The editor’s notes for Milo’s canceled book are scathing & on point

Milo Yiannopoulos is suing Simon & Schuster publishing for canceling his book deal and the court filings have revealed a treasure trove of cynical, scathing, and downright embarrassing editor’s notes on the manuscript.

The book publisher canceled the deal shortly after Yiannopoulos was embroiled in controversy after making what were perceived as comments endorsing pedophilia and statutory rape. Yiannopoulos sued the publisher for breach of contract, but Simon & Schuster fired back saying the real reason the deal was canceled was because it was simply “unpublishable.”

Software engineer Sarah Mei went to the New York county clerk’s website and pulled down a copy of the paperwork after seeing a tweet from author and publisher Jason Kinder that included snippets of the comments from editor Mitchell Ivers.

She was delighted to discover the filings included a full copy of the manuscript along with the editor’s notes.

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.

Sign Up

Daily

Weekly

Good News

Promotions (occasional)

“Throughout the book, your best points seem to be lost in a sea of self-aggrandizement and scattershot thinking,” Ivers says in one note. Another said the gay provocateur needed a “stronger argument against feminism than saying that they are ugly and sexless and have cats.”

The most common editorial remark were demands for citations and proof of assertions.

One of the most talked about responses is when Ivers calls a section of the book “hogwash.”

“You can’t say ugly people are drawn to the left,” Ivers wrote. “Have you ever seen the people at a Trump rally?”

As Mei discovered more and more exasperated comments from Ivers, she continued to tweet them out gleefully. Most of them were what she described as “things a professional editor never imagined they’d need to tell someone.”

“This entire paragraph is just repeating Fake News. There was NO blood, NO semen, and there was NO Satanism. Delete,” reads one.

“This entire section is the most poorly thought out section in the book,” reads another. “If you want to make the case for gay men going back in the closet and marrying women just to have children, you’re going to have to employ a lot more intellectual rigor than you use here.”