion here … and ignorant self-righteousness.
1
Another one of Farrow of Woody Allen’s children, who is a family counselor, has thoroughly refuted Dylans’s account, giving explicit details of how things couldn’t have happened the way she said. He also described Farrow’s abuse of some of his siblings. Why is he not believed?
47
Woody Allen has not been charged with a crime. Under the First Amendment - U.S. Constitution, Mr. Allen has freedom of speech and he should be free to exercise the right to publish whatever he wants!
22
@JM
And no company is obligated to publish the book for him.
The first amendment is in no danger here - the government is not blocking Woody Allen from anything.
3
This has caused me to form an opinion on a topic I would normally have no interest in. If Woody self-publishes, I now will be a buyer, immediately.
I'll never buy -- or borrow -- any book by Hachette. Bowing to this sort of intimidation tells me their books will fall into line with the opinions of the rich and powerful -- i.e., be devoid of substance.
Ronan, also: Your name in a byline means "ignore."
28
Spineless, easily bullied Hachette just did a hatchet job. It is infuriating and appalling. Allen has not been convicted of any crime. Let the readers judge the value and worth of Woody Allen's memoirs. We must not censure and reject this work just because Ronan Farrow has a personal grudge. Outrageous!
34
Too bad. I would like hear what he has to say.
20
Several comments have cited the testimony of Moses Farrow, “A Son Speaks Out”, in which he accuses his adoptive mother Mia Farrow of extreme emotional abuse and manipulation. This is linked from the 2018 NY Times article, “Moses Farrow Defends Woody Allen, and His Family Pushes Back” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/arts/moses-farrow-woody-allen-dylan-abuse.html
It is notable that Moses takes the opposite viewpoint to his brother Ronan.
46
Today's Left is yesterday's Right.
I wonder if today's A.C.L.U. will make an unequivocal condemnation of this, or has it, too, done a 180?
21
@Steve Fankuchen , the ACLU has sadly lost significant credibility in recent years. They are a shell of the organization they once were. In tandem with the Democratic Party's increasing abandonment of civil liberties.
9
@GRH
And then there is the NAACP trashing Klobuchar.
I suppose all "labels" that are successful get co-opted, if not simply taken over, over time, by those with a different agenda. Cheap, disingenuous credibility.
2
I am sure Hatchette did not cancel its decision to publish Mr. Allen's book because the employees did not want them to do so. The walkout by the employees to protest Hatchette's decision to publish the book did exactly what protests and walkouts are designed to do: The walkout publicized Hatchette's intentions, which were apparently hidden even from its own employees. The fact that Hatchette has published Ronan Farrow's book makes the decision to publish Mr. Allen's book extremely weird given the fraught family dynamics. After the public knew about this, Hatchette knew there would be blowback from other authors, and from many other people as well. Maybe bookstores and maybe even people who purchase books would boycott this company.
I know many people are decrying this action as some sort of censorship. Mr. Allen is a wealthy man and if he wants this book published, he can perhaps find an overseas company or self publish. He could register a web site and sell his book from there. This is not censorship, this is a boycott. Or you could call it the free market.
215
@Too much internet
You think maybe, just maybe, the decision of Hatchette to drop the Allen book is "some sort of censorship," do you? Let's be honest. That is precisely what it is. Censorship, pure and simple. If you believe in (1) free speech and (2) hearing all sides to a dispute, you should be disgusted by the spectacle of the publisher fleeing in panic from Allen's book.
26
@Too much internet
This a boycott, or a bullying fest. Bullying is the new free speech, hiding under the moniker of "Protest". The walkout was designed to stop this publishing at Hachette, not protest it.
21
@Lawrence Rogers Free Speech is in regards to the government not prohibiting such (though they do - they currently have political prisoners within unseen areas of 2 large prisons. I THINK they're called CMUs...), and censorship is in regards to *already* existing & publicly available bodies of work being denied further public exposure.
This is a company's decision based upon a moral & client quandary/conflict of interest made twice as weighty concerning further psychological trauma (& undoubtedly financial seeing the lukewarm response Allen received elsewhere - which despite it bothering me immensely? Businesses have the right to do this • cos of hobby lobby & all that; granting a corporation personhood happened • it set a legal precedent which could & would succeed if taken to a higher court aka. Hatchette would undoubtedly also be legally allowed to not continue on with providing someone publishing services due to deeply held beliefs.
It's a denial of services. A last minute rejection
A breech of contract. But Not technically censorship.
I don't agree with a non human entity being given human rights, but it happened
And as the original commenter said? Allen has a huge platform. He's written his whole life & is extremely wealthy, & that itself ensures that someone will almost certainly publish it for the fame.
Not meant in a spirit of ill will but a reply to your reply, Me.
PS: Please Pardon any & all spelling as my glasses are gone.
A.
5
As a woman with daughters, I definitely want sexual abusers being held accountable. But investigations of Woody Allen did not yield evidence for a trial - Woody never went to court, was never convicted of anything. I find his treatment of Mia and his lusting after much younger women disgusting. But having read a lot about the sexual abuse investigations at the time, I felt there were a lot of reasons to doubt he was guilty. For starters, men who sexually abuse small children are not normally attracted to post-pubescent females, as he clearly was. Dylan was extremely young, and and her mother was enraged at Woody at this time over his relationship with her older, adopted daughter. A psychiatrist chosen by Mia, whom Woody agreed to see for a long time before the alleged abuse (because Mia believed Woody had lusted after Dylan since she was an infant) concluded that he had an intense interest in Dylan but not a sexual one. Mia left Woody with Dylan on that day and went out, despite her longtime conviction that he lusted after Dylan. Dylan at first said nothing when questioned about the abuse by her doc - then Mia took her away for a bit, after which she described the abuse. Etc. I am not saying it's impossible he's guilty. But he might well not be.
18
I was under the impression that the police who interviewed Dylan Farrow believed she had been coached by an adult to make the accusations. Additionally, Moses Farrow wrote movingly on his mother’s emotional abuse and how he saw nothing untoward happen between his father and sister.
This is just another attempt by Mia Farrow to exact revenge against her ex-husband through her children.
29
Oh, I don’t know. I don’t like censorship. It’s not like there are 20 women accusing Allen of abuse. There is his daughter. She may or may not be presenting an accurate picture. We have to be careful with this cancel culture.
12
Hachette has the right to publish or not for any reason. That said, its reversal following a complaint by a disgruntled family employed ironically in the same field suggests that that the decision served that personal interest at the expense the freedom of expression.
As such, if the book is pulished I plan to purchase a copy and donate it to my local library.
14
I hope people might also boycott Ronan Farrow's book in protest.
46
Power to the people.
3
Utterly disgusting. Woody Allen has been convicted of nothing and deserves the presumption of innocence. I can't see his movies and now can't read his autobiography. To assume someone's guilt and leave him with no option to defend himself is an injustice, and it's not coming from the Trump right, but the so called 'woke' left.
86
@Skip Looking at Amazon Video, I see 8 pages of movies starring and/or directed by Woody Allen. This is just one medium via which you can watch Woody Allen films. Thus, I am curious: What exactly do you mean by your claim that you cannot watch his movies?
4
The protest is not coming from the woke left. It’s coming from the alleged victim’s brother, the alleged abuser’s son.
1
@Skip
Of course you can see his movies. There out there. And his book will be published by some means. Buy it, if you're inclined. Allen has ample room to exercise his creativity. Some choose to engage it. Others will not. You are not being deprived and neither is he.
3
That's awesome. How greedy, tone deaf and short-sighted did the CEO have to be to think this was a good idea. Good on the staff for taking a stand.
20
@Talu Maybe the NYT will decide what to print now based on an employee poll. Scream the loudest and it becomes something unfit to print. Great idea! Will work really well. Who needs editorial discretion, any kind of review or analysis of the value of news or, really, information of any type once you decide that the motive is sell books or newspapers.
I think this is kind of how Fox News started. By a pollster who thought a particular viewpoint should be more widely disseminated and truth suppressed.
3
I am sure Ronan Farrow and his sister are sincere, but no court has accepted their claims. Did Mia Farrow convince them of this in her outrage over Allen dumping her for Soon Yie Previn?
Issues of molestation should be resolved by courts, not walkouts. The guilty should suffer jail time, not just boycotts based on unproven allegations. How many of those who walked out have actually researched the case?
55
@DSM14 People and businesses have the right to disassociate and/or refuse to promote the works of others as they so choose. This is quite different from being convicted or acquitted of a crime by a court of law.
By your logic, no one can take a moral stand on anything that might involve molestation unless and until the accused have had their day in court.
4
Shame on Hachette and those PC-worshiping employees who staged the walkout. This is a serious affront to freedom of the press and Hachette should know better, act better and stand up for the right as publisher to publish what they deem fit and not be cowed by a gaggle of misguided lackeys who would be better off going somewhere else to work. Who's running the show over there anyway?
51
@GO I think you misunderstand the definition of a free press. It refers to lack of censorship by the government. Thus, Woody Allen can go to another publisher, or choose to self publish. If my Wife can self publish multiple books, so can Woody Allen.
2
@Josh You are absolutely right about the definition of freedom of the press and I thank you for exposing my sloppy metaphorical use of “freedom of the press” to also apply to the freedom of a publisher to enter into a contract with an author to publish a book without fear of suppression or other interference by persons not part of the contract.
My wife also has self- published books and has had books published by A-list book publishers and surely Woody Allen can do the same but publishers who contract with an author to publish a book should never be subject to the ideologic whims of rabid employees who seek to interfere with publishing decisions.
3
The evidence in the case of the accusation against Woody Allen, as I understand it, is overwhelmingly on Allen’s side.
Dylan aged 7 claims to have been molested, but a child that young can easily have been manipulated. Ronan was 4. Meanwhile, the two other children in the house were Moses aged 14 and Soon Yi, 17, who both claim vehemently that Mia tried to brainwash all of them. In short, the only two witnesses whose age makes them credible are steadfastly on Allen’s side.
Moreover, while Allen has always clearly favored young women (as do many men), there has never been any indication that he has ever had any interest in young girls, a decisive distinction.
Finally, abusers of whatever stripe tend to be serial abusers, unable to refrain from repeated offenses. Not only is there no report, ever, of Allen having touched another girl, there is also no report of his having abused a young woman, a claim innumerable men walking freely among us today cannot make.
Finally, two independent criminal investigations, relying on expert social worker evaluations of Dylan concluding that the claimed abuse had not occurred, brought no formal charges; and Allen passed a lie detector test while Mia refuses to take one.
How can any reasonable person conclude that Allen deserves the cancellation he is suffering? Are you who so readily condemn him oblivious to due process and unaware of the facts?
I do not claim to know the truth, but I do insist on evidence before judging.
128
Just got done reading Court papers link from judge at the time who denied Allen's request for custody of his biological children, it does not paint a rosy picture of his relationship with them or his attitudes towards them. His petition was denied and judge thought was "frivolous", he recommended that WA pay the court costs. It makes eye opening reading.....
8
@Henry Piper you mean social worker who destroyed their notes and refused to testify? The police officer in charge of the investigation stated he believed Dylan but felt bringing a case was just too hard which is pretty common in these case. Also note Mr. Allen had the lie detector test admininstered by his own paid person and REFUSED to take one admistered by the police. i suggest you actuallly look into the facts.
3
@Henry Piper I feel so sorry for Mr. Allen, an obvious multimillionaire, for not having his book published by ONE publisher. Cry me a river...
5
Allen is the poster boy, the very definition of solipsism. He made it the central element of his on-screen persona, played for supposedly comic effect.
He has said in real life, with no trace of irony, nuance or regret, let alone shame, "the heart wants what the heart wants". And he surrendered to that impulse, as we know from the shabby way he took up with Mia's daughter Soon-Yi, ignoring the psychological devastation he surely must have known it would cause Mia. Internally, this solipsist only heard "the heart wants what the heart wants", which to him justifies anything and everything.
There is ample anecdotal confirmation of Allen having had multiple sexual liaisons with underage girls, some of whom had small parts in his films, to conclude that he is mentally and emotionally wired to taste young fruit. Polanski has been an international fugitive for decades for the same thing.
All that reinforces a conclusion of more likely than not regarding the allegation of pedophilia with his own daughter, which satisfies the "preponderance of evidence" standard in civil court, though not the "beyond a shadow of doubt" standard of a criminal trial.
Personally, having once been a fan of his early films, and having read his early books, my sense is that he is guilty as sin.
But as others have observed, he has not been convicted, so it troubles me that he has been denied the right to publish his autobiography, a self-serving genre by definition. Let him publish, then don't buy it.
7
@Migrateurrice
''anecdotal confirmation'' has caused innocents to rot in jail or die. See the Central Park Five.
4
@Migrateurrice
There is ample anecdotal confirmation of Allen having had multiple sexual liaisons with underage girls.
Then take the cases to the authorities.
2
@Migrateurrice He can publish it. So what is the problem?
I am getting tired of Ronan Farrow's sanctimony. Because of his expose of Harvey Weinstein, everyone believes everything the wunderkind writes or says. At least Weinstein had a trial. Farrow has convicted Allen in the court of public opinion, which seems to be enough for Hachette employees, who acted as self-appointed jurors. Perhaps many of them were not alive when the court of public opinion led to the wrongful conviction of the Central Park Five. Some courts...
785
@Historical Facts
Really? Ronan isn't sanctimonious. He's refusing to buckle under to his pedophile father and backing his sister. If Woody wants to publish book, he can pay for it himself. Other reputable publishers declined the book and I, for one, was a bit surprised that Hatchett decided to publish. I'm sure you are aware that not all cases get to court due to the passage of time. Doesn't mean that the accused is not guilty, nor does it mean they are guilty. The public can make that decision on an individual basis on their own parsing of the information available.
50
@Historical Facts Oh, please. Comparing Woody Allen's situation to the Central Park Five and what they went through is ludicrous and an insult to those young men who were wrongly convicted and imprisoned.
67
@Historical Facts Agree with almost everything you have written and believe your choice of the word "sanctimony"is the "mot juste"to describe Ronan Farrow's"etat d'esprit!"Allen has more talent as a film maker and writer that the majority of his critics will ever have.One interesting fact about Allen that Willy Morris, southern writer, great writer and author of "Northward Home"mentioned is that 1 night at Elaine's on 2nd Avenue in the nineties someone said something very funny and everyone in the bar laughed except Allen, whose mind was elsewhere!It is said that Allen, when he won a well deserved award, would retreat home to begin writing another script for his next movie. He is a non drinker.In my opinion not enough credit was ever given to the co writer of his films, Mickey Rose,who also was quite witty and spiritual.
Well, unfortunately, political correctness, or what the folks at Hachette would call, "la pensee unique,"can claim another victory!
18
Good for Ronan. Woody Allen's disqusting child abuse should never be rewarded in any way. Ronan is standing beside his sister, and neither one of them should endorse Mr. Allen's behavior.
It takes lots of courage to confront a child abuser, especially when it's your own father who committed the crime. Everything Ronan's doing will help him to heal from his abusive father's actions.
13
Proof = absolute zero
1
insofar as I am aware a pedofile victimizes more than one child (e.g. priests) . And it has always bothered me is that no one else has accused Woody.
20
Who needs a criminal justice system these days? Silly court rooms with judges, juries and, god forbid, evidence? We have a much simpler model at work now. Someone simply alleges a crime and if enough people appear to believe it... well, case closed. Game over. Career over.
51
@Jim C Scary, indeed. Kangaroo courts--- they're free and cost our govt nothing to operate, yet, a lot of people make a lot of money while judicial process festers and so do the accused, especially the wrongly accused.
1
Aren't children wonderful.
5
Censorship just isn't a good look for a publishing house.
21
@J It's not censorship.
This is the worst sort of suppression of speech by mob action. Ronan Farrow has every right to not work with Hatchette because of they were going to publish Woody Allen's autobiography, and he has a right to tell people to not buy or read the book, but his actions and that of the protesting Hatchette employees in suppressing the book is fascistic. Hatchette's actions are cowardly and stand alongside of publishers who withdrew works from publication in Nazi German and the Soviet Union.
34
@Arthur Kaye
A real Hatchette job, you might say.
They're fine with the right-wing hate they publish though.
22
Woody Allen is innocent. MeToo should defend him from the abusive campaign against him and declare distance from Ronan Farrow on this matter.
If Mr. Allen were not innocent, he could not have been given two children in adoption by two different tribunals. Simple as that.
Fortunately I live in Italy, and the Italian publisher (La Nave di Teseo, led by Ms. Elisabetta Sgarbi) will have Woody Allen's book ready on shelf on April 9th. And I will buy it, read it and, if I like it, review it. I want to read his book(s), I want to watch his films: it is my right.
History will not judge softly the persecution this man is suffering.
43
@Peter,
Thank you for letting readers who are interested in securing a copy of Woody Allen's autobiography, know of this strong Italian publishing house, and appreciation to Ms. Elisabetta Sgarbi for not backing down, or shelving the director of to Roma.
April may not be the cruelest month after all, and looking forward to reading your review, while hoping The New York Times will not censor what you have to say.
2
Oh yeah. Let's all get together and have a big bonfire to torch all of Pablo Picasso's works because his personal life was more distasteful than we can conceive.
When does this pandering stop? When do we accept people and their life's work, and not try to impose censorship on what we feel is unacceptable?
I am not a big Woody Allen fan, but Ronan needs to get a real job.
56
Censorship is un-American.
20
Ronan Farrow who whose writing and investigations I like, is trying to act like his “real” father, mob guy, Frank Sinatra.
22
Huh? Woody Allen was convicted of nothing, and should be allowed to tell his side of the story.
I will not buy any books from this publisher - cowards!
38
@Citizen Of course he can tell his story. This does not require any specific publisher to help him do so.
If I want to publish an autobiography, and a publisher turns me down, does this prevent me from speaking out, self-publishing, or otherwise expressing myself? Of course not.
Your position is illogical.
More of the cancel culture.
Were I he I would leave the US and reside elsewhere, because they have a noose and they are coming for him.
12
This is a sad day for honest and free autobiographical publishing when book company employees can find a man guilty where two police investigations found him to be innocent w/o cause.
Funny how these employees stay silent when our own U.S. President lies to make all what he talks about go his way ,distorts truth makes fun of the disabled and has a rape charge against him that they stay moot.
But Woody Allen hey! lets hang him!
None of us were there at "Frog Hollow" the home where this happened in Bridgewater Ct ,none of us ,the accusers and the police were there ,the end result came out at the time not guilty.
22
Shame on Hatchette! This is every bit as cowardly as the reaction many publishers had to the fatwa against Rushdie. I won’t be buying any books from them.
36
Extensive investigation at the time of the alleged crime came up with nothing. Now, in the age of the shout down, due process has been murdered by political correctness and by whomever screams the loudest. This is clearly a messed up family who should deal with their problems privately.
If the ever shrieking Ronan Farrow has evidence that Mr. Allen is a child molester, please present it and put him in jail. If not, keep your public mouth shut and handle your family problems in private like a man.
38
@Jacob Hall Real men speak up and take a stand. They don't run away from an issue with their tail between their legs. Ronan Farrow did what he thought was right. If you don't like it, write him a letter and tell him so.
Woody Allen is a public figure, and publishing a book is an attempt to sell something to the public. If members of the public (which include both Ronan Farrow and Hachette's employees) don't like the actions of another, they have the right to speak their mind, just as you have done in the comments section.
2
@Josh
Good points Josh. Thanks for the response. Your's is the first response I've ever gotten on one of these comment things.
Best wishes Josh in the weird days to come.
Eight comments so far, five of which endorse censorship. Maybe the Soviets won the Cold War after all.
10
The problem with democracy is that sometimes the majority of people are wrong, and sometimes the loudest people pretend to be the majority and the loudest people are wrong too.
How is it that the employees of a publisher decide to make this statement, publicize it, and character assassinate someone who has be convicted of no crime, and to which the case against him is so full of holes?
Could it be that the publisher already published the book by Ronan Farrow? Maybe that publisher accepted Woody's book or even lured him to publish there to grind an axe against him and sell more of the book they already published?
16
What kind of publisher allows the employees to tell them what they will publish? Shouldn't woody allen be able to answer his critics? Has Woody been convicted of anything? I wonder if any ex wives have made up stories about their exes in order to strike back?
26
@Jeff Alexovich
Who's stopping Woody from answering his critics, exactly?
1
I wonder what John - Villers Farrow thinks about all of this? Has the NY Times ever tried to interview him at the Patuxent Correctional Institution in Maryland? Also, an interview with family therapist Moses Farrow would be worth looking into as well.
8
Mr Allen can afford to self publish if it that important to him.
9
When was Woody Allen convicted of a crime that would cause this publisher to cancel?
This family feud has gotten boring.
13
Unpublishing at this point is craven and cowardly and a betrayal of ethical publishing. Hachette has performed the miraculous feat of making itself seem almost as dishonorable and horrible as Woody Allen at his worst.
8
What a cowardly and immoral decision. A major American publisher engaging in censorship, giving in to those for whom an accusation is enough to prove guilt, and the presumption of guilt is enough for the accused's voice to be silenced. Any publishing house unwilling to stand up to the mob should close itself down in shame.
24
Ronan Farrow continues his crusade though absolutely no evidence has ever been found to support his claims. This young man has been corrupted by a vengeful ex-wife. The fire that burns inside him will someday consume him. Let's hope another publisher picks this book up.
27
And we all know what the next logical step is: book burning.
12
Woody Allen has been able to convince a lot of people that he was found innocent of the accusation that Mia's daughter Dylan made against him of molesting her when she was 7 years old. That is a distortion of the truth.
The fact is that Allen was never "acquitted" of the Dylan Farrow accusation for the simple reason that the prosecutor in CT decided not the charge Woody, and the case was dropped.
In other words, whether he was guilty or innocent was NEVER established in court. Since then Woody has spun this as being proof of his innocence. I am sure he attempts to do the same thing in his book.
From the NY Times, Sept. 25, 1993: "A state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had 'probable cause' to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court appearance... The state's attorney in Litchfield, Frank Maco, said he had drawn up an arrest warrant for Mr. Allen, but then decided not to pursue the case. He said the girl's mother, Mia Farrow, had agreed that dropping the charges was in her daughter's best interest."
18
So what you’re saying is that if someone is investigated for a crime and never subsequently charged then they are not innocent of said crime and should forever be under a cloud of suspicion? This isn’t innocent until proven guilty, but rather guilty even if never found guilty.
10
@BAM The term "innocent until proven guilty" has no relevance if there is no charge to begin with.
If someone is charged and goes to trial, then the term takes on meaning...innocent until proven guilty by trial by jury. But if the charge is dropped by the state, there is neither a presumption of guilt nor of innocence.
Of course it is within Woody's right to claim innocence, but no one can say that the State of Connecticut proclaimed him innocent by dropping the charge. They did no such thing, but people are claiming that they did.
1
@ernieh1 What's more likely, the prosecutor made the claim as cover for making claims he realized he couldn't convince a jury of or he decided it was better to allow a child rapist to rape again than to put this victim on the stand? Was it common practice at his office to allow the worst criminals to walk free?
1
This is NOT censorship. Mr. Allen is free to publish his book elsewhere or himself ( pretty easy these days). Its sad that so many people don't understand what actual censorship is. This aking to two members of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard & Deven Nunus who have sued google for because they were upset over Facebook issues. Private companies can choose not to publish or distribute things they or in this case theiir employees find reprehensible. Its ironic the everyone lauds Mr. Farrow for exposing Harvey Weinstein but thinks his attacks on his father's actions are merely a personal vendetta, I would trust Ronan Farrow over Woody Allen any day.
10
I'd be disappointed whenever anyone power to censor what I can read, but I find Ronan Farrow particularly self righteous. While no one knows what really happened in that family, as I recall, Woody Allen passed a lie detector test that he requested to take at the time, which is exactly what I would do if I were falsely accused. Lie detector tests aren't perfect, but the fact that he would take one and that Mia Farrow, who is accused by another of her children of making this whole thing up, wouldn't, should make people feel at least unsure about this situation. I'd like to read Woody Allen's book and hope some publisher doesn't care about Rowan Farrow's okay.
22
To all those who appear concerned about cancel culture, it is nothing new. What is new is that it is being applied to men who are alleged to have preyed on women or children but who could not be brought to justice through the courts because police and prosecutors at the time did not take women, children or crimes against them seriously. There is much data to support this. One obvious piece of data is Cyrus Vance's refusal to prosecute Weinstein for the same offenses he eventually convicted him of after the MeToo movement. Where the courts fail, the people will prevail and many will wail.
5
This is a dreadful development. Either we have free speech or we don’t.
11
I feel that Mr. Farrow stepped over the line making a villain out of his father. It Mr. Farrows books they should refuse to publish due to his heartlessness toward his dad who is one of the best film makers of all time in addition to being one of the funniest.
I can't imagine Woody molesting daughter.
Who could treat their dad without mercy?
9
I respect and appreciate Ronan Farrow's work with bringing forward so many issues that have exposed such abysmal behavior by Harvey Weinstein. As for accusations against Woody Allen, I assume those reports by Ronan Farrow are also true. I say "assume" because Mr. Farrow has his own tarnish which I wish would finally get verified one way or the other.
When comparing photos of Ronan Farrow, Woody Allen and Frank Sinatra, does anyone honestly believe that Mr. Allen is Mr. Farrow's father? The rumors have rumbled for some time that Sinatra is the father.
Can't a DNA or some other decisive test be done? If Ronan Farrow is passionate about the truth, then this paternity question can either enhance or eviscerate his work.
7
@JohnH, I would ask how is Ronan Farrow’s paternity your or any of our business? It may be true that Frank Sinatra is his biological father, but it’s not any of our choice whether to unearth this. Mr. Farrow is proving himself to be an outstanding journalist, and I look forward to hearing more from him professionally.
1
I'm sorry, but maybe I'm missing something. Woody Allen was tried and convicted? If not, is one simple suspicion enough to destroy a person? You have to be rational. If Allen did something wrong, he must be punished. But if there is no proof that he did something wrong, he must be treated as innocent. You cannot be innocent (for the justice system) and not innocent (for a publishing house) at the same time.
14
Glad Hachette declined to put that book out there? Then I have a question for you: should all previously published books by people who’ve done bad things be withdrawn from libraries and bookstores?
331
@Anglican No, but just because someone submits a manuscript to a publisher does not mean they are obligated to publish it. Hachette is a private company and can publish - or not publish - what they want for whatever reason they want.
The argument that all books by "bad people" should be published because other books by "bad people" have been published in the past is not a strong argument.
29
@Anglican: The question here is not just whether Woody Allen's account should be published, but whether there is a conflict of interest in the same publisher publishing Ronan Farrow's account and Woody Allen's account. Is it possible to both endorse and deny the same set of events? Doesn't trying to do so undermine the integrity of the publisher? Of course it does. Nobody's stopping Woody from publishing - let him find someone willing to endorse his contested version of events.
8
@Anglican Correction: People who have been *accused* of doing bad things.
19
He denies the allegations.
He was found by investigation not at fault.
That is all we need to know.
Publish the book.
20
Woody Allen is a great film maker. None of us know his private life nor need we. He has never been legally convicted of anything concerning his adopted daughter. She was a 7 year old in a rather "different" and eventually very angry family arrangement which might well have been disruptive for any 7 year old. Each tells a different account. None of that has anything to do with publishing his memoir. This is crowd hysteria and just makes no sense. Terrible.
20
This feels like a shakedown. If people don't want to read Woody Allen's book or see his films, that's their choice. But I for one was looking forward to reading it, which would have been my choice. This feels like the Catholic League of Decency deciding for everyone else what gets to be seen on screen. Shame on Hachette for caving in to the angry mob.
17
Really quite sad, for all involved. Frankly based on the evidence it's pretty clear that he was innocent of the abuse. However, his personal decisions were not the best obviously in leaving Mia.
9
If, indeed, the publisher dropped the book from its list because it would not show a profit, then I salute Hachette. But, despite Woody Allen’s reprehensible behavior, this move by the publisher makes me feel that book burning might be just around the corner in this country.
4
How sad it is to watch our society make men guilty until proven innocent; Allen underwent several investigations and court procedures and has never been found guilty.
Sadder still is witnessing more and more "angry mobs" diminish our own freedoms.
I was molested by a great grandfather as a young girl, then later by a cousin as an adolescent. Over the course of my career, which included politics, I have experienced gender harassment, bullying, and sexual harassment.
I would never excuse or condone the actions of those who harassed or abused me, nor would I presume to judge the circumstances of others who have experienced similarly.
However, at what point as adults do we become responsible to help and heal ourselves?
At what point do we need to seek the help we need to heal, empower ourselves, and move on...rather than spend our lives believing we are a victim and lashing out at others in an attempt to make them victims, too?
Our society clings to the Victim-Perpetrator paradigm so we don't ever have to own our responsibility for both victims and perpetrators.
Victim is a label you choose; I refused to accept that label. Let's stop accusing and victimizing and instead seek help and healing.
14
@Kelly Grace Smith
Well said.
2
He should self-publish and see if there is an audience.
Have never found him in the least funny nor amusing. I have never understood his type of humour but then I am not an American, nor do I live in the New York metro area.
For the record, we have traveled to New York City four times (pre-Trump) and have always had a wonderful time. There is quite a bit to see and do and a most excellent choice of eateries at all price points.
3
Mr. Allen could self-publish his book online, free to download. This is not an issue of censorship. The question is really about who would be paid for publication — and which people would be willing to promote sales.
4
I don't like the idea of censorship but perhaps he just needs to find another publisher.
4
I look forward to Hachette pulling the rest of the books it has published by despicable people off the shelves.
5
I want to highlight the last sentence of this well-done article:
The Times here quotes the chief executive of the free-speech nonprofit PEN America:
"If the end result here is that this book, regardless of its merits, disappears without a trace, readers will be denied the opportunity to read it and render their own judgments.”
Though here is not the place to re-litigate the issue of who's more credible, the Times didn’t report today that, at the time that the issue was formally pursued, by demand of Mia Farrow during a divorce proceeding, no evidence of abuse was discovered, and the Times reported that no abuse was discovered.
We should keep in mind that there is no other instance in Mr. Allen’s life where someone has claimed abuse, let alone pursued an unsubstantiated issue, arising from a divorce proceeding, so strongly.
I vehemently support the #MeToo movement, and have much personal experience of dear friends who give strong reason for pursuing evidenced abuse.
But I believe Mr. Allen. And I agree with the P.E.N. chief executive.
19
Woody Allen is doing nothing more than attempting to rehabilitate his reputation. He married his partner's daughter! That alone is reprehensible. At that point, I lost all interest in anything he says or does.
285
Soon Yi Previn is a grown woman who is capable of making her own relationship choices, whether you approve or not. Their relationship is nobody else's business.
79
@PeteH Except that the American people seem to have a pattern of deciding for themselves what is or is not their business.
15
To you.
5
Woody Allen was one of the few people that went through a long court procedure and was entirely acquitted by a judge ,after hearing all sides. the judge believed the child was coached and the allegations were false
18
Ronan Farrow should publish a weekly newsletter of upcoming books that should be forbidden. I would certainly show up for the protests because I live in NYC close to most of the major publishing companies. It would be fun for me and get me out of the house. Plus you get to meet some interesting people at political protests. Oh, I do hope he takes my suggestion. If all goes well he could branch out and expand the list to include movies, music and maybe thoughts.
19
There was an investigation into the spurious accusation. No charges were filed. Too many speak of Allen as though he was charged and convicted. He has been with the same woman since the end of he and Farrow's relationship. Those familiar with the tendencies of child molesters will know that Allen in no way fits the bill. I could understand the decision not to publish if Allen had been convicted of a crime. He has not.
14
Wow, Mia Farrow's revenge has worked but it is worse than getting back at her ex-boyfriend who left her for her adopted daughter.
Now, we have culture warriors in her (white) children who now advocate silencing voices they disagree with. They have spread their hate to outside the family to where censorship is considered noble to some.
Read Moses Farrow's story of this whole family drama.
19
Ah the me too movement. No trial. Just execution. This should continue to go well.
12
It's called the Court of Public Opinion for a reason, isn't it.
2
I don't know how to feel about this. I hate the idea of censorship. But I think I can relate to the feelings of the employees of Hatchette and their revulsion at taking part in publishing Allen's memoir. And I think I can relate to Ronan Farrow's feelings about this (I read "Catch and Kill"; it's extremely good.) I am also a lover of audiobooks and many that I own and love are from Hatchette Audio publishing.
I have to respect the publisher for responding to its employees and, had they published the memoir, I would most assuredly have NOT bought it. So... all in all, this is probably the best outcome.
If Mr. Allen wants to publish it, there are a number of self-publishing choices available. I still won't buy it.
157
The decision to not publish a book because the author is unsavory, the subject too controversial, etc is not censorship. It is a decision ti not publish a book. We use terms in the most casual sort of way today. No one has any obligation to publish anything Woody Allen writes.And any publisher can, including Allen himself.
28
It sounds like you’ve formed an opinion without reading any of the material surrounding Dylan Farrow’s shifting accusation. This whole travesty centers on a single instance of abuse during a supervised visit at Mia Farrow’s Connecticut house with Ms. Farrow, the other children and a legal representative all present. Need I mention that despite a happy childhood constantly staying with Woody Allen at his apartment - without any lawyers or a spurned partner in the same building to supervise the visit, not a single accusation has been made by Dylan or any other person. I suppose falling in love with Mia’s daughter, Soon-Yi Previn leading to a poisonous separation from Mia, and a legally supervised visit to de the children at Mia’s house provided the unique opportunity for the unique instance of alleged abuse - an accusation that Mia leveled after the visit after taking Dylan on her own for ice cream. Furthermore, if you were to read her other son, Moses Farrow’s account of the circumstances around the accusation, you’d not only want to read Woody Allen’s book but demand the matter be investigated again.
70
@AnneOf Thieves You would have read it. Borrowed from a library. Downloaded a free sample to your kindle. Read a very lengthy excerpt online. Don't bother protesting too much.
3
This is disgraceful behavior for a publisher. No one is obliged to take on a manuscript, but if you commit to publishing a book, you're obliged -- except perhaps for very extreme and unexpected circumstances, of which this is not one -- to publish it. You've given your word, and besides, you're a guardian of unpopular speech -- a role which, in Allen's case, Hachette clearly chose, with an understanding of the possible consequences. To cancel it under pressure is cowardly.
507
@Jack Daw Why is someone obliged to publish a book? That makes no sense.
7
@JL22 They're obliged to honor a contract.
20
@Jack Daw; To listen to the ethics concerns of your employees (in this case, editors, fact checkers, and publicists) is courageous.
5
It's baffling to see a publishing company give in to "righteous employees" that are OK with publishing Bill O'Reilly but feel the will to take sides in a dysfunctional family drama? Enough with the cancel culture already!
497
@Jacqui : This is a question of conflict of interests. Should the same publisher both endorse and deny the same set of facts? Should employees of the publisher be willing to go along with this contradiction?
1
@Lulu A publisher does not endorse or deny any "set of facts" just by publishing a book.
What Hachette is doing is not a conflict of interest if Hachette's interest is free speech or making money or both. I'm sure there are publishers who only print what they (whomever "they" is) believe is morally acceptable, but for the vast majority, I think it's money and/or the dissemination of ideas. But mostly money.
13
a good point. but please don't leave this to employees. we need our jobs
1
Having been a fan of many of his films growing up, I so want to read his autobiography. But I won't, regardless of whether someone publishes it. He was an interesting and often inscrutable person with an interesting life that he threw away when he committed a vile and unforgivable act. So my curiosity will have to take a backseat to my convictions. I refuse to reward his behavior, regardless of his contributions to film making.
3
Since he has not been convicted and other members of the family attest to his innocence he certainly should have a platform. If a publisher on the merits decided not to publish that would be very different from bowing to pressure from the loudest group. I hope he will at least self publish.
12
Two investigations have not resulted in criminal charges, so the Farrows' allegations are just that - totally unsubstantiated allegations. Sounds to me like Hatchette should have made the decision to stay out of the "traumatic family rupture" altogether, and invited employees to move on if they didn't like the decision to publish.
340
@PeteH : Are criminal charges the only proof of immoral behavior? Reading the full record on Woody Allen ( including the complete results of those 2 investigations) puts him in the context of Weinstein, Cosby, and Louis CK, men who used their power and position to subvert investigations into their behavior for as long as possible. Should a publisher profit from both embracing and denying the truth of this situation?
7
@PeteH you haven’t been a very close reader of this newspaper. There was a long piece a while back on Allen’s serial relationships with very young girls when he was in his forties or fifties, including at least one who was underage. While simultaneously dating his partner’s daughter. His chauffeur would ferry them anonymously to his apartment and whisk them away again. And if you think the allegation of abusing Dylan is fake, read the stories again. Allen has a creepy habit of bouncing Dylan on his lap, and the babysitter was once horrified to see him with his face buried in her lap. He was rebuked by the therapist for his unhealthy obsession with Dylan. The prosecutor who decided not to press charges of child abuse said that he believed that abuse had probably taken place, but he called it off anyway because he thought Dylan was too young and fragile to withstand trial. Not exactly an exoneration.
14
@Lulu - Cosby and Weinstein were convicted by trial. Louis CK has admitted what he did. Allen has never been convicted of anything, and denies all the allegations. Where is the "truth" of which you speak?
8
Innocent until proven guilty are empty words these days.
13
What was Hachette thinking? They clearly need more women in their senior leadership.
3
"No question now what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."
4
Whatever happened when Dylan was a young girl, Allen's treatment of her has been deplorable. He stalked her when she was in college, and he's portrayed her as a brainwashed tool. His last response, which was published in the NYT, showed not one bit of sympathy, and distorted some of the history of the case. Maybe it's too much to ask of him, but some consideration for the obvious suffering of his daughter would have been appropriate.
For Hachette, as Ronan Farrow's publisher, to decide to also publish Allen's book was a blunder. Allen won't have any problem finding some other publisher. Why did he even go to Hachette in the first place, knowing it would stir up controversy?
12
@Jones: So you’ve had one on one with all the players and can categorically make these statements “quod verum est”?
3
This hullabaloo sounds like a publicity stunt to renew and intensify public interest in a nasty family drama. Incest and patricide, what a delight. It will be interesting to see who eventually publishes Allen's autobiography, which is worth more now than it was last week.
1
The children of that family live with trauma of having experienced their sister marrying their father. That Ronan has coped well under that stress does not relieve him, or us, from responsibility of condemning such behavior. Adults who violate such boundaries do so when light is not shone on this aberrant behavior.
125
@Brendan Carroll
Their sister was not related to their father. That is an important distiction.
24
@Brendan Carroll :Adopted sister is not a blood relative and the two seem very happy so why not get over it?.
20
@Brendan Carroll -since when should the public decide who is right and who is wrong? why believe Ronan and not Woody? Either one is completely capable of making up a story.
17
Ridiculous. He’s done nothing to warrant this treatment. The lies from Farrow are just horrible. I will buy and read it as soon as it’s published by a publisher that stands up to the bullying crowd.
23
Censorship is so 15th century.
17
I’m disappointed and disgusted by this. After the problems that Farrow encountered having his journalism stonewalled, it is rather despicable that he is trying to stonewall someone else's work. Shame on him.
I don't know if Allen is guilty or not, but, since he is innocent in the court of law, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a talented writer and director -- or was, rather -- and I am curious to hear his take on his life and his creative process.
I no longer care what Ronan has to say about “the incident.” In fact, the more Farrow whines about it, the more I am eager to give Allen the chance to redeem himself. Get over yourself, Farrow. We're all sick of it, and you look pathetic trying to destroy someone else's career. I doubt I will read a single thing by Ronan again. Woody's book? I can’t wait to read it.
It is time to move on, Farrow. We have.
27
Seems Woddy Allen's not funny anymore.
2
Yet another example of cancel culture. My own opinion is that in this case, and in most other similar cases, those protesting the publication are very afraid that the author will make enough valid points to upset their preconceived notions of guilt and innocence, of right and wrong; they cannot abide the possibility that someone, or even worse, they, might read the works and decide that the JSW types who promote this attitude might be mistaken.
22
Imagine working for a publisher and feeling that one of your main goals is trying to prevent the publication of books by people you disagree with. Everyone I've always known in the field felt the best cure for bad ideas was their discussion, it appears we now have a new generation on our hands who feel that some ideas and writers are too dangerous for them to be published! It makes me fear for the future.
339
@Shane How do you know the protesting employees are of a new generation? For all you know they've worked there for 30 years.
5
@Shane I hope in that future your fear is for the children of this world who experience what Ronan’s sister experienced. A child should NEVER have to go through what she went through. Woody Allen’s behavior has been that of an advantaged white male who got away with it! After all, he married the victims sister! (His cover up- marry her) Neither he nor Roman Polanski deserve the lime light, all talent aside. Children deserve our protection, it’s the duty of a society.
2
@Christine How is not publishing Allen's book going to contribute one iota to the protection of his adult daughter?
11
The saddest thing about this is that Ronan Farrow and his mother apparently never make any moves toward healing. This brilliant young man carries a terrible burden of blame toward his father denying himself normal relationships within that family. I look at Mia Farrow's behavior since the scamdal broke and tend to agree with Woody. She's vindictive and apparently expects the same behavior from Ronan. I will buy the book as soon as it comes out.
37
All these accusations of censorship...so what is preventing Allen from publishing the book himself?
7
Ronen Farrow has made a great, remunterative career for himself digging into the lowest of the low, like Harvey Weinstein, but his other victims may be not guilty. Woody was absolved by a lack of any conclusive evidence of the truth of Mia's hysterical accusations. I think the publisher is making a terrible mistake. Who is Farrow to demand that they reneg on a publishing contract? I want to read Woody's story. I never believed he was guilty. The girl was very young and easily influenced by her mother's jealous accusations!
37
More smears based solely on the unsubstantiated accusations of Ronan Farrow (Frank Sinatra's son) and Dillon, egged on by the manipulations of the ever-kooky Mia. The fact that she continues to not know why the father of her children are is enough for me to discount the authenticity of her claims against anyone.
24
I don't know the truth but....
- a 7 year old girl accused Allen of touching her? could be true. when I was 7 I would not have been that articulate.....
- on the other hand Allen is totally creepy for marrying Mia's adopted daughter. That's a fact and disgusting.
8
@East Coast why is that disgusting ? not mia's actual daughter, simply adopted . hence no blood relation and woody allen has not been judged, not once, not twice.
i don't even remember being 7 years old. not that it matters.
3
Mr. Allen's book will be published and he will make money off his unsavory story. Just not by this publisher, and they do have the right to reject it after further consideration.
6
Why can't Allen publish the book himself? He's both famous and rich enough to promote it. Anyone buying it from Hachette would buy it from Allen himself. Just wondering.
107
@Ellen
Why should he have to when he had a binding contract with a reputable publisher to do it? The publisher should not have taken the project on in the first place if it knew it was going to get into a conflict of interest with another division who published a conflicting view of things. But once it decided to publish, it should honor its contract no matter how uncomfortable it is. This is cowardice on the part of the publisher who has not said anything about free speech. Free speech does not necessarily mean self publish-- that is more about buying speech.
As a woman, I feel sympathy for Dylan's point of view, but it is not fair to cancel a contract because of pressure from the outside.
7
@Patricia Aakre I don't think you know the details of the contract. In the publishing world, contracts have many clauses that protect the publisher AND the writer. Do you actually think this is the first time a publisher declined to publish?
Every book deal is a gamble. Hatchette simply exercise their option to decline.
It's not censorship, it's not a grand conspiracy. It's just a simple business decision.
9
@Ellen Anybody who has ever self-published a book knows that it is a very, very poor second-best option. Few if indeed any newspapers or magazines will review it. Few if indeed any bookstores will carry it. Nor will the author get the slightest help in publicizing the book through book tours or television appearances. Publishing a book is a lot more than just editing & printing it. It is also the whole complicated business of distributing and publicizing it, in a marketplace where tens of thousands of other books are published annually.
9
And here I was thinking Hachette was going to fire the employees who walked out.
7
Criminals and depraved people get published all the time. They also make films, works of art, run companies, go into politics, etc.
Whomever publishes the book will make a fortune because now everyone is dying to read the forbidden book.
Hachette caving into employees is just going to keep writers away from that particular publishing house.
Furthermore, legally, how are they going to get out of the contract? Now they'll have to pay legal fees to deal with Woody's lawsuit.
All sides of this story are disenchanting.
136
@Hope *Whoever
9
No name, no location? You may not be alone, but you also may not exist. I’d worry about that.
5
@Hope Book contracts include the right of the publisher to back out of publishing the book. Normally this means that the writer gets to keep the advance. This is spelled out in the contract. Nothing to sue about.
2
will NEVER buy another book from Hachette. Spineless.
27
Whatever happens now is bound enmesh itself in a war of words and lawyers squaring off. It is set to run and run. The incumbent in the Oval Office, Coronavirus and now this.
4
I hope he finds another publisher. Woody Allen has never been convicted of anything, despite Ms. Farrow's best efforts. People are free to have their own opinion about what he did or didn't do, but persecuting someone on the basis of accusations is wrong in my book.
395
@dobes Until recently, Weinstein wasn't convicted of anything either. Allen did marry one of his daughters.
32
@Carol And that is not a crime. Over and over and over.
10
@Carol She was NOT one of his daughters. He never even adopted her.
25
Shameful. This ""movement"" has brought many things to our public discourse, but its most enduring gift will be an unintentional one: the relentless chorus that pokes fun at the endless virtue-signaling. The chorus is attracting new members each day because it's not just conservatives who find cancel culture intolerable... and risibly incoherent with liberal democracy.
36
Publish the book and let the public decide. Some will purchase while others will not. Am I being too simplistic here?
51
So much for editorial objectivity.
29
This isn't censorship. Let Woody peddle his book elsewhere or self-publish on line.
PS: Ronan Farrow looks like Frank Sinatra's boy to me.
13
@Dave T. Always thought Ronan was Frank's...Those blue eyes!!!
3
@Molly Bloom
Precisely so.
@Dave T.
One look at him, and one thing for sure: He hasn't a single Woody Allen gene in his body.
Apparently Hachette acquired the book last year (after numerous publishers had turned it down), and they went forward with editing and preparing it in secret. So that tells you they knew they were doing something "wrong" -- or, at the very least, unsavory. They took a risk and it backfired; why should they be surprised? There's nothing stopping Allen from self-publishing his memoir. At least, whatever praise or opprobrium the book might bring will be on his own head.
22
@Jane why unsavory? its bidness, allen will make tons of money, with all that publicity...
This is a complicated issue to put it mildly. I don't have much of a basis for an opinion about what Woody actually did. However I'm not sure that standing in the way of his memoir accomplishes very much. That being said, I have zero interest in reading it.
9
Whatever Americans might think of Woody Allen, his behavior or his filmic oeuvre, there is no question that he is an icon of modern American art. Cases lodged against him remain unresolved but people worldwide still appreciate his movies and read his literary work.
It is right not only for others to divine his story but also to publish his autobiographical account. We can judge what we see for ourselves, or not, but we have the right to know just as Allen has the right to tell.
44
He has been investigated twice and no case has been brought to court. He hasn't been arrested, much less found guilty. I thought "innocent until proven guilty" was a core principle of our legal system.
As to letting the employees decide, what about those of us who want to hear his story? Do we get a choice?
If the book is eventually published, I will buy it and read it. I like to make up own mind, not follow the mob.
68
@Peter
Simple answer to Mr. Allen's problem. Self publish. He get's to keep the bulk of the profits. His name recognition is massive so the lack of a established publisher and their promotion teams is not as large of a problem that a unknown author would have. A little extra work for him but it can be done. If it is that important to him to get his story out he has this option.
2
Also, Allen has worked with many of the most attractive actresses of the past several decaded. None has stepped forward, not even in this age of me-too -- to accuse him of improper gestures toward them-- none. He has also raised adopted daughters without any such complaints. Only a bitter Mia Farrow and her daughter -- making an accusation when the girl was very young--- and not always comsistent; inconsistent with the rest of Allen's life and work. Not publishing this memoir because of an accusation about which there is so much room for doubt is highly problematic
4
As far as I understand the situation Mr Allen has said he has done nothing wrong and he has been investigated by the Connecticut State's Attorney, the Connecticut State Police, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital and the New York Department of Social Services who all found "no credible evidence" to support the allegation.
It seems that many people 'believe' him to be guilty regardless, because they would like it to be so.
72
Nope. The Connecticut State Attorney chose not to go forward to spare Dylan another public trial. Woody Allen lost custody of Dylan, Moses and Ronan. All his appeals were denied to regain custody. He was denied any visitation with Dylan and only supervised visitation with Moses and Ronan, which he subsequently lost. Because the children lived in Connecticut, New York Child Services weren’t involved.
1
@David Rose I give credence given to the tale by his marrying his adopted daughter. That gives me the creeps and makes the other story completely believable.
2
Fayard, a division of Group Hachette, is the publisher of the French translation of Mein Kampf according to Wikipedia; interesting that the Hachette employees don't seem to have a problem with that. Correct, this is not censorship, since that would be an act by some authority (usually governmental or theological) that would altogether prevent the publication of Allen's memoir by any means, or forcibly remove parts that the censors found unacceptable. But if these self-appointed guardians of the public good (i.e., not giving those accused of certain crimes and activities a voice) are to be consistent, then I would think they would scrutinize everything on the Hachette list worldwide authored by others at least as objectionable to them as Allen seems to be. And we know where this slippery slope ends.
49
@pdxpod
Thank you. So well put. These employees are a bunch of cowards following the current mob.
it doesn't matter what you think about Woody Allen. Bullying, intimidating and censoring behaviour is still that, even when used by those who consider themselves on the righteous side of moral politics. What the world needs, in every sphere, are more complex, nuanced conversations. By taking this action, Hachette and its employees are effectively saying that conversations involving opposing viewpoints should be closed down rather than examined and responded to. Anti-intellectualism at the very least. Is this the Trump trickle down effect?
70
Sad day for free speech especially since he’s not convicted of anything.
Better to have let both sides have their opportunity for free expression.
48
@Bronx Jon What do you think “free speech” means? Do you think it’s the right to have your book published even if the publishing company decides it’s a bad business move due to public opinion? Who exactly is harming “free speech” here. The publisher (because they’re somehow required to publish every book, no matter what it is?). The people protesting the book (because they aren’t allowed to use their own free speech to object to its publishing?).
This would be a sad day for free speech if the government banned his book. A publishing company in a capitalist society deciding “oops, better not” doesn’t even *touch* on the subject of free speech.
7
@Davvy Abrashkin
The people had their right to protest and if the publisher had a spine (pun intended) they would have stuck with their decision to publish.
One thing we do know about evidence is that it doesn't get more reliable over time. Independent experts (not retained by Allen) probed Dylan's account at length over 25 years ago and found it to be not credible. That's the best evidence we have despite
As passionate as Dylan might be today when she’s allowed to narrate her story without anyone seriously challenging her, it’s nowhere near as probative as the statements she made contemporaneously many years ago. An account that wasn’t enough to persuade top third-party experts that any charges were warranted.
A prosecutor could have brought charges later, but still within the statute of limitations, when Dylan had matured. That would have mitigated the fragile child concern. Likewise, Dylan herself could have filed civill charges with much lower burden of proof. Neither one of them ever filed charges.
Now Dylan gets to narrate her story over and over to sympathetic media ears who wouldn’t even think of seriously questioning her version of the events. Pretty much everyone's story holds up when it's not actually scrutinized.
66
You are referring you the Yale-New Haven report. The judge in the custody case tossed it. Why? Because the team leader, Dr. Leventhal, had the team destroy their notes. He refused to allow any of the team members to be deposed. Dr. Leventhal was the only one to testify but he never once interviewed Dylan...only Woody Allen. And he was in constant contact with Woody Allen’s legal team. The judge in the custody case deemed the report unreliable because of all of this.
1
Mr. Allen has the financial resources to print and find a distributor for his book. Let him do so and then we'll see if Allen sells enough books to recoup his expenses.
6
Sad for all concerned. Sad for Ronan losing a father, for Woody losing a son and daughter, for those employees and publishers for judging harshly without evidence or conviction, for us losing the opportunity to hear Woody's recollections and reflections, for the continued poisoning of the cultural commons by accusations and vindictiveness. Everyone in that Farrow-Allen family has suffered enough and by making their conflicts so public has elicited us to suffer along with them. Time for Ronan to set aside toxic self-righteousness in favor of emotional generosity and forgiveness -- for his own well-being, and ours.
23
This is NOT censorship in any way. A publisher is free to publish whichever books it wants to, and does not need to provide any explanation about its decision. Be careful of your accusations.
8
@cheryl gaston
"Be careful of your accusations". How ironic.
3
@cheryl gaston No, it is just cowardice.
1
He can self publish if he thinks there are so many fans out there who want to read his story. Many people do it. The PR tour would be interesting, either way.
7
He can self publish it, if he wishes.
6
As a writer I am torn. One when does one draw the line on censorship. I never like Allen's movies and as a person there has been enough about him that he is strange and not nice person. I have written on Charles Lindbergh until I started doing research on him thought he was a hero. Now, know the man had a giant dark side and was not a very nice person into eugenics, anti semite, but writing if it is fair should point out all the dark stuff for a well rounded picture. I do not know how open the Allen book was or whether it was a whitewash of all his dark side. Still censorship becomes a dangerous thing when does one draw the line. People are complicated and even in a marriage one never totally knows the person. I guess that being said there is always the vanity press to publish certain works. The times are difficult like if one is not from a certain group cannot write on that topic. I don't believe that I believe we all have life experiences that help us and as I said it becomes a one way street. If you are from a certain group and you write on that fine, then the question arises if you put someone from another group in it can be turned back on you in the same manner. By the way as a writer very few of us make enough to have a fantastic lifestyle. My one complain book publishers become a closed house to only the connected or already famous and new authors shut out. Like going for a job and told come back when you have more experience question where do you get it. Jim Trautman
4
Woody Allen is a wealthy, well-connected man. He can self publish the book and sell it online. Anyone interested in reading it won’t be denied the opportunity.
13
@Dabney L
Well that would be humilating admission of him becoming a pariah
1
Woody Allen has always been a great director, actor and producer. But his history as a man? Ick. I’m glad they’re not giving him another venue to cover up his past.
15
@Patricia Clagett Exactly. He married his other (adopted) daughter --and there were pictures Mia found of them together. Definitely ick.
5
Ronan Farrow accomplished something few others could: create a great deal of sympathy for Woody Allen. A person never convicted of horrid crimes should be able to answer his accusers, but in the world of Ronan Farrow et al., his accusation is the same as a conviction.
64
You’ve got that right!
2
sigh... when the book publishers become the book burners - the employees should be ashamed of themselves.
38
@SteveRR Equating book burning with choosing not to publish a book is ludicrous.
4
Mr. Allen always has the available option to self-publish if he believes that he has something important to say.
3
This violates free speech, it violates due process and it smacks of censorship and intimidation. Woody Allen is a great creative force-his movies and his writings are some of the best of this century. That Ronan Farrow's personal vendetta should control this situation is outrageous. It was outrageous that Midnight in Paris had to miss the Oscar for best picture to some cute nonsense called "The Artist" -actually pathetic. And Mr Farrow may be a decent reporter but My Allen is a master of his craft and a gift to all of us and last I heard he was acquitted twice.
20
No one is entitled to free speech in corporate America. He has many ways he can have his voice heard, including as numerous comments note self publishing. Heck, he can even upload a pdf. You make a false argument, a reactionary one used most often by conservative forces at the intersection of money and speech, not the right to it.
4
@J Martin Take a minute and look up “free speech” and “due process”; then come back and try to justify this preposterous take.
3
@J Martin - Woody was not acquitted... he never went to trial because there was never sufficient evidence. Most of it was manufactured by Mia Farrow.
Mia is lucky that investigators didn’t suggest that charges be pressed against her for false accusations.
1
At the risk of proving Godwin's Law, if a publishing house can't publish the autobiography of Woody Allen, how could any house publish Mein Kampf?
Hachette's employees didn't engage in moral persuasion. They didn't win an argument. In their self righteousness they simply made it too much of a headache for Hachette to publish the book. This was simply a matter of collective bullying, woke politics in action.
I've read statistics where there are a couple of hundred applicants for every job in publishing. I wish Hachette had shown the backbone to call its employees' bluff.
34
I think the decision to NOT publish, is inexcusable. Of course, I do not condone sexual assault of any kind, but the allegations against Woody Allen have never been proven. He should be afforded the same rights as any individual in context with the first amendment. You can choose not to buy or read the book, but the employees of Hachette should not dictate what should or should not be published. He has not been convicted in a court of law, only in the court of public opinion.
28
This is not censorship- Allen can go to another publisher. The powerful have been able- for SO LONG- to abuse people and not suffer any consequences. NPR reported tonight that the investigation in CT found credible evidence but chose not to indict him to spare “the child”. So I find the actions of Mr Farrow and the employees nothing short of heroic.
11
I'm no fan or supporter of Woody Allen, but Hachette's sudden muzzling of his voice is worrisome.
Readers should be given the agency to weigh Allen's words against those of Ronan Farrow.
16
A very, very sad day.
12
I was molested as a child and carry that scar. (I mention this only because in today’s world you seem to have standing to speak only if part of an aggrieved group.) If Woody Allen had a lifelong pattern of questionable behavior with children I would be more likely to shun him and his work. “Manhattan” was a work of fiction and his relationship with Soon Yi Previn has grown into a marriage and family — this does not a pattern make. From what I’ve read about that afternoon in Connecticut and all that transpired afterwards, there are conflicting, contradictory reports, as well as differences in expert opinions as to what happened. That does not mean I don’t believe Dylan Farrow’s memories, but it also means I don’t think Woody Allen belongs in the same category as Harvey Weinstein or Roman Polanski.
I grew up trying to make sense of the Skokie decision while learning about the atrocities of the Nazis and the KKK. Now censorship has become de rigeur. Sure, Ronan Farrow can disassociate himself from his publisher, but shouldn’t the marketplace, ie the rest of us who don’t have the access to the public forum that he has, decide if Woody Allen’s memoir and films have a place in our society?
I’m so disappointed that people who work in publishing have bowed to censorship, an industry that is supposed to model openness. Now, I’m sure we can find other publications among their many divisions and throw them on the pile of books being burned.
35
This is one step above a heckler's veto. I think there is unsubstantial evidence of guilt. Even if that was untrue, I believe hearing the perspective of bad people isn't necessarily dangerous. Mein Kaumpf has been picked up by publishers who give all proceeds to victims groups. I think Hachette could have done the same although proof of Hitler's guilt was substantially greater than Allen's.
11
Oh, great, yet another example of our "cancel culture."
I used to be a steadfast Woody Allen fan, but starting losing faith many years ago when he married Mia Farrow's very young adopted daughter, then lost it based on the recent allegations of abuse against his own adopted daughter.
That said, why not permit Allen to publish his book on his life, and perhaps his side of these matters. With all due respect to the talented (and influential) Ronan Farrow, this is one-sided, political censorship.
Mr. Farrow should appreciate that very issue, having had a major network censor his story on Harvey Weinstein.
8
@Scott What is this “permit” you’re talking about? Who isn’t “permitting” Woody Allen to publish his book? Publishing companies get to make their own decisions about what to publish and what not to publish, and in capitalism those decisions are made in large part based on public reaction. Choosing not to publish a book isn’t censorship. Take a breath and check to make sure this is really a hill worth dying on.
3
What utter spinelessness on the part of hypocritically woke Hatchette execs, and what gall on the part of the employees who work in the literary free press.
31
A book contract is like a shark. And what we have here is a dead shark.
7
Woody Allen has made some dubious choices in his personal life including marrying a former stepdaughter decades younger than himself and not revealing their relationship to his former partner beforehand. However, a judge determined there was no evidence Allen abused his daughter by Mia Farrow despite Ronan Farrow's continued fulminations to the contrary. Woke culture has succeeded in cancelling Allen's autobiography for now so many "right-thinking" people will be cheering, but until there is further evidence to support Ronan Farrow, his sister and Mia Farrow's claims, no one can, in fact, know more than was already determined in court. And, by the way, for what it's worth Woody Allen is still married after all these years to Soon Yi Previn, which must be what is really galling to Mia Farrow.
22
@James, Toronto, CANADA
Mia’s adopted daughter, not Woody’s. Her full name is Soon-Yi Farrow Previn. Her adoptive father is Andre Previn. At the time, to Woody, Soon-Yi was his girlfriend’s daughter. To Soon-Yi, Woody was her mother’s boyfriend. There is NO father-daughter relationship, except the one that Soon-Yi had to Andre Previn.
10
Having sex with your boyfriends or girlfriends daughter is not right either. This is why so many have turned away from WA
"We have published and will continue to publish many challenging books."
Doublespeak
10
With this cowardly decision, Hachette has surrendered to a witch hunt mentality that equates accusation with guilt.
The allegations against Allen have never been proved. He took and passed a lie detector test, and experts who investigated concluded that he was innocent. Anyone familiar with the case against him knows that it is sketchy at best.
I think it is high past time that offenders like Weinstein, Trump, and Cosby face justice. For far too many years, they did not.
But silencing a man and ruining his career merely because of a very questionable allegation is just too much.
30
As a journalist, Mr. Farrow clearly has a conflict of interest here. He should have recused, rather than inserted, himself into this discussion. His essential work covering #metoo was strengthened by the objectivity a journalist must bring to any story-- especially one already fraught with emotion. Mr. Farrow weighing in on something so personal, and triggering a company-wide walkout, reeks of wielding professional power for personal fulfillment. A toxic dynamic one would hope Mr. Farrow could recognize.
18
History is kinder to those accused of witchcraft and found to be innocent then their hysterical accusers. We don’t even need the memoir. Allen’s work spans 5 decades and will be studied long after Mr Farrow gets his footnote for taking out Weinstein.
23
I think it is a travesty that Woody Allen can’t defend himself. The publishers chose sides and he had not been convicted of anything.... just accusations.
15
Someday, Donald Trump will write a book (or someone will write one for him). It will be full of lies and misrepresentations and I probably will chose not to buy it or read it; but it will nevertheless deserve to be published. Whatever one thinks of Woody or believes that he did or did not do, he does not deserve to be silenced in this way.
10
I can only imagine what's going on behind the scenes, all I know for certain is that Frank Sinatra's son hates Woody Allen.
14
Thank you Hachette and Mr. Farrow. Everything is not about money. Too many decades of the likes of Polanski, Weinstein, and Allen.
10
The world will do just fine without the self-serving propaganda of Woody Allen. Good riddance I say, and well done Hachette.
8
Hachette is acting in the fine tradition of the Republican Senate: The best way to determine the truth is to refuse to hear the testimony of anyone who might disagree with your pre-formed conclusions.
We have a new spelling for the old phrase, "hatchet job". What's being done to freedom of speech shall henceforth be known as a Hatchette Job.
26
I think any allegation of child sexual abuse that first surfaces in the context of a bitter divorce or child custody battle is automatically suspect, and should be presumed false. I once heard such an allegation described as the "thermonuclear bomb" of divorce litigation. Mia Farrow was incandescently angry at Woody over the Soon Yi affair, with good reason, but that does not give her license to accuse her ex of a heinous felony without real proof.
19
Hachette's decision is to capitulate to mob-rule and cancel culture. Hopefully, another publishing house will take this on. perhaps, a small one that will instantaneously hit the big time. Accusations against Woody Allen were tested in a court of law and found to be spurious. Ronan Farrow peddles celebrity gossip with little regard to women of little means being victimized all over.
10
I’d just like to get this out of the way; this not a first amendment issue. I know that many will likely try to make that argument, but it’s not.
A privately held publisher is not required to publish anything. They can reject whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t violate anti-discrimination laws. The first amendment protects individual citizens from government reprisal of speech. The first amendment does not protect individuals from private consequences of their words and actions.
It’s the reason a privately held company can fire someone for espousing extremist beliefs, but the government cannot throw someone in jail for espousing extremist beliefs. The government, in general, cannot tell a privately held company what or what not to publish. Carry on...
47
@Austin Ouellette You write: "The government, in general, cannot tell a privately held company what or what not to publish."
But we, the readers, can tell the company that we will not be purchasing any of its releases since it is allowing its employees to dictate policy.
Sorry, Hachette. Woody's book will be published and I will buy it...just not from you.
6
Agree, this is not about “freedom of speech”, it’s a commercial decision (a wise one), in my opinion. Forget the other accusations, the fact is he was having an affair with his own stepdaughter. I think the publisher made a decision that either they were going to be subject to a lot of negative publicity or people just wouldn’t buy the book as many people are not interested in this man’s life.
2
@Austin Ouellette
The point isn't whether or not Hachette has the right not to publish the book. The point is that it was a cowardly decision to cancel it. No one is arguing that a company should be forced to publish anything it doesn't want to. But once it's been announced they should stick to their decision, instead of caving in to a braying mob. Hopefully someone else will issue it.
2
Libraries are filled (for now) with books by unsavory people. Having the agency to not check out the book, or not listen to the song or not click on the link is a great thing and we need to protect that. Woody Allen is an important figure in cinema. Cancelling the book publication is wrong. I had zero interest in reading or buying his book, but I will certainly buy it now, just as I would have bought Rushdie's Santanic Verses back in the day. Free thought and expression is messy people, but will always be preferred to the alternative.
81
This is not censorship. Business contracts get canceled all the time for multitudes if various reasons.
This is a simple business decision.
No one's rights are being denied anything here.
Mr. Allen is free to self-publish or find a different distributor.
3
This is censorship and a bad idea. History is recorded by those who live it; conflicting stories from those people are vital; the varied accounts put a burden on the reader to read critically. Refusing to release in some manner these accounts only provides a limited picture. No one benefits from tunnel vision.
45
@JsbNoWI Censorship is suppressing a written work so the public will not have access to it.
That's not what happened here. Less hysterics and a bit more critical thinking seems to be in order here.
Censorship? What’s preventing Allen from publishing the story himself?
Since when did publishers decide to give in to the moral sensitivities of employees? If he hasn't been convicted by a court of law, this subject is not open for discussion. Giving into employees sets a terrible precedent. It's like going back to the stagnation of the 1970s.
70
@Outspoken Mr Outspoken says the "subject is not open for discussion." Oxymoron!
@Outspoken You say the publishers "Gave in".
I say they "listened".
2
@Outspoken don’t forget Woody Allen has a history that proves his interest in young teenage girls including his present wife who was his girlfriends daughter. And a 7 year old , in this case his adopted daughter, describes what he did in full detail and stuck to her story. Just because the justice failed his young daughter does not make him innocent. He And Roman Polanski belong on the same island, far from children. They don’t deserve the lime light, only a dim light bulb of a jail cell. Thank you Ronan!!!
2
Is it really in the interest of anybody at all to prevent the publication of a book? Is that not merely the suppression of a voice, regardless of how vehemently you may disagree with the words or how contemptible you may find the person penning they? If you dislike the book, don’t buy it. Don’t prevent those who would from buying it. Silencing dissent seems to be the unfortunate MO of the woke gen and it’s not going away fast enough.
56
@Fred Nobody suppressed anything. They simply declined to publish.
In another news account of this event, published in The Guardian today, one of the protesting employees is quoted as follows:
“The biggest complaint,” a Hachette staff member speaking on condition of anonymity told Refinery 29, “is that we feel strongly about everyone’s right to tell their own story, but we don’t agree with giving Woody Allen a platform with which to tell it that includes distribution, marketing, publicity."
Now that's hypocrisy. There's no evidence justifying the cancellation and censorship of this book.
103
As an avid reader, I find it astonishing that Hachette would be so weak as to engage in what essentially amounts to self censorship, and cancel publication of the book. The publishing house should instead have left it up to readers to make their own informed opinions after reading the book. And for those people who didn't care to read the book, well they wouldn't have purchased it, anyway.
59
@Mary Rae Fouts
I guess there are no other publishing houses in America?
Hachette made a business decision that frees Mr. Allen to find another publisher.
7
To those who are cry "censorship" (more accurately described as "chilled speech"):
Powerful men have held a megaphone for as long as human existence. They always get the book deals. They always get the generous severance, or are protected by NDA's. They always get the benefit of the doubt ("have they been sentenced?"), especially from other men. They usually get favorable legal treatment (like Trump).
The crimes of which Woody Allen has been accused are very difficult to prove. These crimes happen in secret. It is exceptionally rare for a person to falsely accuse another person of rape or molestation. Coming forward is very difficult and almost always causes a very public shaming. Historically, women are rarely believed.
Of course, none of this means that Woody Allen is guilty in a legal sense. He has the right to make a buck - and he does.
But just as Hachette has the right to back out, so does the public have the right to condemn Allen, even without a court of law. In the court of public opinion, Allen is really, really guilty.
21
This seems like a very judgmental statement to me, with all due respect.
4
@Cousy
Sure Hachette does not have to publish the book. But really bad optics to back out after Ronan Farrow pressures them to do so. Woody Allen was accused of nefarious deeds in a dysfunctional family, but not convicted. Censoring his book is not modeling freedom of the press which is a cornerstone of our society. I intensely dislike Trump and the harm he has done to our country, but I would never imagine trying to prevent publication of his autobiography.
2
@Cousy You don't know that he is guilty, and all investigations and inquiries have proven absolutely nothing at all. Woody Allen is a genius of epic proportions, and I read the biography on him written by Eric Lax, and it was incredible, portraying this man's amazing mind and intellect. Mia Farrow had a huge ax to grind in the constellation of events leading to their breakup. There is likely much more to this story, but in the final analysis, she sounds very much like a furious woman scorned. A Medea of sorts in my humble opinion. Mr. Allen, if I were you, I'd publish the memoir yourself. And I'll buy a copy for sure. Sign me, an avid fan for over 35 years.
5
This is dismaying. I care very little about Woody Allen or his autobiography specifically. But regardless, it appears that freedom of speech, not in its narrow legal/constitutional meaning but in the broader philosophical sense, once a cornerstone of our national values and identity, is a value that fewer and fewer people care about every day.
Every week we hear about important works of culture and art being canceled because of some tangentially related moral outrage. Just last week it was reported that Roman Polanski’s latest film “An Officer and a Spy” about the Dreyfus affair, won several Cesars (the French academy awards) - the film is reportedly a masterpiece of major historical and cultural significance - and yet it has not found a US distributor and will likely not be screened here.
Anyone who dares to stand up to the bullying by self-appointed arbiters of morality and express concern about this wholesale suppression of speech and artistic expression risks almost certainly being cancelled themselves.
Sad, just sad.
67
@Math Professor this is not a question of morality. It’s about abuse, specifically child sexual abuse and as a society calling into question whether the perpetrator, who denies his actions, as they all do. It is a rare occasion for a perpetrator to stand up and admit their wrong because of the horrid destruction their crime has on the child. I say they publishing company is making a right decision to not publish a liar. Look at who Woody Allen married( to save as much face as he had left), his abused adopted daughters sister!!
5
If we stop publishing books by liars, the shelves will be mighty bare.
Woody Allen might have committed a crime.
But you can find books right now on the Hachette site by Richard Nixon and Bill O'Reilly. My guess is that Hachette has published books by dozens of nuts, abusers, and killers.
If the employees who walked out are really committed to their consciences, power to them. But it's weird that such a tendency never appeared before. The walkout seems more like virtue-signaling than anything else.
58
A sad example of the "heckler's veto." Why should the publisher cave to employees? Let the public read it - then people can critique as they wish.
44
Woody Allen’s situation is a cautionary tale. One woman has accused Mr. Allen of abusing her when she was a child: no one else has come forward to accuse him of the same thing. This strikes me as odd, and yet he loses a movie deal with Amazon, and now this. Is this a case where “I believe her” shouldn’t apply?
35
@ERT
In Mia Farrow's case, there is no presumption of telling the truth.
2
Woody Allen is wealthy and one of the most famous people in the world. He has as much or more access to media as anyone else. He is not being silenced, censored, persecuted, or "not allowed" to do anything. A business decided that publishing his book was more trouble than it was worth. That's how the free market works.
33
@Di Well said. Thank you.
Woody Allen is an artist, whose writings, movies, and comic performances over 60 years have made an important contribution to American popular culture. More important artists and thinkers have been excoriated over the centuries--Shakespeare, Wagner, Rousseau--for their anti-Semitism or bad behavior. To the benefit of western civilization, the public has largely ignored the scolds.
Fortunately, Hachet is not the government and so cannot censor the writing of Mr. Allen. I am looking forward to read what should be a fascinating book, and hope that a publisher with more spine than Hatchet will publish it with energy and vigor.
34
Did Hachette stop publication because they were firmly convinced of Allen's guilt and moral repugnance, and of the lack of redeeming worth of his book? Or did they do so out of fear of a public backlash?
I'm afraid of what other books will not see the light of day because of they are opposed by certain segments of the population. If a "pro-life" group succeeded in stopping the publication of a pro-choice manifesto, how would we feel about that? If a certain work—or cartoon, say—offends many Muslims, should that not be published either?
I very much both understand and share the anger of Mr. Farrow and his supporters, and their abhorrence of sexual abuse and abusers. But the nobler thing for them to have done would be to allow the publication of the book while strongly condemning its contents.
11
I have rejected the concepts around censorship my whole adult life. As a child, I read books for which I was the wrong age to understand. I am more careful now with the authors I follow and try to protect my mind from reading horrific images conjured up by authors so talented in writing prose and poetry that their images left bruises on my soul. I admit I self-censor my reading material now.
Woody Allen has been a talented film maker for decades; his son Ronan seems to be aging into his own power as well. They are locked in a conflict unlikely to be solved.
I appreciate the articles written about the broader issues raised by the battle over whether Ronan Farrow's publisher can also publish his father Woody Allen's autobiography. I appreciate the comments here by NYT readers, too. This seems to be a confusing set of issues for those of us who believe books available to read should offer as many choices as possible, especially in the age of self-publishing.
10
No freedom of speech or freedom of the press for Mr Allen.
I guess he can just take it to Penguin
Hachette trumped all over Mr Allen's right's at the request of one person. Is is right to silence some one because some one else does not like them?
18
No one's rights are being denied here.
Your claim of censorship is without merit.
Where in our constitution does it say a publisher must publish a book and cannot change their mind?
3
These days? Probably.
I thought we had the 1st amendment which protects our freedom of speech and an amendent which should be honored and respected by the publisher. To cave into unproven accusations with no evidence is intolerable.
14
@michael nichols. The First amendment applies to government only.
3
Not true, except technically. By this time Free Speech is ingrained in our wider culture, thankfully.
@Maggie
What?
Just because character assassination is the ONLY campaign move in today's politics does not mean that single-interest activist groups can rule our society.
Woody Allen is not even accused of breaking a law. Yet he is denied the free speech in our Constitution.
Shame on Hachette for caving and perverting their very business of publishing because an ex-wife and son have maintained pure HATRED for decades.
Activist groups now govern the country -- a slight, an enemy of any of the activists gets one banned for life and erased from history.
28
It’s The New McCarthyism.
5
So someone, in this case a family member, makes a sexual assualt claim against a movie direct/writer, which is then investigated by the police and social workers and found to be sans merit.
Then 20+ years later, that same party is making the same claim, which is still not supported by evidence, and a publisher shuts down the the star director's book.
An ugly day for freedom of speech, and evidence mattering.
46
His reputation is the reason for the lingering doubt about the accusation by one of his children. Fact remains, he had an affair while married, with his stepdaughter. Does a man with morals do that? The suggestion at the time and remains, -- did he have a sexual interest in children?
14
Is it correct to call her his stepdaughter? She was Mia Farrow and André Previn's adopted daughter. Mia and Woody lived in separate apartments and he does not appear to have been a father figure to Soon-Yi from what I've read. Not that I'm excusing his actual behaviour, but these facts tend to get lost in the court of public opinion.
@Marian - Woody Allen was NOT married to Mia Farrow or any other woman for that matter when he began the relationship with Soon Yi.
@Marian.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Allen and Farrow were not married. Soon-yi Previn was not Allen’s stepdaughter, nor did he ever have a parental role with respect to her. Furthermore, she was a college student and over 21 when they started dating.
So tacky, yes. But hardly suggestive of pedophilia or moral crimes of that degree.
1
Boo. This is a cave-in to the mob along the lines of Sen Franken. A jury found Allen not guilty. We do disservice to crime victims by feeding a backlash against false claims.
29
Did Woody Allen ever discuss film-making with French "New Wave" directors? I would like to know the answer to that and to many other questions, even if there are issues about Woody's personal life. Ronan Farrow - a journalist, no less - and Hachette Books Group do no favor to the reading public by blocking publication of Woody's reminiscences. In my view, book-banning is not all that far removed from book-burning.
34
This society has grown spineless. Caving to a few shrill voices on the internet. Hopefully Allen finds another publisher or releases it himself on the internet for a small fee.
33
Why does it always take protests for these entitled corporations to make an ethical decision?
4
I don't know if Allen is guilty of molestation, but based on everything I've read, I'm very doubtful that he is. What baffles me is that nobody is talking about the accusations against Mia that she bullied and beat her adopted children. I recommend reading Moses Farrow's blog post titled "A Son Speaks Out".
47
@Haddock
Here's a link to a Guardian article about it, which has a link to the blog. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/24/farrow-family-truth-trauma-mia-dylan-moses-woody-allen
"Believing" Dylan, against a raft of evidence to the contrary, means a refusal to believe another child who experienced terrible emotional abuse at the hands of Mia Farrow. Why are his claims less important? Because he's a boy, and she's a mother? He was also a witness to the effect that nothing happened on the day in question, so he has to be discredited and erased by Dylan, Ronan, and Mia. And shame on The New Yorker, among other publications, for never giving Moses's account equal weight and equal importance.
8
And the French wonder why when others question their courage.
3
Trying to restate some of the facts that seem to be getting lost: canceling the publication is not censorship. Ronan would not have published a book with Hachette had he known that they were publishing Woody's memoir and would likely have withdrawn from the work on his project had Hachette announced Woody's memoir at the time of its acquisition. Instead, they hid it until after the successful publication and promotion of Ronan's book. Later claiming "editorial independence" was an obvious lie intended to obfuscate the events leading up to the publication of Woody's book and it failed to assuage Ronany, Hachette employees or the public.
Good for them for withdrawing the book. It's a shame they could not foresee this reaction.
10
It boggles the mind that Hatchette even considered publishing Allen's book. Claiming the left hand is independent of the right hand is a poor justification. The publisher was salivating at the thought of promoting and benefitting from both sides of this spectacle and that is truly crass and unsavory. Pretty low ethical bar among many in the book industry when the money and notoriety are dangling within reach.
10
@Name you by far have done the best job at explaining Ronan's situation and why he'd feel betrayed. Thank you!
1
Does not speak well of Hachette management. Weak. Unprofessional. The court of public opinion, uninformed, sanctimonious, and particularly emotion-driven in this case, should be ignored.
20
Or smart enough to avoid a financial disaster.
Of course a private company has the right to publish or not publish whatever they want. However, this sets a dangerous precedent. Should movie studios now shun Woody Allen? If so, they should also shun Roman Polanski. Should record companies now refuse to sell music by Jerry Lee Lewis or the Rolling Stones? I don't like this censorship. If you don't want it, don't buy it; it's that simple.
8
@Jess
Most certainly Roman Polanski should also be shunned.
Censorship is done by governments. Business decisions made by private companies is NOT censorship.
Allen can take his book to another publisher or self-publish. No one is banning his book.
7
Woody Allen is a great film maker, director, and writer. I have enjoyed his work for more than 4 decades. If you want to enlighten yourself with this saga, I HIGHLY recommend anybody watch the 60 minutes interview with Steve Kroft. If you want further informative material, read Soon-Yi Previn's more recent New York magazine article interview on their marriage and life together, and what it was like being in Mia's orbit when she was growing up. Then let's talk. As for Ronan Farrow and his mother Mia Farrow and Dylan, it's time to bury the hatchet and move on. This really has festered long enough in the public domain. I wish Woody Allen and his wife and children the best in their lives.
22
@David He lost me after his marriage to his daughter.
5
No one should profit from this man's work & I used to love his stand-up. Now I can't stand the sight of him. Everyone suspected there was something creepy going on in Manhattan. How French. He can self-publish for all the people who want to read his memoir.
7
So many uniformed, so quick to condemn. Read “A Son Speaks Out,” by Moses Farrow. “I was present for everything that transpired in our house before, during, and after the alleged event.” The accusations don’t hold up. Add to which, two teams of psychiatric investigators specializing in child abuse concluded that Dylan Farrow sounded coached.
28
"Cancel culture" strikes again. Despites two investigations that never led to any charges, a further investigation by social services that allowed him and his wife to adopt two little girls, Mr. Allen is still guilty in the eyes of the Twitter jury. Presumption of innocence and due process have gone out the window. Today, it's Woody Allen. Who's next?
36
When will woody Allen’s son investigate his own mother and child abuse. His own brother, who is now a therapist, his written about Mia’s non-stop pressure to make her poor daughter believe she was molested even after a team of experts from Yale made it clear that this never happened. Not to mention a child molester of a child of that age doesn’t stop with one. The story has always been absurd and a vendetta perpetuated by Mia who was, rightly, angry at Allen for sleeping with her other, adult daughter. (A marriage which has lasted a long time and has produced two lovely daughters). But being right on one side doesn’t mean it’s okay to abuse a different daughter.
17
I mean, c'mon...Why is he still a thing?
Terrible director, writer, and middling intellect.
Who, whatever the circumstances, marries their own daughter, adopted or otherwise?
Strange fellow, and even stranger is his appeal to ANYONE.
He should just go away.
11
Other publishers also turned this manuscript down, as they do many, many others for all varieties of reasons. It is their prerogative to do so. And those other writers are, as is Allen, able to keep submitting their work until it finds a taker. And I’ll bet there is one out there for Mr. Allen. It seems to me that Mr. Farrow was upset because it was HIS publisher, and coming on the heals of his best seller about sexual abuse that they published. Let Allen move on.
7
Hachette is a business. They probably decided it would ultimately hurt their reputation more to publish Allen’s book than to go ahead with the deal. Guess what, they’re not publishing MY memoir, either. Censorship!
8
I'm not defending Mr. Allen, but does anyone really know the truth here? We only know the truth as it played out in the media and that Mia Farrow wanted us to know.
While I vehemently defend women, I'm wondering if we're not punishing a few men and making the majority fear us. I know women have been used and abused since time immemorial, but something about this just seems wrong.
Why didn't the publisher just put a disclaimer on the book? And, what difference does it make if one publisher handles Ronan Farrow's book and Mr. Allen's book?
5
@Pamela L. The Farrows never took him to any kind of court, criminal or civil.
One reason I believe is that Mia, Dylan and Ronan would have to speak under oath.
Really tired of Ronan Farrow’s striving self-righteousness. Flawed though he may be, Woody Allen has been an innovative comic and filmmaking policy force and a professional of a stature that a starting-on-third-base trader-on-the-fame-of-his-parents legacy/opportunist like RF can only dream about. Allen, who was exonerated, has been an artist of great creative imagination. Gonna ban everyone because of their objectionable traits? Ok, no more Beethoven, Wagner...I suppose everybody could add to the list. I’ll read Woody’s book.
22
This decision by the publisher represents the worst impulses coming from the "#MeToo movement" in that a man who was investigated twice and not charged still finds his career foundering to the extent that he cannot have his movies seen, or his book read. Mr. Farrow unfairly brought a long boiling family dispute to bear in criticizing the publisher and in suggesting the purpose of Mr. Allen's book is to absolve himself, which is about the biggest hypocrisy another writer dependent on the freedom of the press can propagate. The time to criticize either the book, or its objective is after it is published for all to read, not in trying to block its publication.
17
Does Mr. Ronan at least admit that, in spite of any natural talent he may have, he probably would not have the success he has had without an uplifting from the fame of his mother *and* his father? And where is his sister, the victim, in all of this?
7
Rejecting the book at the outset would be a principled business decision. Conversely, living up to your commitment to publish the book despite public outcry would also be a principled business decision.
Making the deal and then backing out later because you got cold feet is just pitiful cowardice.
6
This is an unconscionable move by Hachette Books. It strikes at Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
We protect the press so that individuals can read and DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether they accept what is written. That is essential for a free society to function. It is essential for a democracy.
Journalists like Ronan Farrow have gone too far in pointing the finger at others.
Let me mention one particularly egregious case.
He forced the resignation of an MIT scientist merely for accepting donations to his research from Jeffrey Epstein.
I take no positions of Epstein's crimes themselves. But journalists do not have the right to destroy careers on the basis of some vague "guilt by association."
I once had coffee at Starbucks. If one of the other clients was an axe murderer, does that make me an axe murderer? I don't think so.
The New Yorker needs to stop insulting my intelligence.
And maybe Farrow should apologize.
Advice to journalists: Turn a new leaf. Don't accept accusations when no proof is available. Support healing not the dragging up of decades old cases that were presumably settled by the courts.
The courts decide on guilt or innocence, not Ronan Farrow.
6
In one of Woody Allen's more meaningful films, The Front, the background is the McCarthyism of the 1950s, and how the powerful and the powerless responded to the witch hunts against the Left.
I think Hachette has left itself open for lawsuits, and established a disturbing precedent. It could have published this book and then failed to promote it. There were other more nuanced alternatives available.
Now Mr. Allen faces his own witch hunt, led by his angry son Ronan Farrow. It is almost a Shakespeare scenario-- how sharper than a serpent's tooth, how painful. Whatever his mistakes -- or perhaps even crimes-- Mr Allen is a creative and intelligent man with much to say. Putting him on a blacklist moves us all back into the darkness.
Obviously some of the #MeToo movement has been a useful corrective. But how sad that some feminists had led the way in over-emphasizing a harsh prosecutorial approach to something that can be more complex. And the media often enables this.
Now, though I prefer not to enrich Mr Allen, I will make it a point to seek this book out wherever it may be. Protesters try to erase a person, and have said nothing about the content of the book. This is the power of the mob, and not the dialogue of a healthy democracy.
9
@rabbit "It could have published this book and then failed to promote it. There were other more nuanced alternatives available."
Ha. No way. That would have been a recipe for a lawsuit and much worse than cutting it loose pre-publication.
Rather the social equivalent of an auto-immune disorder. Allen is attacked without any objective basis.
6
Ronan Farrow’s all-embracing hatred of his father is astounding. His campaign to thwart the publication of Woody Allen’s autobiography says much more about Farrow’s all encompassing parental alienation — than it does about Allen. It’s completely unmitigated and it feel wrong. Fighting against the publication of the book seems deranged.
19
How about a book on implanted false memories and enabling behavior? I am sad that the publisher caved- one would think that at least their employees would know how to read and sort out fact from a he-done-me wrong revenge family business.
14
It bothers me that Hachette will not publish Woody Allen's book. He was investigated twice and no charges were filed. Ronan Farrow gets to write books and have them published, but Woody cannot? I am curious to hear his side of things. Maybe Woody did what Ronan and Mia Farrow accuse him of doing, in which case his suffering might well be justified. Maybe he is innocent, as he says, in which case an innocent and gifted person's career has been ruined.
When controversial books are protested, and as a result they end up not getting published, that sounds like censorship to me. A forbidden book. I want to buy it and read it, and make up my own mind.
7
Here's what I don't understand.
The results of the various investigations into Dylan Farrow's allegations, from when she was a small child and her mother was going through a contentious divorce with Allen, have been inconclusive, at best. It's clear that there was an unhealthy relationship between Allen and Farrow, but far from certain that her allegations, made years after the alleged events, are the bases for concluding they are "fact."
Allen did not stand trial for the allegations. He is, in our system, innocent until proven guilty (and never mind that authorities found no basis to bring charges).
Meanwhile, Ronan Farrow, in his excellent book, "Catch and Kill," fully acknowledges that even he doubted his sister's tale for many years. However, once he decided to accept it — and run with it — he has assumed it is factual.
This is not a defense of Allen, but rather, the idea that all alleged abuse victims should be "believed," no matter the circumstances, at the expense of due process for those they have accused.
I experienced abuse at the hands of a scout leader, and was brazenly ignored when I brought my accusations to troop leaders decades ago, so I am not a reflexive "victim basher."
But this story is strange, indeed, and when a major publisher can be pressured by activists into exercising prior restraint based on unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago, we've got a problem.
641
@CB Evans
Why is this a problem? If Woody Allen wishes to publish this book, then he can either self publish or find a publisher to carry it.
In a free market economy where consumers choose what they purchase, Woody Allen has no inherent right to have his work published by anyone.
And Allen is innocent until proven guilty. Do you see Allen in jail? No? Then he’s still legally considered innocent. No one has found Allen guilty of anything. And he’s still rich and incredibly well connected.
You want us to fee sorry for Allen because he’s been asked to account for questionable and, probably, heinous actions in his past? Miss me with that nonsense. There are millions of other victims of real offenses that deserve of your attention more than poor ol’ Woody Allen.
25
@Austin Ouellette
No, not asking anyone to "feel sorry" for Allen. I'm asking people to consider the notion of whether he should be canceled — even if that means only a book contract — on the basis of unproven, and still unsettled, allegations.
It is, as my father used to say, the principle of the thing.
I like to exercise that quaint old thought experiment of walking in another's shoes before hurling righteous invective and judgment. I know that I would not appreciate being in his shoes, particularly if I had not committed the actions I had been accuse of (and which, I emphasize, we will almost certainly never prove, one way or the other).
Separate Allen from this matter and look at it that way, and perhaps you'll understand where I'm coming from.
41
@CB Evans
I understand your point. I don’t agree with it at all but I do understand it. The day Woody Allen gets the benefit of the doubt from me, is the day the billionaires and millionaires he rubs shoulders with start actually treating the working class with respect.
Woody Allen and his wealthy friends think they can treat people however they want and get away with it. Because that’s exactly what does happen. They can literally get away with anything, but I go to jail if I dare to go 20mph over the speed limit. Benefit of the doubt for Woody Allen? Nah. Even if he didn’t do what they say he did, he’s still guilty by association of all of the company he keeps. Goes for anyone who doesn’t use their position of privilege to fight for a more equitable society.
6
Burying the Hatchet(te) regarding Woody?
2
Sounds like catch and kill.
6
Mob rule.
26
Oh my god how many people in the comments don’t know the meaning of the word censorship. Censorship is when the government stops you from publishing material not when a private company says “no thank you” to a multi-million dollar book deal with you. If thats censorship then I am also being censored because Hachete won’t publish my autobiography. Woody Allen has the ability to go to another company or even self publish. No one is stopping him from telling his story in the public forum.
His children say he is an incestuous child molester and he has pretty much made his career based off self directed and written films where he plays a pedophile. Off that evidence some reasonable people said ‘hey, I don’t want to give him millions and millions of dollars with a high profile book deal’. It isn’t as if the DOJ muzzled him.
Good on Ronan Farrow.
25
@Ian Censorship does not only pertain to actions of the government. Anyone with control over a printing press (of some sort) can censor. Anyone can burn a pile of books, rip up a poster, shout down a speaker, or steal a stack of newspapers.
One particular limitation on censorship, the first amendment to the US Constitution, does constrain the government, but there's a lot of censorship that isn't covered by the first amendment.
3
@Ian
Yeah - that is not the definition of censorship.
It could possibly the noveau-woke definition of censorship that a mob can decide what is and is not published is by definition - not-censorship..
@Ian And he was investigated and not convicted. But you bow to the vengeful ex partner.
I remember when the Muslim world was asking clamoring for Salman Ruahdie’s head.
Guess we now have our very own American Fatwa!
48
I think Allen's been treated unjustly for years over these allegations, and Hachette's disgraceful behaviour here is no exception.
But calling for someone's death is the same as, or even analogous to, canceling a publishing contract? Let's not be silly.
1
@FirstThingsFirst Perfect comparison.
for all those screaming cancel culture in WA's defense here, read the original court docs, which provide damning evidence against him:
https://www.scribd.com/document/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
and a summary here:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
11
@Prof Trelawney
What about the statement from his son, Moses? Are you ignoring one child’s allegation of abuse in favor of another’s?
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html?m=1
This will also be helpful:
https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
1
@Prof Trelawney thanks for these links, very damning indeed!
2
@Prof Trelawney - OK, Woody Allen is guilty. Let's convict him and lock him up. Now, getting back to the issue at hand, do we really want to live in a society where a noisy group of self-appointed censors decide what can and cannot be published?
1
How can you have a good book burning if it doesn't get published?
10
We publish Hitler's Mein Kampf but won't publish Woody Allen's autobiography. That says it all.
28
@Jesse Oh cry me a river. Are there no other publishers? Is there no possibility of self-publishing, particularly if done in segments on the internet. BY the way who is this mysterious "we"? Some of us old enough to remember all the drama in his life have come full circle from admiring a quirky filmmaker with his very New York persona to complete disdain.
The last straw was the photo of him strolling along in obvious equanimity on Manhattan streets with a certain now dead registered sex offender named Epstein. After the latter's Florida conviction mind you.
6
Censorship, anyone?
6
@Keith Binkowski Would you say that with equal vigor if it was about a professor's article in a peer reviewed academic journal shut down by the so-called "woke" generation whose tender feeling always come before fre speech?
Pathetic.
8
I guess I would be looking for new employees. How dare they think they can force the owner to ban a book. Are we living in Nazi Germany. Wonder how many of them are liberals?
16
@pattysue I wonder how many are from Texas?
1
Not really stating my opinion about the whole deal but just curious about the state of justice in some minds. In a comment someone mentioned that Mr. Allen had been acquitted twice but isn't an acquittal a result of a trial? It has never gone to trial. I read that Allen had taken a polygraph and although that isn't considered evidence for or against, it could have had an effect on the decision not to take it to trial. The people who damn people on their own passions are not enjoying the fullness of a Democracy and a justice system based on a living law. Unfortunately there probably have been more people denied the right to life based on mass errant passions than criminals set free for lack of evidence or by a flawed status quo.
2
Besides the book, I want to see "A Rainy Day in New York" and it is annoying that I can't. Woody Allen has worked with many many young actresses none of whom have a #metoo complaint about him. Meanwhile so many Hollywood movies made under who knows what horrible casting couch conditions are all out there.
I don't want Mia Farrow, who herself broke up Andre and Dory Previn's marriage, dictating what books I can read and what movies I can see. And Ronan, get a DNA test all ready.
54
@Deborah
A Rainy Day in New York is coming out on dvd in Europe in April... my friends have been able to see the film since October.
Quality comment.
1
Maybe Ronin had the DNA test already but it serves him to keep it hidden.
5
I am less certain of anything Woody Allen did that I am that these actions add to Ronan Farrow's celebrity and increase his own books sales. It also adds to the poison injected into our society by unproved allegations against people by women with something to gain - it upsets everyone with no productive result.
I am relatively certain Christine Blase Ford was telling the truth about Brett Kavenaugh, and other cases or backed up or more substantial claims against abusers than anything Woody Allen was accused accused of.
It has been attack, attack again, attack again and again with no new information, and the more information I read the I can't make anything out of this but harassment that is trying to push its way to fact by mere repetition. But, I do not know for certain, and that is where I think we have to use our hearts and judgement.
We all feel worse to condemn a girl who maybe might have been touched one time by someone with a sketchy record of attraction to young women ( not girls ) than we are of attacks on rich and famous celebrity white men.
Something is not right about this, and if there is no new information the news agencies ought to stop flashing it out to the public like a given repeatedly.
78
@Bruce divorce and family breakups are messy. Woody and Mia's more so than most. Former partners and lovers sometimes say horrible things about the other purely to cause some of the hurt they feel. Sadly this often has an effect on the kids and their future relationship with a parent.
2
You sound like a man who has never experienced having an unwanted hand put in a private place.
5
You don't have to know for certain, Ronan's sister knows for certain and though Ronan said he was at first skeptical he now has no doubts. Woody Allen went to great lengths, to include hiring private detectives, to try and intimidate Ronan. Innocent people don't hire goons.
4
This is great publicity for Woody’s memoirs. I’m looking forward to the book coming out.
49
@TKGPA
Best thing would be if the New Yorker Magazine serialized it they made Ronan Farrow rich , I would like to read Woody's autobiography ,shame on Hachette especially as it is a French oened company where freedom of the press is scarosant ala the sad horrific Charley magazine events France paid the price for freedom of speech then ,but here in NYC ...well...Hachette.... they shoot down Woody Allen.
1
Wonderful,if you don't want to,don't buy it,enough with censorship . Allen was thoroughly investigated and the accusations were unfounded. We're reaching a very dangerous point in this country .Beware the time, possibly soon to come when the president starts decreeing what's published and broadcast.
70
@John Pecha Who got censored?
We cant know for sure if he is guilty or not. But he was investigated twice and no charges were filed. That has to count for something, no?
89
Because PEN America said it best: "We believe everyone — including authors and publishing employees — has the right to express their opinions and raise their voices in protest. That said, we also are concerned about the trend of pressuring the withdrawal of books from publication and circulation, depriving readers of the chance to make their own judgments and disincentivizing publishers from taking on contentious topics. While we don’t take a position on the editorial judgments in question, we think that once a book is slated for publication, it should not be withdrawn just because it’s controversial or gives rise to vociferous objections."
93
Self publishing is always an option if he just wants to get the book out there. Nobody's entitled to a publishing deal.
10
@Joel Except he already had a publishing deal. I hope he sues.
6
@Joel
He was entitled to a publishing deal ,it's called a signed contract.
2