I kill people in my songs so I don't have to kill them in real life. -Nick Cave

May 20, 2004 8:43 AM

NASA Fired Will Carpenter for writing a short story."Some kind of harrassment," they said, and since Texas is an at-will employment state, there's not much he can do about it. Is this story a valid means of self-expression or a harrassing glimpse into jilted anger? I've stumbled across more and more news stories about people being fired for writing, and students expelled for writing "dark poetry" in the classroom. How much do you have to keep secret from your classmates and co-workers?
posted by keef (28 comments total)

Sad. Do a lot of people go on dates to the Holocaust Museum? I'm a Jew and it strikes me as strange, but maybe it's a gentile thing.
posted by inksyndicate at 8:55 AM on May 20, 2004

I'm in HR in Texas and I would have seriously considered firing this guy for just plain stupidity. (Or at least putting him on some kind of written notice.)

Freedom of speech does not apply to the workplace - you're paid to do a job, and a part of doing that job is not freaking out your coworkers. If you want to say and do whatever you want, go work for yourself.

It's his right to write the story, as long as he didn't waste company time doing it, but it was not okay for him to send the link to the story to the woman it was written about; I would have seen that as an attempt to threaten her.
posted by pomegranate at 9:03 AM on May 20, 2004

I'm a writer and an editor, and I agree with pomegranate.
posted by gai at 9:14 AM on May 20, 2004

"Sad. Do a lot of people go on dates to the Holocaust Museum? I'm a Jew and it strikes me as strange, but maybe it's a gentile thing."—inksyndicate

It occurs to me that a psychopathic, murdering sadist might think the Holocaust Museum was a really, really fun place to take a date. But there's no reason to think that this guy might have those tendencies. None at all. Nada.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:15 AM on May 20, 2004

I read about this yesterday. I am taking her side. Making poor decisions does not go well with terrible social skills, and his reaction to a situation he created is telling.
posted by thirteen at 9:17 AM on May 20, 2004

Freedom of speech does apply in the workplace when you work for the federal government. The government would have a long way to go to justify firing an employee who's not violating the law, or breaching a specific, rationally-based, rule of confidentiality, for anything he wrote in his private time -- and that's to say nothing of the protections of the civil service system.

Carpenter, of course, didn't work for the feds, but for a contractor, and so he had none of those rights and protections, unless he could prove that a federal employee had demanded that he be fired.
posted by MattD at 9:21 AM on May 20, 2004

One determinant to "sanity" is the ability to control or inhibit yourself. Most people have dark or morbid thoughts, but are loathe to share them with others. However, when someone loses these inhibitions, and expresses their true feelings (a reoccurring theme in these stories), others immediately suspect that they have a possibly dangerous mental problem.

And while it may be enjoyable to read others' morbid fantasies or poetry, they are not someone you would probably want to work next to.
posted by kablam at 9:32 AM on May 20, 2004

MattD, instead of looking at it as a Freedom of Speech thing, look at it as a "hostile work environment" issue. From that angle, I think the feds would actually terminate or do some kind of written warning.

The issue is not that he wrote the story, but that he sent the link to his coworkers. Because this "fictional" threat of harm was related to a declined date, the female employee probably did feel threatened. The contractor company knew about the problem and had to do something to address it. Had they not done something, she could have either a)quit, b)filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, or c) actually been harmed or further harassed by authorguy. Add to this the fact that no one was working when they were all reading his short story and speculating/gossiping about author-guy and the woman, and it's Just Trouble.

So they addressed it. Simple as that.
posted by pomegranate at 9:38 AM on May 20, 2004

So, whatever happened to people discussing things -- talking things out? We have no indication of that, here....not even of an attempt.

So...every time somebody gets a little scared by something that somebody else says, or writes, or does -- we ought to think we have a right to fire his ass? (And let's face it, it's more or less always going to be happening to a "him".)

This is not a perfect world, and crap like firing people over a story that's published in a mainstream commercial publication (and yes, it is "mainstream" AFAIAC, before you ask) is only going to make it less perfect.

No one here has any information that suggests that there was any danger to the girl. We just have a newspaper story and a short story, and guess what, folks: Newspaper accounts aren't canonical, and fictional stories aren't actions. If they were, Poe would have rotted in prison, and Thomas Harris would have had the needle by now.
posted by lodurr at 9:49 AM on May 20, 2004

This is not a freedom of speech issue, the way I see it, (despite wanting it to be). This is about a social faux-pas. He sent a story, essentially, about himself killing the girl who'd rejected him, to the girl who'd rejected him.

You'd have to know someone pretty well, for quite some time - and probably warn her in advance, well before she read it, that it was just a story ... a lot - before it would be OK to do something like that.

No wonder she freaked. But he should have had the chance to defend himself and his actions; a chance to explain; a chance to appologise.

I'm with lodurr: people are just too bloody sensitive, rectionary and plain unfair to their fellow imperfect human beings these days.

Oh, and that Texas employment law is well fucked up.
posted by Blue Stone at 10:26 AM on May 20, 2004

Most states are at-will employment states, as far as I can recall. Why wouldn't they be?

I don't think an employer should be required to have explicit reasons for firing someone. It's that kind of bullshit that keeps people that steal their company issued laptops from getting fired.
posted by Jart at 10:37 AM on May 20, 2004

First, it wasn't NASA who fired this guy - the article says he worked for a subcontractor for a subcontractor for NASA... although it does look like he worked inside JPL.

Second, at 28 years old this guy should have known better than to share his witting at work - particularly with the woman who was the subject.

Finally, having gotten in trouble multiple times in corporate office environments for something I wrote either in email or on some webpage I feel for this guy.

The best thing he can do is chalk it up to a learning experience and move on.

The bigger lesson here is a sad one - one that I've realized countless times over the years: people you work with are seldom your friends.
posted by wfrgms at 12:12 PM on May 20, 2004

Too sensitive? Some guy asks you out. You decline, and he sends you a link to a story about a girl he kills because she declined his date.

That's harassment, clearly and indisputably. He's lucky all that happened was his firing. If I was the woman in question I'd have gone for some sort of restraining order bot prevent his communicating with me again.

As for "talking things out," he passed up on that path by going directly for the gruesome kill story. He needs some psychological help.

And lastly, most men don't have to fear being killed by some jilted girlfriend. Women do have this concern, we're not being overly sensitive.
posted by Red58 at 12:14 PM on May 20, 2004

Jart, um, wouldn't stealing a laptop constitute a reason?
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:15 PM on May 20, 2004

This isn't a case of "I was fired for writing a story." This is a case of "I was fired for writing a story about killing a woman who spurned me, based it on a conversation with a female co-worker who spurned me, then sent it to the female co-worker." He wants to write a story? Fine - keep it at home and obsess at will. Don't bring it to work. Granted, the issue is questionable, but it was cheaper and easier to fire him than to involve some form of arbitration. It sucks, but that's (corporate) life.

And, If they had "talked it out" and something had indeed happened later on to the woman - stalking, rape, whatever - the company who employed both of them would probably be held liable by her family in our very litigious country and consequently sued to the eyeballs because they didn't fire her potential stalker/rapist/etc.
posted by FormlessOne at 12:16 PM on May 20, 2004

Yeah, as a writer, and previously a publisher and manager...I'd have to say that this story would be considered inappropriate in the workplace. I'm not sure it would justify a firing...but HR people might feel differently, since they're more cognizant of legal liabilities.

Were I the girl, I might be spooked a little, depending on the guy...but I write erotic horror, so I probably wouldn't be as spooked as someone who doesn't think Clive Barker writes good stuff to read while falling asleep.

For example, some of the stuff I wrote when I was divorcing my first husband scared the poop out of his mistress... and him. I had one story where the protagonist electrocuted a cheating husband with christmas tree lights, turned his liver into pate and fed it to the mistress during a charity ball...it made them both a little nervous. ;) They walked big, big circles around me if we happened to be in the same location for any reason....which was nice. In fact, more than a decade later, the mistress is still terrified of me....heheheheheh. (It's the little things that make life worthwhile, doncha know.)


And while it may be enjoyable to read others' morbid fantasies or poetry, they are not someone you would probably want to work next to.

I disagree...I'm quite pleasant to work with....and never once have I pushed a coworker through a woodchipper. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 12:47 PM on May 20, 2004

"I remember one time. The first time, really. I met this girl; she’s a girl due to the considerable age difference between us. We worked together and talked openly about our current situations. I was attracted to her the day I met, but I managed to keep that in my vault. She was cute, not overtly beautiful, but easy on the eyes and somewhat of a decent conversationalist. She had a young daughter at a very early age and, most of the time, she held herself better than most would at that age."

I'd fire him just for his godawful writing style.
posted by pyramid termite at 1:07 PM on May 20, 2004

I'm really surprised at the general reaction this thread's getting. I expected more people to side with Will, for one, because of a freedom of speech issue.

Part of it is that I'm friends with him, and know that the article plays up the "oo! shocking!" parts while leaving out the more sympathetic ones-- she was the one who wanted to go to the Holocaust Museum, for example; and he did include massive disclaimers in the email.

And while I agree that sending it out to co-workers, including the one that one of the characters was loosely based on, wasn't the proper way to do it, I can understand why he did it. Whenever I've gotten anything published, I yell about it to anyone who will listen. I can see how, in the heat of enthusiasm, he just fired off a link to people.

Plus, he's a really nice guy. Doesn't have an ounce of ill-will or malignant intent.
posted by keef at 1:32 PM on May 20, 2004

because of a freedom of speech issue.

Ah...but it isn't a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech rights only apply to the government...not to private companies. He was an employee of a private company, in a right to work state. I don't know how the situation would have been complicated had he actually been an employee of NASA, but as an employee of a contractor, they can fire him because it's raining on a Tuesday.

That said, I think he could probably appeal the unemployment ruling.

And he may very well be a nice guy. Most of the people I know who write really freaking scary horror are fabulous people. Clive Barker is one of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of dining with.

And yes, I understand the urge to show everyone something that you've gotten published. Heck, I've made my mom read some of my stuff...and I guarantee you that demon possessed sex and death is hardly up my mother's alley.

But, just as there is a separation (or should be) between Church and State...there should also be a separation of Work and Fiction. It was a bad judgement call on his part...and hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.

As a personal story you can share with him, I got fired at GTE because I sent email to the wrong person. You know how some email programs autocomplete the address? I accidently sent a very, very, very not safe for work (read: pornographic and first person) email to the wrong person who had the same first name. I was wicked toasted at the time I emailed it...and so didn't notice that I'd sent it to the wrong person.

The person who got it was my manager...an upright, married Christian fellow who had HR call me at home and tell me not to come back...that someone else would clean out my desk and bring me my stuff. Despite my explanations, HR said that it wouldn't be possible for that manager to oversee me anymore and there were no other lateral positions that I could take. By the same token, they gave me a good recommendation...and this was at the start of the IT bubble, so it took me all of a couple hours to find another gig.

But then, I was talking about giving head, as opposed to removing one. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 2:02 PM on May 20, 2004

I know it's a fine line between work and personal life, and that most of us overstep our bounds with a coworker at one point or another, and I personally totally feel for the guy. However, when courts, businesses, or commissions judge harassment, they care not a whit about intent. They care only about the effect that the actions had on others.

You know these people, we don't. We can only judge the effect that his actions as we know them would have on us - as you can see, most of the posters identifying themselves as women posting to the thread thought his behavior was inappropriate, at best. Chalk it up to a lesson learned on his part.
posted by pomegranate at 2:21 PM on May 20, 2004

I don't think an employer should be required to have explicit reasons for firing someone. It's that kind of bullshit that keeps people that steal their company issued laptops from getting fired.
posted by Jart at 10:37 AM PST on May 20

i disagree. they should absolutely have to have a reason.

and where do you work, where people that steal shit aren't fired?
posted by Miles Long at 2:50 PM on May 20, 2004

... but it isn't a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech rights only apply to the government...not to private companies.

Every time I hear that argument I want to kill (haha, not really, that's just fiction). We don't say only the government has to abide by anti-racism laws, we also hold corporations and businesses to those laws. Same with sex discrimination.

But somehow the protection of one of our most precious freedoms only applies to governments, and corporations can do whatever they want. It's a distinction that strikes me as abhorrent, especially when the power of big business is so pervasive.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:18 PM on May 20, 2004

yep.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:04 PM on May 20, 2004

I agree Blue Stone...but until we are in power and can write the laws that bind corporations to the law of the land...it just ain't so.

And even if private entities were bound (as many believe they should be), freedom of speech doesn't apply in this situation. Nobody was stopping him from writing, nor were his rights in any way abrogated. Unfortunately, the right to use company resources while spooking out your coworkers isn't covered anywhere. ;) Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong.
posted by dejah420 at 5:19 PM on May 20, 2004

Freedom of Speech between individuals? What a freakin' mess that would be. For the life of me, I cannot understand what people are thinking of when they talk about a private freedom of speech.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:19 PM on May 20, 2004

Sounds like Screwed, proto-blogger Cam Barrett's experience after co-workers read his fiction.
posted by dhartung at 11:03 PM on May 20, 2004

Here's what will's got to say:

there is no reason for anyone to have sympathy for
me. and there arent reasons for anyone to think i am
insane, creepy, deranged, psychotic...whatever. god
bless a lexicon.

i know i made a mistake. whatever. i am moving on. ok.


you have never worked there, at least i dont think you
have. you dont know the environment or the people
involved. i have and do. for a long, long time now.
these people knew me. went to my wedding, helped me in
ways that i will not explain. everything. they know
the type of person i am. i am not, and have never been
hostile to ANYONE, inlcuding this single mother (who
has real life experience that would make me look like
a boy scout).

the holocaust museum was her choice.
i told her i got published and asked if she wanted to
read it.
i warned her several times, said it wasn't about her, it was just a story. she said ok.
i didnt write it because i was 'jilted' or ashamed or
rejected. though, this did help with the direction i
wanted to go. it was supposed to be about someone who
cannot form real life relationships and lives on the
internet. thats it. the killing was thrown in at the
last moment because i was tired of the story.
this story, or any others i have written, are in NO
way indicative of the kind of person i am. its a
STORY. thats it.
yes, i was shocked. yes, i am happy nothing more has
happened. no, i havent talked her since april 2. i
dont know where she lives, any of her emails or
phones. these are not stalking tendencies, are they?
me being shocked is from the family you build working
there. you wouldnt know anything about if you havent.
its not like any other place. i worked out there for,
off and on, seven years. these people went to my
wedding and kept in touch when i left for school.
thats what i am shocked at.

and you thinking i am psychotic, insane, etc., is just
as bad as them thinking the same thing - which got me
fired. its more telling about society to jump to
conclusions. i appreciate that.

if i am guilty of anything, its for giving people much
more credit then they deserve. but, please, for the
love of anything, do not sympathize for me and my
actions. i dont want that and i dont need it.

posted by keef at 9:33 AM on May 21, 2004

Keef, Will: my comment was a joke intended to make a point. I don't think you (Will) are a psychotic murderer.

The only scenario in which I think writing that story and sharing it with the person that inspired it could possibly be appropriate and considerate, would be that you discussed it with the person beforehand (before it is even written).

Even within the context of someone you know well, and even when exclusively in that context (involving no one else), a barely concealed expression of hostility in the form of a fictional, brutal murder will create some discomfort and perhaps fear in the person. Under the best of circumstances, that story would be a touchy subject.

But this was far from the best of circumstances. Is it conceivable that Will had absolutely no malicious intent in sending the story to his coworkers, including the woman who inspired it? Yes, it's conceivable. I'll be generous and take his word on it. But while intent counts for something, it certainly isn't determinitive...if for no other reason than it is unknowable to anyone except Will.

There was nothing wrong with sublimating his anger in creativity, writing the story, submitting it, etc. This is what people do. What was wrong was bringing the story to the attention of the woman who inspired it, particularly by doing so within the context of the workplace. Doing that casts everything in a different light, correctly or incorrectly.

There is a very vivid line between sublimation and aggression, and Will may not have intentionally crossed it, but he crossed it nevertheless and no one but him can ever know that he didn't do so intentionally. I don't doubt that this has been a very painful lesson for him to learn, but it seems clear that he needed to learn it. Everyone concerned is probably the better for it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:00 AM on May 21, 2004