#1 New York Times Bestselling Author & TV Producer
Lewis Perdue reports that he has lost the first round in his lawsuit against Dan Brown.
Judge George Daniels sided with the world’s largest publishing conglomerate and
issued a decision that would keep the Da Vinci Cover-Up complete.I’ve
already talked with my lawyers.We’re appealing because there is ample
evidence and law to indicate that Dan Brown copied my work and that a jury trial
is the ONLY procedure that will bring any measure of justice.
There were lots of funny and interesting observations about our industry to be found today nestled in the LA Times reviews of new movies and TV shows. Paul Brownfield, in his review of the new Showtime series WEEDS, laments:
What has writer Alan Ball done to his industry? He’s like President Bush — we just don’t know the damage yet…
…the show feels more like the spawn of Ball’s "American Beauty" and his soon-to-conclude HBO series "Six Feet Under," where the answer to the question "How much more implied and expressed pain and suffering can we be witness to?" is always the same: "More."
Kenneth Turan, in his review of the movie version of THE DUKES OF HAZZARD, observes that "subversive" has taken on new meaning in Hollywood:
"The Dukes of Hazzard" is a film that is not there. It can’t really be reviewed
because it doesn’t really exist. It is not empty calories, which implies
pleasure, but simply empty. It’s a cosmic void where a movie ought to be……The only person who thinks "The Dukes of Hazzard" is a substantial piece of work
might be its producer, who told the Los Angeles Times, apparently with a
straight face, that the film is "a tougher, more subversive movie than one might
expect." If you buy that, you probably think Krispy Kreme doughnuts are one
tough, subversive food group.
Rober Lloyd, in his review of the movie SLINGS AND ARROWS, had this observation about Canada, where so many movies and TV shows are filmed:
Canada is all over American television, standing in for New York and Chicago,
for foggy San Francisco and rocky Colorado, but it is only in Canada that Canada
gets to play itself…When Canada stands for Canada… the country is
revealed not as a fake America but an authentic Canada.
Whatever that is. Lloyd doesn’t say. And although I’ve spent lots of time up there, I’m not sure I could, either.
Writer/Producer Tim Minear talks to zap2it.com about how his 21 JUMP STREET-esque pilot about an FBI agent going undercover in high school morphed into the doomed Fox series THE INSIDE.
It
began as a "21 Jump Street"-style tale of an undercover FBI agent (Rachel
Nichols) in high school. When that didn’t work out, Minear and pal Howard Gordon
("24"), who’d previously teamed on the short-lived 1999 ABC science-fiction
series "Strange World," reworked the idea, turning Nichols’ character into a
former childhood kidnap victim who parlays her unique insight into investigating
serial murder and other heinous crimes."I’ve got two unaired pilots," Minear says. "One of them is the original ’21
Jump Street’ version. The second one is the first attempt at shooting my script,
which we then went back and reshot."
If Minear never wanted to work in TV again, he could probably write a terrific non-fiction book about his experience.
The fun doesn’t stop over at the Romance Writers of America, where the leadership seems to delight in making a joke of their organization with one embarrassing, bone-head screw-up after another. This time, though, their utter cluelessness has managed to alienate one of their Gods… Nora Roberts, who was supposed to host the RWA awards. But shortly before the ceremony, Nora read her script and refused to participate. Here’s the scoop form Nora Roberts herself:
As Ms. Quinn refused to read my statement, as agreed, before the
awards ceremony in Reno, then again reneged on her agreement to read
it after the awards, I will write it here.
"Nora Roberts declines to host tonight’s awards ceremony as she feels
the content is inappropriate and believes the focus should be on the
nominees and the organization."Oddly, I wasn’t given a script by Ms. Quinn. One was provided by a
member of the production team when I requested it on Friday afternoon
in Reno. The only significant change I was able to implement, though
I argued and debated with Ms. Quinn, Laura Hayden and Diana Pershing,
was the deletion of the video containing the fall of the Twin Towers
and the Oklahoma City bombing. How painful those images would have
been to the many editors in attendance who lived though 9/11.Instead of a celebration, a night of fun and anticipation for the
nominees, and an entertaining and sparkling event, the audience was
treated to a three-plus hour world history lesson, heavy on disaster,
death, politics, war and tragedy–in one memorable moment, Don’t
Worry, Be Happy was played over those images.I can’t comprehend how such tragic events and images had a place at a
ceremony meant to showcase the nominees and the organization. Nor can
I understand how it was thought proper to juxtapose those with
presenters being driven on stage in a limo, walking to the podium to
Joan Riveresque commentary in a format that gave more play to the
presenters than those who were lucky enough to take home a Golden
Heart or a Rita.The emcee’s place in all this seemed to be to recite
endless dry facts and figures of RWA dues, conference fees and sites
over the last quarter of a century, instead of relating the heart of
our organization.
It was tempting to resign my membership. But it wasn’t RWA that
pushed this agenda. It was a handful of individuals. RWA has, as
always, my respect, affection and gratitude. The current president
has none of those.Nora Roberts
UPDATE: Author Brenda Coulter doesn’t get what the hoo-ha is all about.
I didn’t see it as as a debacle but merely a series of
unfortunate calls by the organizers and a program that was best
forgiven and forgotten.Silly me. I should have known the blogosphere would be abuzz with this subject because that’s what RWA members do when they’re not writing books — complain about the current RWA leadership and what those volunteers are doing to ruin the lives of romance writers and screw up the entire romance industry…
…As for the big stink about Nora Roberts refusing at the last minute to
emcee the program because she objected to its content, I understand why
she bowed out, but she should have stuck with her original statement.
That last bit about supporting RWA but not the current president didn’t
come off as particularly classy.
UPDATE 8-6-05:The Intrepid Alison Kent has posted on her blog, in its entirety, RWA president Tara Taylor Quinn’s long-winded and utterly unconvincing defense of the awards debacle and Nora Robert’s far more credible reply. Even if you take Quinn at her word, her fumbling, clueless, and irresponsible approach towards her presidential duties is rather astonishing.
Alison also reports that several members of the RWA board have issued a statement apologizing for the misguided and widely criticized awards ceremony. You can read it on the jump:
HelenKay Dimon and my lovely sister-in-law Wendy Duren are taking some heat on their romance novel review blog for panning a book. The aggrieved author wrote:
I’m sitting here, trying to understand why someone who belongs to the
sistah-hood of struggling, blood-stained, published romance authors would trash
another author’s first book.
Apparently, there’s an unwritten rule that, well, if you can’t say anything nice about a romance, don’t say anything at all. HelenKay takes exception:
In an effort to promote the genre, to suggest we should be taken seriously
outside of the romance writing world, we don’t shy away from the negative
review. After all, if we can’t self-critique in a way that amounts to more than
empty cheerleading, have we earned the credibility we insist we should have?
Helen elaborates on the point in the comments to her post:
I have to say I find romance writers’ professed views on this issue
completely disingenous. You see on blogs all the time how angry romance writers
are that their work isn’t taken seriously. How upset they are that their books
aren’t covered in magazines and book reviews and other public venues. Yet, these
authors get absolutely hostile if anyone dares to suggest their work suffers
from any deficiency. And, if the criticism comes from within the genre then the
calls for revenge and cries of unfairness start. That very reaction could be why
romance authors aren’t taken seriously. We act childish and unprofessional. When
we do that, I think we get what we deserve – laughed at.
I’ve got to agree with HelenKay on this one. It’s not a situation unique to Romance Writers. The same issues pervade the mystery field, too. My brother Tod had this to say to someone who didn’t agree with Helen:
You want to write and not have a critical eye placed upon your work? Fine. Stick
your stuff under your bed. But if you want to write and sell and have a career,
you have to understand that the written word is going to be examined. There’s no
genre of writing that is immune.
UPDATE: Alison Kent chimes in with a good over-view on both sides of the "controversy."
More scary pictures of the once beautiful Hunter Tylo.
Variety reports that the Western Channel is going to be running a fifty-hour marathon of GUNSMOKE, one of my favorite shows, on August 26th in celebration of the show’s 50th anniversary. These are the black-and-white, hour-long episodes from 1962-1966…and although most of my favorites came before (in the half-hour episodes from 1955-1962) and after (the color episodes from 1967-1975, when John Mantley was running the show) the period they are airing, you still can’t beat James Arness as Matt Dillon when it comes to TV heroes. They’ll also be running all five of the reunion movies from the late 80s, early 90s….the first three of which are pretty darn good stuff..
The "Golden Bullets: Fifty Years of ‘Gunsmoke’ " marathon will include
"special vignettes, interviews and behind-the-scenes footage" with cast members,
said Mike Ruggiero, VP of scheduling and programming for Encore.
Episodes directed by Sam Peckinpah and Mark Rydell will be included, as well as hours scored by Bernard
Herrmann, Elmer Bernstein and Jerry Goldsmith.
Dennis Palumbo, a screenwriter-turned-shrink, sent me an article he wrote for Psychotherapy Networker. For the most part, Palumbo makes fun of his clients — cartoonish caricatures of stereotypical Hollywood nutcases ("I love Gary, I really, really do…it’s just…he’s a set decorator and, well, I just don’t think I shuld marry below the line.") I was about to toss the article aside, when I came upon this bit of wisdom that should be required reading for anyone contemplating a career as a screenwriter:
In most professions, career success follows a more or less predictable trajectory. If you’re a lawyer, banker, computer programmer, doctor or the like, you spend a number of years learning your profession, then you generally ascend–if your job isn’t outsourced or your CEO indicted for fraud — to a reasonable level of security, seniority, and maybe even pretty decent pay.
For the creative professional navigating a show business career, there is no such path. Triumph and failure follow one another — in fact, feed one another — in a maddenly erratic way. Hollywood is a notoriously fickle industry, where you can earn vast sums for a few years, then face a sudden and inexplicable loss of marketability, followed immediately by a severe cash drought. Not surprisingly, creative professionals spend an inordinate amount of time in therapy discussing whether to ditch the whole thing and start over.
Of course, many people in their forties and fifties go through midlife crises during which they wonder if they, too, shouldn’t leave their boring law partnerships or real estate businesses and try their hand at running a B&B in Vermont…
..the whole process is a one-time thing, with a more or less definable resolution at the end.
For Hollywood entertainment professionals, however, this "midlife" crisis afflicts them throughout their careers.
That is so very true. It is, perhaps, the most frustrating thing about this business… at least for most TV writers.
I got some good advice early in my career from an enormously successful showrunner saddled with enormous debts and going through a vicious divorce (his second…or third..it was hard to keep track). He had a huge mansion, half-a-dozen fancy cars, vacation homes, yachts, the whole fantasy.
He warned me that it’s easy to get seduced by the money and glamour of television. That you think when you’re on a series, that you will always make that kind of money. But television can be cruel. Your show could be canceled after a handful of episodes. Or it can run for five years…but when it’s over, instead of Hollywood embracing you, you’ll struggle for script assignments for two or three years before, if you’re lucky, landing on another series. Which could get canceled after three episodes.
His advice was simple: live below your means. Never assume you will always make the money you are making now. In fact, assume that you won’t, that disaster is only a year away (because it usually is). And, whatever you do, don’t get divorced. Work as hard on your marraige as you do on your career. He didn’t follow his own advice and ended up losing everything.
Like any TV writer who isn’t John Wells, Steven Bochco or David E. Kelly, I’ve had my career ups-and-downs. Exhilirating highs and terrifying lows. But I followed the showrunner’s sage advice. I’ve always lived below my means, saved my money for a rainy day (and there are many of them) and have been happily married for 15 years. I’ve managed to stay afloat…and I credit a lot of that to his advice very early on in my career.
Do I wish I’d picked a career with more financial stability? Sure. But is there anything I’d rather be doing? Hell no.
The satirical site Watley Review has posted a brilliant, pitch-perfect spoof of the fanficcer attitude towards popular fiction:
A disgruntled Harry Potter fan has released a "corrected" version
of J.K Rowling’s latest installment in the series, The Half-Blood Prince,
prompting a storm of curiosity and support from many fans who disliked the
direction of the story in the book. It has also, not surprisingly, prompted a
storm of legal activity from Rowling’s publishers."Whenever an author puts a work out into the universe, it is no longer
their exclusive property anymore," said Mary Sue Pembroke, who is credited
as the author of the modified book. "Harry Potter belongs to all of us, not
just Rowling. She took some liberties with the story in this latest book that
really weren’t faithful to the logic of the narrative. My version is, I think
it fair to say, much more faithful to the true Harry Potter mythos."…This is not the first time a fan has created a story based on an author’s
setting; so-called fanfiction is a popular pursuit across the internet. This
is, however, the first time a fan story has captured a sizeable portion of the
author’s audience: over 800,000 fans have downloaded the book, many openly
hostile to J.K. Rowling’s narrative decisions in the most recent book.Scholastic Publishing has obtained an injunction against Pembroke and has
threatened a lawsuit, but has been unable to take the site offline due to a
number of overseas mirror sites…"The only way for an author to keep a piece of writing completely their
own is to never have it published," insisted Pembroke. "J.K. Rowling,
you asked for this."
Whoever wrote this piece has a great ear for the fanficcer voice. It sounds just like Naomi Novik and her ilk doesn’t it? It’s uncanny. For example, here’s one of Novik’s comments:
I do understand individual authors who feel strongly that they don’t
want fanfic on their own work out there. If an author feels an intense
negative reaction to fanfic on her work, that is a completely valid
feeling. I don’t think that it obliges people to respect that feeling,
but it’s not ridiculous, it’s how she feels, and I personally do
respect that reaction out of courtesy.
"Mary Sue Pembroke" is a bulls-eye.
TV Writer Paul Guyot talks about character short-hand or, as he calls it, character gadgets. Network and studio development execs love them.
On the new TNT show The Closer the lead character has a weakness for
junk food.That’s it.
Take that little gadget away and that "unique" character is suddenly very
similar to several other female TV leads. But network and studio folks like
gadgets. They think it makes the character unique. It’s easy. It’s simple. And
much safer than doing something deeper, or darker, or less mainstream.
It also leads to rampant cliches. How many times have you seen the character who loves junk food? A hundred times? A thousand. I’ve lost count (I remember seeing it in the pilot for THE STRIP a couple years ago on UPN and throwing my dinner at the TV). How about the cop who is a slob? It was old when THE ODD COUPLE was on the air and it hasn’t become any fresher with each new iteration. But character short-hand/gadgets gives a development exec something to latch on to…"Oh yeah, Det. Nick Waters. I get him. He’s the hard-nosed cop who actually spends his free time ballroom dancing. That gives the character depth, levels, shading. Yeah, I like Nick. He’s got an edge."
Not a real edge, or any tangible depth, just a quirk that’s easy to grasp, that quickly defines the character for the development exec. (And not just development execs, but editors, too. How many loner cops have you seen in novels who love classic rock music, drink too much, and are estranged from their wives?) The danger is when weak writers start relying on those quirks as a replacement for developing an actual character. And I see that happening more and more…
David Montgomery expands on Paul’s thoughts, talking about writing gimmicks in mystery novels and offers this great advice:
Gimmicks lead to a "sameness" in writing, making a particular book sound like
every other book you’ve read. As a result, gimmicks diminish the author’s
individual voice and style. They also have a tendency to take the reader out of
the story, disrupting the flow and rhythm of the book.So here’s my piece of advice for the day: if you find yourself using a
gimmick in your writing, stop it! Be creative instead. Be original. Think about
the problem and figure out how else you can solve it. Find a way to
make the plot work, or to get the reader the necessary information without
resorting to a trick or cliche.