My issue is also that she was using it as a workaround for a restrictive record contract.

I don't get this issue so much. It doesn't sound like she was any less committed to the project. I've seen some contractual-obligation records that make Evelyn Evelyn look like the Sistine Chapel.

Seriously, I think that's a false issue. People have tried to get out of bad contracts by doing stuff like grunting into a microphone for twenty hours, or sticking RCA with Metal Machine Music.

For whatever its flaws, Evelyn Evelyn wasn't just crapped out without attention or care.

honestly, anyone that is still creating characters of any kind that are all one thing or all another, are not being very creative

Well, Charles Dickens and William Gibson are both very creative writers who've made do with very two-dimensional characters at times. Not every writer focuses on the psychological depth and plausibility of their characters.

I think largely, the issue was less the problematic aspects that surround any cultural touchpoint that was exploitative, such as freak shows, and more that she was a wanky tool when the possibility of it being problematic was (shockingly gently) presented to her by disabled feminist fans.

and more that she was a wanky tool when the possibility of it being problematic was (shockingly gently) presented to her by disabled feminist fans.

But if the issue is how she interacted with fandom then that's not really about ableism. It's about a fandom /creator dynamic. She Shetterlied it.

But if the issue is how she interacted with fandom then that's not really about ableism. It's about a fandom /creator dynamic. She Shetterlied it.

Not exactly Sh*tterlied. And yes, the root issue was still ableism.

I mean, I dislike the tendency in a lot of social justice circles to get to a point where the smallest deviation from the perceived ideal mindset or language use is a huge offense (and, dude, people can argue till the cows come home as to if that's actually happening or not, but get real: it is, and that's why any actual productive discussion now seems to be happening in anonymous threads, and why I just don't have the energy to deal with the social justice conversation online), but she poured oil on the fire with her reaction.

I have some sympathy for the writers/creators who get caught up in these negative dynamics with fandom, because fandom tends to be this deep, somewhat closed discourse that's been going on for some time. There are a lot of commonly held precepts (about privilege, for example) which have been hashed out in detail and some creator-type intersects with it and it blows up because they haven't been part of that discussion, aren't working from the same set of notions, don't know the etiquette or aren't using the proper terminology.

And then Amanda Palmer is the enemy instead of some Republican senator that wants to turn over the ADA laws. Whereas I'm pretty sure Amanda Palmer is down with wheelchair ramps.

she was a wanky tool when the possibility of it being problematic was (shockingly gently) presented to her by disabled feminist fans.

This.

Amanda Palmer is the enemy instead of some Republican senator that wants to turn over the ADA laws. Whereas I'm pretty sure Amanda Palmer is down with wheelchair ramps.

You know, that's a false dichotomy. I mean, hello - what this community does is engage on an intellectual and emotional basis with pop culture we love. Joss and Dollhouse, anyone? She crossed a line for me, personally, was my point. And I think dismissing legitimate concerns with "I am an ARTISTE" and some really negative language and inciting one's rabid fanbase (and then Neil jumped in and brought his to the party, IIRC) is shitty.

I evaluate artists' work in the context of larger society and my deeply held beliefs. It was a turn off and I'm done. I'll be over here listening to My Chem.

eta Annaham's reaction to the reaction to her post on Evelyn Evelyn. >[link]