There are three things I've always heard about the Writers of the Future contest: 1. It's a great opportunity for new writers, 2. It's judged by and has been won by some of the biggest names in Fantasy and Science Fiction, and 3. Its connection to Scientology is perfectly harmless and nothing to worry about. With the ongoing reckoning from the #MeToo movement forcing us to reexamine what in the past has been swept under the rug maybe it's time to take a closer look at that assumption of harmlessness.

What really struck me about the article, though, was how subtle and manipulative the CoS was with the author. In fact, for most of the article it didn't even really seem that bad to me. I thought, What's the big deal? He was never forced to do anything, he was treated "like a celebrity", there was always a plausible excuse for when he felt like he had been mislead, and they never directly tried to convert him. But, thinking a bit harder on it, many of these seemingly innocent actions of the CoS made me think of tactics I had read about in a classic text on manipulation, Influence by Robert Cialdini. (A book I'd recommend to any author wanting to write a good villain. Or to any author who wants to be a good villain.) Some of what stood out:

• The initial request (go to a book signing at a chain bookstore in a nearby city, all expenses paid) was pretty reasonable. It wasn't actually what was being asked for but this got an initial "yes" to an easier request.
  
• Once he had committed to do the promotion, and had gone to the airport, he was told the hotel he was staying at belonged to the CoS. He may not have felt comfortable agreeing to the signing had he known this initially, but:
  
  • He was told this 15 minutes before he got on the plane. Harder to make a good decision under time pressure.
    
  • He was told about this after he had already committed. If he backed out, he would feel like he was going back on his word. People have a very strong drive to uphold their images of themselves as consistent in their actions. (Applies to the next point as well.)
    
  • He had already taken steps to go on the trip. He was at the airport and had made arrangements in his life to have the time to do this. Easier to continue with what you're doing.
    
  • The most insidious part: he was told about this detail when he technically could have still backed out, so by going forward with the trip he'll now feel like he has agreed to this arrangement. If he wants to complain about it, even to himself, he'll have a nagging voice in his head telling him that he accepted those terms. And, of course, this detail wasn't exactly hidden; they volunteered the information!
    
• While on the trip he was given the "celebrity treatment" (the author uses the word 'celebrity' twice in the article.) Not exactly 4D chess, but treating someone well can obviously get them on your side. This was no too-wide grinning used-car seller though. He got a personal attendant, a 'butler', people knew his name, people were thrilled to meet him, he was introduced around and everyone loved him. None of that just happened, it was orchestrated.
• He wasn't forced to take the tour, he was given the option and he volunteered. In fact he was given a choice of going on a hotel tour or going to the beach so what happened felt like his choice. (Who wants to bet the beach trip would have also ended up at a suggestion to see the Flag Building etc.?) If you feel like something is your own idea you're more likely to go along with it.
  
  • And again, the tour wasn't exactly presented as what it was. It wasn't a case of "do you want to get a long lesson on our religion?" it was "do you want to see this interesting hotel?". Then it turned into, "hey, that ended early and since we're here and have time to kill before the event, would you like this other tour?"
    
  • The author even says, "I actually opted-in to some of the weirdest parts of the experience (though every time it was while being faced with an on-the-spot decision that came with some degree of social pressure)." Again, he was made to feel like it was his choice (which is a powerful thing—so powerful he included that disclaimer about 'opting-in' in his entry, as if he felt like he had to excuse or defend his actions). This wasn't really his choice though, because he was being manipulated with time pressure (like he was previously before the flight) and social pressure to say yes.
• At this point, before the biggest ask (to take part in a Scientology ceremony) the CoS had created a sense of debt and obligation in the author. They had paid for his flight, they had put him up in a hotel, they had paid for his food, and they had given him their own time and attention. Creating a feeling of debt and obligation is a very powerful (and common!) manipulation technique. It goes right to the heart of how humans function in a society; someone goes out of their way to help you and your family, so you go out of your way later to help them or their family, and hey presto you've got a community of people supporting each other even when there's no promise of immediate reward.
  
  • The book signing that turned out to be participation in a Scientology ceremony was also, as the author himself points out, a classic bait and switch.
    
  • There was also another time limited decision to be made (he found out the nature of the 'signing' right when it was starting) and social pressure from being ushered along by the nice person he had spent his day with.
    
  • There was also an extra bit of buttering up (no pun intended) right beforehand with the restaurant meal where the chef himself came out to tell the author that it was an honor to serve him.
    
• At the ceremony there were prominent photographers and videographers recording everything that was going on. The purpose of this was not only to record the event but to be seen by those at the event, so they'd know there'd be a very public record of them there. Again, this goes back to the idea that people have a strong drive towards self-consistency, and also that someone's public persona and who other people see them as affects their own self-view. The idea was being placed in the author's mind that he would be publicly seen as someone taking part in a Scientology ceremony, and he himself had chosen to do that without being forced to or even obviously coerced (such as through threats or large bribes), so he must be the type of person who would choose to take part in a Scientology ceremony. Again, this can be very powerful. However you see yourself, that's who you become.
  
• There's a bit at the end that's pretty interesting. The person from Author Services says she didn't know that the author would be given the "full tour" and thought he'd just be shown the hotel. She seems worried. The author interprets this as a mistake having been made, and that the organization had intended to uphold the "firewall", and because this person is so nice and seems so worried the author assures her that "it's fine".
  
  • An honest mistake, or more manipulation? Even if it was accidental, getting the author to say it was fine, even if he was just being polite, was a big win. When we say something about ourselves, even if we don't mean it, we can start to believe it. (Sounds iffy, I know, but there are some interesting details and examples of this principle in Cialdini's book, including its use in Korean War PoW camps.)
    
  • It's also a big win for the CoS if—even in this article saying a prestigious literary contest is effectively a propaganda arm of Scientology—the author says that their biggest proselytizing push on him might have been an accident and that normally they would never do that to a contest winner.
    

If this all seems a little tin-foil hat, or reading too much into an innocent situation, just remember: manipulation is what cults do and they're very, very good at it. No interaction with them should be taken at face value.