Current Affairs

Court Rules in Rowling’s Favor

by

Deadline Hollywood reports that a New York court has ruled in favor of Warner Brothers and J.K. Rowling in their lawsuit against RDR books, a publisher attempting to cash in with an unlicensed, unauthorized Harry Potter "lexicon" that drew heavily from Rowling's work. The Judge determined that the book, which he barred from publication, did not qualify as "fair use" and violated her copyright.

J.K. Rowling today issued the following statement: "I took no pleasure
at all in bringing legal action and am delighted that this issue has
been resolved favourably. I went to court to uphold the right of
authors everywhere to protect their own original work. The court has
upheld that right. "

09potter-2.190
The New York Times reports that Steven Jan Vander Ark , the creepy fan (pictured on the left) who wrote the book, still lives in a dream world. He told the Times that he'd like to have a chat with   Rowling some time:

“I have been a huge fan of
the Harry Potter series and Ms. Rowling for 10 years; that’s not going
to change,” Mr. Vander Ark said by telephone on Monday from his home in
Brighton, England. “We had a disagreement about the definition of a
particular book. It was a legal disagreement. I would rather that it
wasn’t personal.”

[…]For now, however, Mr. Vander Ark has his sights on his next Harry
Potter project: his book “In Search of Harry Potter” is scheduled to be
released next month. It is a memoir of his travels to locations similar
to the ones described in the Rowling books.

You might wonder why I think he's creepy…beyond the fact that he tries to look like Harry Potter and actually believes Rowling would want to chat with him. Here's an example from the trial, as reported by the Times.

Like a true fan, Mr. Vander Ark treated even Ms. Rowling’s
assertions that he had made mistakes as wonderful revelations rather
than embarrassments.

When [David Hammer, the lawyer for RDR Books] told him that Ms. Rowling
had testified on Monday about the etymology of “Alohomora,” an
unlocking spell, Mr. Vander Ark — who had been sequestered during her
testimony — blurted, “Oh, really?”

In her testimony, Ms. Rowling
said Mr. Vander Ark’s link between the spell and the Hawaiian “aloha”
was “errant nonsense,” explaining that it actually had come from West
African dialect.

“That’s exciting stuff for someone like me,” Mr.
Vander Ark said from the witness stand. “Did she happen to mention
which dialect?”

Any day now this goof is going to tattoo a lightning bolt to his forehead…if he hasn't already.

UPDATE: A reader reminded me of these examples of Vander Ark's creepiness and cluelessness  from the New Yorker:

Last summer, at a “Harry Potter” convention in Toronto, a fan named
Steve Vander Ark made a similar mistake when he dared to compare
himself to Joanne (J. K.) Rowling. “It is amazing where we have taken
‘Harry Potter,’ ” he said to a crowd of dedicated “Potter” fans. Many
readers dislike the epilogue in the final book; Vander Ark urged them
to disregard it entirely, and even invented his own spell to do so
(“expelliepilogus”). “Jo’s quit, she’s done,” he told the audience.
“We’re taking over now.”

[…]From the witness stand, Vander Ark directed beseeching glances
toward Rowling, who was sitting a few yards away, but she slowly shook
her head. After several hours of intense questioning in front of his
idol, Vander Ark broke down and cried.

“I really wish we had had a different kind of meeting,” he said
later. “There were a couple times I kind of gave her a half-smile. She
didn’t smile back.”

Attracting the attention, and the wrath, of his hero is a surprise for
Vander Ark, who at the age of fifty maintains the air of a serious
child, with a mushroom-cut head of hair parted in the middle. A
self-described “massive ‘Star Trek’ fan,” he wrote a book, in the
nineteen-eighties, called “The Complete Encyclopedia of Star Trek the
Next Generation Season One,” and sold forty copies.

That's 40 more than he's going to sell of his Harry Potter Lexicon.

I’m Fraking Quoted

by

Chris Talbott of the Associated Press picked up on my blog post a while back about the subversive power of "Frak"..and quoted me in an article on the topic that is showing up today all over the fraking place.

Lee Goldberg thinks Glen A. Larson is a genius, and not because the prolific
television writer and producer gave us "Knight Rider" and "B.J. and the Bear."

It was Larson who first used the faux curse word "frak" in
the original "Battlestar Galactica." The word was mostly overlooked back in the
'70s series but is working its way into popular vocabulary as SciFi's modern
update winds down production.

"All joking aside, say what you will about what you might
call the lowbrow nature of many of his shows, he did something truly amazing and
subversive, up there with what Steven Bochco gets credit for, with 'frak,' "
Goldberg said.

There's no question what the word stands for and it's used
gleefully, as many as 20 times in some episodes.

[…]Goldberg believes Larson should get more
credit for "frak" and has posted an appreciation on his Web site. He even sought
out Larson to let him know how he feels: "I told him, 'Frak is fraking
brilliant, Glen.' "

The reporter also talked to BATTLESTAR GALACTICA cast members, novelist Robert Crais, and he even  managed (with my help) to track down Glen for a quote or two.

"Our point was to whenever possible make it a departure like
you're visiting somewhere else," Larson said. "And we did coin certain phrases
for use in expletive situations, but we tried to carry that over into a lot of
other stuff, even push brooms and the coin of the realm."

The producers of the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA fraking love to use the word, of course.

Co-executive producer and writer Michael Angeli, an Emmy
nominee for the episode "Six of One," said using the word in scripts is
satisfying for anyone who's been censored over the years.

"It's a great way to do something naughty and get away with
it," Angeli said.

That talented motherfraker is frakin' right.

Travis McGee’s Hollywood “Wounded Birds”

by

Ed Gorman linked  to a very interesting article about John D. MacDonald's frustration with Hollywood's attempts to bring Travis McGee to the screen.

Almost immediately after the series began, the scribe
started receiving offers to transport the McGee character from books to
television. In 1965 MacDonald had his first meeting with a quartet of
Hollywood types who wanted to buy the television rights. They were so
confident about the match between McGee and TV that they had forged on:
scripting episodes, signing contracts with sponsors, and casting Chuck
Connors in the lead role. The chaps found that "it was extraordinarily
difficult to find the right approach to a writer who doesn't believe in
television," MacDonald wrote to friend Dan Rowan. "[They were] wrong. I
believe in it. One percent of it is very very good….and 99 percent of
everything is and always has been schlock. I don't want Trav to [be
simplified as] the series tube requires, nor do I want the angle of
approach wrenched this way and that when the ratings don't move and
everybody…starts trying this and trying that."

The two filmed McGees — Rod Taylor in the movie DARKER THAN AMBER and Sam Elliot in unsold TV pilot TRAVIS McGEE (aka THE EMPTY COPPER SEA) — were underwhelming to say the least.   It's no wonder that Robert Crais and Sue Grafton have refused offers from Hollywood to put Elvis Cole and Kinsey Milhone on screen…

Another Opportunity for Vanity Press Suckers To Throw Away Their Money

by

The Telegraph is amused by Blurbings.com, another inept "service" aimed at hopelessly stupid people who've already been suckered by a vanity press and are eager to throw away even more money:

It had to happen sooner or later: an American company
is offering writers gobbets of praise with which to decorate the covers
of their self-published books. A plug from an unknown author is
unlikely to encourage anyone to buy a book by another unknown author,
but this has not stopped www.blurbings.com offering various packages that start at $19.95 for 10 micro-bouquets.

Victoria Strauss at Writers Beware also points out the stupidity of this new attempt to shake a few more bucks from the pockets of the dumb and unwary:

According to Blurbings' About Us
page: "Normally, a blurb will cost an author and/or publisher $14 –
$23, which includes printing of the galleys, packaging and mailing
fees. The standard 30 – 50 blurbs expected per book can range from $420
to $1,150. It is also very time consuming researching and contacting
prospective authors as well as conducting follow-ups during the
duration of the process."

Uh…okay.

[…]The whole point of a blurb is that the blurber be recognizable to the
general public, or else be someone whose credentials suggest that his
or her opinion is worth taking seriously. But how likely is it that
someone like that will find his or her way to Blurbings and happen upon
your digital galley? (And if you contact them yourself, what do you
need Blurbings for?) It's far more likely that the blurbs you'll get
will come from other site users–i.e., other self- or
small-press-published authors–or, possibly, from random web surfers.
No offense to Joe Micropress Author or Jane Random Web Surfer…but
blurbwise, who cares what they think?

Emily Maroutian, one of the owners of Blurbings.com, defended her "service" in a comment on Writer Beware:

Blurbings.com was not created for big industry authors or authors, like
yourself, who don't like blurbs. Blurbings was created to help
self-published authors and small presses receive blurbs for their work.
It was created to shorten the process and make it cheaper. […]If anyone here feels as if our service is pointless then don’t use it. It’s as simple as that.

I don't know why the Telegraph and Victoria are criticizing Blurbings.com. Everyone knows that a ringing endorsement from a complete nobody for a total unknown is better than no blurb at all. But I think I'm going to save $20 and just ask my gardener, the cashier at Ralph's, and the first person I see on the street to blurb my next book.

The Supreme Court of Seinfeld

by

Seinfeld
The Maryland Court of Appeals cited a SEINFELD episode to explain their reasoning in a lawsuit brought by the ex-wife of author Tom Clancy against her ex-husband for pulling out of a book deal that would have profited her. In the SEINFELD episode, Jerry tries to return a jacket because he didn't like the salesman:

The decision issued today says a trial court will have to determine whether Clancy acted in
bad faith when he withdrew from a television and paperback series that profited
the partnership he formed with his then-wife, Wanda.

In footnote 27, the court reprints the dialogue between Seinfeld and a store
clerk :

Clerk: I don't think you can return an item for spite.

Jerry: What do you mean?

Clerk: Well, if there was some problem with the garment. If it were
unsatisfactory in some way, then we could do it for you, but I'm afraid spite
doesn't fit into any of our conditions for a refund.

I think if Obama becomes President, he should consider putting Jerry on the Supreme Court.

(Thanks to my cousin Danny Barer for the heads-up)

Who Is The Short Bald Stranger There, Maverick is the Name…?

by

340x
John McCain's claim of being "the original Maverick" prompted Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown to recall fond memories of the TV series MAVERICK…and to seek out the sage advice of my Uncle Burl Barer, the author of THE MAKING OF MAVERICK :

I mentioned to Barer how McCain was using "The Original Maverick" as
a campaign slogan, causing my initial confusion with Garner having
played, Bret, the first Maverick, which I cleared up when I remembered
his brother Bart, the other Maverick.

"Yes, you mean Jack Kelly," Barer said.

Jack Kelly?

"Jack Kelly played Bart Maverick," Barer said.

It wasn't John McCain?

"No."

Then which of the Maverick brothers did McCain play?

[…] he
patiently explained that at various times Maverick starred Garner as
Bret, Kelly as Bart, Roger Moore as Beau and Robert Colbert as Brent —
the poker-playing Maverick brothers. But never McCain.

"It wasn't, 'Who was the short bald stranger there?' " Barer said,
playing off the opening stanza from the theme song about a tall, dark
stranger.

MAVERICK was a great show back in the 1950s and holds the unusual distinction of being the only vintage TV series revived three times on three networks in three years…ABC's THE NEW MAVERICK, CBS' YOUNG MAVERICK, and NBC's BRET MAVERICK…all in the early 1980s.

How to Throw the Pitch

by

I'm going in to a major studio next week to pitch a TV series.  In advance of the meeting, the studio wants you to send them a very short log line of the concept, sort of the equivalent of a TV Guide listing. Assuming that they like the log-line, a few days before the meeting they will send you the "Drama Series Pitch" format that they expect you to follow for your verbal presentation. Here it is:

THE TEASER—Pitch out a tease that grabs your audience, that is visual, gives a sense of the world, tone and set up of our show.

THE WORLD—After you have grabbed our listener, tell us what the world is and why you want to do a show about it.

THE CHARACTERS-Outline
our characters in order of importance, allowing what makes each one distinct to
shine through (quirks, traits, backstory). Also discuss character dynamics, how each character relates to each other and what their point of views are about each other. Tell us about triangles, rivals, love interests, etc.

THE PILOT—Broad stroke the rest of the pilot. Do not go beat by beat or act by act. This should really just be broad strokes and key plot points which help establish character and set up. Also, your pilot needs to serve as an example of what a typical episode would look like (i.e. an example of a closed-ended story and examples of character conflicts).

THE SERIES—discuss what an episode of your show looks like, where you want to go in series, potential storylines and character arcs and entanglements.

THE TONE—You want to make sure you have clearly established the tone of your show and may want to hit it again in the wrap up at the end. It is often helpful to use shows that people are familiar with.

I've been in the TV business for a while, and I have done hundreds of pitches, but this is the first time anyone has ever given me a required format.  I guess that the studio has been hearing a lot of meandering, unfocused, boring pitches lately.

In general, I have no problem with their format, and would certainly have included most of what they want in my pitch anyway, though perhaps not in that order. 

Doing it their way is fine for me and has actually helped us focus our pitch and tighten it up. But I think there are some cases where rigid adherence to their format could kill a pitch. Not all series ideas are best told with a teaser and the pilot story…nor do all ideas lend themselves to comparisons to previous series ("It's HANNAH MONTANA meets THE SHIELD with a touch of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA").

Also some writers just have a natural, entertaining way of  pitching that suits their personality and thinking that might not follow a template…but still gets the key points across that the studio is looking or. Asking those writers to adjust to a particular template might throw them off and undermine what otherwise would have been a great pitch.

Maybe the third time will be the charm…or, rather, CHARMED

by

Variety reports that ABC has ordered a pilot based on the 1987 movie THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK which, in turn, was an adaptation of the book by John Updike. This will be the third time a network has tried to turn the Jack Nicholson-Cher-Susan Sarandon-Michelle Pfeiffer movie into a weekly series.

In 1992, scribes Carlton Cuse and Jeffrey Boam were behind a "Witches of Eastwick" pilot for NBC. That version starred Catherine Mary Stewart, Julia Campbell, Ally Walker and Michael Siberri.

Fox developed a different version in 2002. The abbreviated-titled "Eastwick," from exec producer Jim Leonard and scribes Jon Cowan and Robert Rovner, focused on the teenage sons of the original witches. Lori Loughlin, Marcia Cross and Kelly Rutherford starred.

The pilot is being written by Maggie Friedman, who has some bewitching experience — she penned an unsold pilot about about a witch-turned-life coach for the CW last season.