Why you shouldn’t let virginal sex-haters write sex advice » « History will eat the rich, but unfortunately they’re dragging the rest of us down with them

You didn’t really want to read Milo Yiannopoulos’s book, did you?

You may recall the scandal: Yiannopoulos got a $250,000 advance from Simon & Schuster, which was then cancelled after it was revealed that Yiannopoulos was saying all these nice things about pedophilia. Yiannopoulos then turned around and is suing Simon & Schuster for $10 million over that cancellation, which is probably a terrible mistake for him, because the publisher’s defense is that it was a very bad book, unsuitable for publication, and that it wasn’t just his endorsement of pedophilia that got him canned.

To that end, their defense in the lawsuit was to include the entire draft of the text, with the editor’s comments. They’re hilarious. You can tell the editor hated the book. Some of the highlights are included in this twitter thread.

Apparently, you can download the whole thing via the New York county clerk’s website, where it is filed. I didn’t, because goddamn, Milo’s 15 minutes are totally up.

Why you shouldn’t let virginal sex-haters write sex advice » « History will eat the rich, but unfortunately they’re dragging the rest of us down with them

Comments

  4. Just an Organic Regular Expression says

    If you want it, here it is, come and get it (BadFinger reference).

    https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASCaseInfo?parm=CaseInfo&index=TeGt1zeK1YF5uJ4ybA05IA%3D%3D&county=1NMEMTtvZEkO5E_PLUS_IrMvUIw%3D%3D&motion=M&docs=&adate=01/19/2018&civilCaseId=9xpuYWh2AjUeUnBNEOFEqw%3D%3D

    Down at the bottom, click on Show eFiled Documents.

    Scroll the popup window down to line 68 and click on Exhibit(s). Wait quite a while, it’s a big PDF.

  5. woozy says

    @4

    Unfortunately that is just the manuscript and not the editorial comments.

    Gad, Milo (politics aside) is nauseating.

  7. alans says

    The best spot is on the last paragraph on page 145 of the PDF (142 of the manuscript). Milo has written, “Is my argument a few paragraphs back starting to make sense?” The editor has added a comment which reads simply, “NO!”

  10. blf says

    This is the same book that was given a positive review in Michael Shermer’s magazine?

    I assume you mean Skeptic magazine, where Shermer is listed as the “Publisher & Editor-in-Chief”. And yes, they did publish a review by a George Michael whose bio at the site says he is “an associate professor of criminal justice at Westfield State University in Massachusetts.” It’s not completely clear when it was published, but July-2016 seems plausible. And yes, that review — which I won’t link to — fawns over the book and its contents. A fairly tame example:

    His book critically analyzes a number of segments of both the progressive and conservative movements. […]

    Simon & Schuster’s editor, Mitchell Ivers. obviously disagrees.

    The sense I get from skimming the review is the reviewer seems to think people despite the author because he is gay yet not a commie lefty. Therefore, people don’t know what to think of the author, so his book must be brilliant, correct, and… yadda yadda yadda. The review is perhaps better written than the draft, but is not better argued nor too coherent.

  12. says

    p. 31: “Let’s not call South Africa ‘white’.”

    My summary so far: “Here’s my description of the Left’s oppressive criticism of cultural products. I will now proceed to whine for several pages about the representation of men in the Ghostbusters remake, which led to my campaign of harassment against some of the actors involved. Because I’m a thick-skinned, devil-may-care, free-speech fundamentalist.”

  13. says

    “Unionized white male workers were all the Left cared about before they came under Gramsci’s spell, and now they’ve been abandoned by the New Left’s elites. Also, I love Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and scabs.”

  16. says

    OK, I’ve read all my patience will allow. The comments on the section about feminists (pp. 68-92) are the most amusing. Unfortunately, even though he’s clearly trying to read skeptically, there are a number of false claims and dubious citations Ivers lets pass. Someone more knowledgeable about these issues would tear this to shreds.

  18. John Small Berries says

    My favorite bits are where the editor just bluntly points out Yiannopoulos’ hypocrisy, like:

    Because so much of contemporary feminism is merely a capitalist con-job — a money-grab designed to sell t-shirts […] Comment [A126]: Um… like your MILO SWAG? (p. 70)

    and:

    […] it’s clear from the example of Valenti, who once wrote the headline “Feminists Don’t Hate Men, But It Woudn’t [sic] Matter If We Did,” that hate speech is permissible if it’s done under a byline. Comment [A137]: If that headline is hate speech, THIS WHOLE BOOK is hate speech. (p. 72)

  20. says

    I find it helps my own writing to read bad writing, not only because sometimes you have to remind yourself of the basics but also because it helps my confidence levels: if this level of dreck can get a quarter-million advance, then, dammit, I should be able to at least make some pin money.

  21. taikonotaiko says

    I only read a few pages of Milo’s book. It feels like he lives in a different reality to the rest of us; in that he believes he’s popular and controversial, and not a boring little man who’s been disowned by pretty much everyone. Plus, the first chapter really holds no water with anyone familiar with the hijinks of Milo and his alt-right (former) pals. I’m not sure who he’s trying harder to convince – us or himself!

    I could have sworn that a few months ago Milo was Catholic again. He seems to be one religion or the other when it suits him. I might not be an expert, but if I remember correctly both Catholicism and Judaism are quite strict about people not flip-flopping between faiths for profit or internet lols.

  22. says

    Pp. 198-199:

    “No teenage boy ever picked up a guitar for any reason beyond getting laid”

    “Comment [A459]: This is not true.”

    “And no teenage girl ever dreamt of being a celebrity for any other reason than to flaunt her beauty and attract suitors.”

    “Comment [A460]: This is not true either.”

  23. says

    This has a serious Nazi (and, relatedly, disturbing psychosexual) vibe. Look! The most reactionary social, political, and economic ideas are really cool, countercultural, transgressive, and fun! We should promote them via media spin, smear campaigns, cruelty, and humiliation!

    Pp. 204-6:

    But eventually, the left must seek out new targets — as rising standards of living render class differences increasingly irrelevant, the left must find other groups to hate. Luckily for them, the modern world, with all its opportunities to become unequal and distinct from one another…, offers them ample targets. The advent of sexual liberation in the 1960s, and the subsequent collapse of marriage threw the divide between hot people and ugly people into stark contrast.

    Championing the fortunate, the successful, and the able has never been particularly popular….

    [Nietzsche and Ayn Rand] remind us that sometimes, the best way to help the less fortunate is…to help them improve their condition – and that maybe, just maybe, you need the extravagance of elites to motivate the less fortunate. After all, what’s the point of making it to the top if you can’t have any fun?

    I see myself as the heir to Nietzsche and Rand. The former reminded the world that it was OK to strive for victory and achievement. The latter reminded the world that it was OK to strive for wealth and self-interest. I’m going to remind the world that it’s OK, and indeed a virtue, to strive for hotness.

    Does no one else realise why aspirational glamor matters?…

    Can’t imagine how he found himself hedge-fund billionaire patrons.

  24. says

    P. 206: “We need self-loathing and alienation. They drive us to succeed.”

    (Ivers is having none of this.) Self-loathing oozes from this document, and his attempt to give political meaning to his self-hatred is transparent and sad.

  25. says

    P. 217: “Gawker and the games press, and later the mainstream media, threw their full weight against gamers, who were repeatedly and slanderously portrayed as sexists and misogynists who trafficked in death and rape threats against innocent women in video games.”

    “Comment [A539]: Are the charges invalid? Explain.”

  26. says

    P. 248: “Socially, the millennial generation is the most tolerant ever, and the incoming president is also likely to be the most gay-friendly Republican ever elected to the Presidency.”

    “Comment [A588]: Except for his vice president and every proposed member of his cabinet.”

  27. says

    Be Hot

    This sounds difficult, but it’s very important. You have got to be hotter than your opponents. We live in an age of “fat acceptance” and the celebration of the mediocre. A high school sports day where everyone gets a prize. No! Don’t settle for second-best. Hit the gym, go on a diet, go to a tanning salon. Don’t waste money on McDonald’s — waste it on Gucci sunglasses instead!

    One of the saddest passages in a sad manuscript.

  28. F.O. says

    Indeed, the tacky nazi’s 15 minutes are totally up.
    Can we please stop talking about him and start focusing on the fuckers that give him a platform?

    Can we talk about why and how Simon & Schuster was ok making money by sugar coating nazism?

  29. John Morales says

    F.O.

    Can we talk about why and how Simon & Schuster was ok making money by sugar coating nazism?

    Sure. Clearly, they* were OK with it at first, but then not-so-much — seeing as they dropped it.

    But the why and how is pretty clear; they want to make $$$, and they then figured publishing it would achieve the opposite of that, and bailed. That’s the free market correcting itself.

    Another thing that amuses me is that many $Prominent_Person books are ghosted, but this one apparently is not.

    —

    * Technically, Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. But technically correct.

    —

    I wish to note that SC’s posts have amused me muchly. I hope she carries on :)

  31. John Morales says

    Fair enough, SC. “Comment [A588]” is itself informative.

    (Especially given the provenance and your adduced examples of snark!)

  33. says

    Yeah, hate to break it to Milo but I started playing guitar because I like music, not because I expect it would get me women. I’m guessing he’s not familiar with guitarists like Steve Vai, who spent most of his free time as a teen either practicing guitar or playing in bands. Telling girls “Sorry, but I have to go home and practice for six hours” isn’t a great way to have a social life.

  35. methuseus says

    Thank you for digesting this SC. I found your comments and excerpts hilarious, but I would just get pissed reading the actual document. As Sarah Mei said, it’s useful to use some of the comments in our own writing and editing, let alone what to remember not to use when we write.

  36. says

    Thanks, John and methuseus. I just noticed this bit, in Ivers’ affidavit to which TPM links:

    14. In his February 14 E-mail, Mr. Yiannopoulos disagreed with certain revisions I requested, including my request that he fully explain his infamous attack on the actress Leslie Jones, that ultimately led to his being banned from Twitter. Yiannopoulos wrote: “My response to my critics isn’t ‘Oh no, let me explain! It is: FUCK YOU!'”

    Ivers pointed to the need for Y to fully explain this in multiple comments – it didn’t seem optional. The problem for Y (and it was the same with his campaign of harassment related to gaming) is that a complete and honest account of events would reveal his bad acts and subsequent misrepresentations, which would undercut the whole premise of the book.

  37. Owlmirror says

    I’m honestly curious how anyone thought Milo, of all people, was capable of writing an honest, serious critique of anything at all.

    Comments from one of the e-mails referenced in the affidavit:

    these are the seven main issues that must be addressed in the revised manuscript, in addition to the edits and queries throughout:
     
      1. Leslie Jones: you must detail the events that precipitated the incident and what transpired, acknowledging the doxing and online harassment, and detail what you actually did as well as what you were accused of doing that you didn’t do.
     
      2. The Twitter banning: Similarly, you must detail what transpired, what you did, and what you were accused of doing that you didn’t do.
     
      3. Shaun King: You must include his response to the outing of him as white that he wrote for Daily Kos.
     
      4. Racism You must provide a defense against the charge of racism as strong as your defense against the charge of white supremacism. That can and should include your thoughts on how labels like “racist” are used to stifle political discourse.
     
      5. The Gamergate chapter: You must explain clearly and concisely for people who don’t understand (a) what Gamergate was; (b) what transpired before you got involved, (c) what the Gamers did; (d) how the press responded; (e) how the Gamers responded, included detailing any doxing and online harassment; (f) how you got involved; and (g) what you have been accused of doing that you did not do.
     
      6. The gay chapter: This needs a better central thesis than the notion that gay people should go back in the closet. I was happy to hear that you had already thought about ways to retool this chapter.
     
      7. The feminist chapter: This seemed to he the most problematic part of our discussion, but you will need to develop a stronger argument against feminism than saying that they are ugly and sexless and have cats. While l understand that these repeated jokes might be effective in your lecture venues, the book will need a more intellectually bracing discussion of how contemporary feminism stifles speech,

    :/

  38. Owlmirror says

    @#37.
    There are typos/OCR glitches in the blockquoted text which I missed while fixing it up after copying it in. There should be a colon after “4. Racism”, and the comma in the final paragraph should be a period. There may be more that I’m not seeing this instant.

  39. Tethys says

    I saw that twitter thread and enjoyed the obvious exasperation of the editor with Milo’s manuscript. If he was sympathetic to Milo’s beliefs about feminism when the project started, it certainly seems he developed a very low opinion of GG/altright and was repulsed by Milo by the time it ended.

  40. Owlmirror says

    Just providing actual direct links to the files.

    First draft of “Dangerous” with editor’s comments by Mitchell Ivers (Document 66 of the case 0654668/2017 of the New York Supreme Court) ( size ~45MB)

    Second draft of “Dangerous” (Document 68 of the case 0654668/2017 of the New York Supreme Court) (size ~42MB )

    The latter document has a cover letter from Milo, which has the “FUCK YOU” to “critics” in context (which doesn’t improve it or anything; it just shows his horribleness in sharp relief).

    1. I would like another 24-48 hours to add theory, history and pop culture material I consider critical to making the case for me as a cultural icon in my own right as well as America’s most relevant cultural and political critic. There are also places in which the phrasing could be improved and language smoothed out a bit.
     
    I’m getting you this now so you can begin to circulate it internally, but please note you will be receiving a new version in a day or two.
     
    2. I think we should move the alt-right chapter back to the end, or at least further down the table of contents. I HATE POLITICS AND I CONSIDER IT REALLY BORING. I haven’t done that in this mss, but I’m pretty set on it and will submit the book again later this week and with the new chapter order.
     
    Also — important — I don’t want the book to come across as whiny or self-justifying and that will be the case if we have Leslie Jones material followed by alt-right/white supremacist material.
     
    My response to my critics isn’t: “Oh no, let me explain!”
    It is: FUCK YOU.
     
    Nonetheless, all the clarifications you asked for are in here.
     
    3. The ugly chapter has been nuked.
     
    4. The feminism, gay, Gamergate and college tour chapters have been substantially rewritten.
     
    5. 80-90% of your cuts have been made and 100% of your requests for clarifications, citations and further explanations have been provided.

    (bolded text in original, and was also underlined)