Expanding Literacy through Narcissism

Leetod34x6
The front page of this Sunday's Los Angeles Times Calendar section features a big essay by my brother Tod discussing his experience writing BURN NOTICE: THE FIX and his research into the business of tie-in writing. I was approached to write the novels, but I declined and recommended Tod, who I knew was perfect for the job:

My brother was right: I was the perfect person. The only problem was my
advanced sense of artistic self. I had long, twisting conversations
with my agent, my wife and the kid who makes my sandwiches at Quiznos
about the literary equity I'd accrued, about how writing a tie-in might
somehow sully my career and other topics concerning my navel. My agent
told me to take a deep breath, get lucid and call her back after I did
some research…

So he did. Read his very funny article and find out what he learned.

UPDATE 8-25-2008: Tod's article got a surprisingly unsnarky mention on GAWKER, some love on TV Squad and some attention from Publisher's Weekly's Book Maven.

UPDATE 8-26-2008: TV Squad also gave Tod's book a rave review.

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

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.

Absent

Sorry I haven' t been around here much. We have family staying with us from France and I had a book signing down in San Diego this week (on the way there, I stopped at eight Barnes & Noble stores and signed stock). I also have been preparing for some network pitch meetings and working hard on the next MONK book, which is due in a few short weeks. So, blogging has taken a back seat, though I've set aside a few things that showed up in my email this week to blog about later…

Mr. Monk and the Affaire De Coeur

POST DELETED.

I have removed the positive review that MR. MONK GOES TO GERMANY received from Affaire de Coeur from this blog because I don’t want to lend the sham publication the slightest shred of credibility.

I’ve just discovered that their advertising director, Bonny Kirby, co-owns the disgraced Light Sword Publishing company with Linda Daly (a court recently fined Kirby and Daly thousands of dollars for defrauding authors). This explains why Light Sword titles consistently got positive reviews from Affaire De Coeur and why Daly was the subject of a cover story. No reputable magazine would review books published by their advertising director…or feature her partners on the cover. It’s a sleazy and highly unethical conflict-of-interest.

I also learned that advertisers get positive reviews and articles written about them depending on the amount of page space they purchase. That, too, is sleazy and unethical.

I’m notifying my publisher that I don’t want the review quoted on my covers nor do I want any of my books sent to the magazine. They aren’t a legitimate publication. They are sleaze bags.

UPDATE 7-27-08 It turns out that Romantic Times engages in unethical behavior as well, but not as outrageously as Affaire de Coeur. The Romantic Times will only review small-press books that advertise in their magazine. Editor Carol Stacy tells the Dear Author blog:

This has worked very well for small press/e-book authors who, for a
few hundred dollars, can get their name in front of our readers and
have a review of their book in the magazine. This may explain why there are so many Ellora’s Cave books reviewed
in our magazine. It’s because their authors do many group ads and in
turn they get reviewed.I want to reiterate that this small press/e-book review policy IN NO
WAY AFFECTS THE RATING of a book. It only ensures a review. 

Whether that’s true or not, the practice is highly unethical and creates an unacceptable conflict of interest. It’s shameful. Advertising should never have any influence over editorial content. That’s a basic tenet of ethical journalism.

The Mail I Get – Cringe-Inducing Edition

I got an email today from an author who wanted to convince me that her POD novel was terrific and that I should read it. She wrote:

My book XYZ won a Reviewers Choice in Affaire de
Coeur, five wonderful reviews on Amazon and I’ve
developed a smallish but loyal following who want my next books as soon
as it comes out.

I cringed when I read that. It’s bad enough when an aspiring writer makes the mistake of going to a POD vanity press or having their book published by an amateur POD pseudo-press run by a barely literate, self-published author. But when you promote your book by touting your “five wonderful reviews on Amazon” you only make yourself look like a fool. Those reviews are meaningless.

Don’t get me wrong, they are nice to have, flattering to you personally, and might sway a browsing customer to buy your book. I am grateful for every positive review that I get from readers on Amazon and other online bookselling sites.

But never, ever, EVER use those reader reviews as a selling point to an agent, editor, or reviewer or they will run screaming away from you and write you off forever as a wanna-be.
Nobody in the publishing business cares about five positive reviews on Amazon. Nobody. Getting a 150 positive reviews might attract some attention but even then what really counts are actual sales.

And what, exactly, is a “smallish but loyal following?” Ten people? Fifty? A hundred? Your Mom and her friends around the pool at the retirement home? Again, it’s sales that count, and moving a few dozen books still isn’t going to attract much attention. Nor will a couple of hundred. But a thousand sales will get you noticed. That’s something you can tout…if you can back up the claim.

UPDATE 7-29-08: The author of the email is published by Light Sword Publishing, which is co-owned by the advertising director of Affaire De Coeur. So if all this author has to tout her book is a review from the magazine and “five wonderful reviews” on Amazon (one of which was from *another* Light Sword author), she’d be better off letting her book speak for itself.

When a Wanna-Be Publisher Becomes a Scammer

Scam-busting author Victoria Strauss’ post on Writer Beware about the fraud judgments levied against Linda Daly’s Light Sword Publishing has provoked an interesting debate on her blog. Along the way, Strauss has made some important distinctions between a genuine “small press” and a pseudo-publisher:

There are many
excellent small presses, which function entirely professionally and are
taken seriously by readers, writers, and publishing professionals.
Reputable small presses have always been an honorable alternative to
large commercial houses, and there are more of them now than ever.
These professional small presses, however, are NOT equivalent to the
Light Swords of the world, which are run like pocket dictatorships by
people who know absolutely nothing about editing, publishing, or book marketing–never mind running a business–and aren’t interested in learning.

I want to take that a step further (as I did on her blog). I’m on the Mystery Writers of America’s membership committee, which reviews applications from publishers
who want to be on our Approved Publishers list. In that capacity, I’ve encountered an astonishing number of
so-called “small publishers” who turned out to be nothing more than aspiring writers who bought some ISBN numbers and opened an account with a
POD company.

These pseudo-publisher are a mix of true scammers (like PublishAmerica, Airleaf, etc.) and people who
set out to do no harm but simply have no clue what being an “editor”
and a “publisher” really involves.

To me, an inexperienced
“publisher” becomes a scammer when they start touting marketing,
editorial and publishing experience they don’t actually have, when they
make promises they know they can’t keep, and when they begin charging
authors to get into print (another sign is when a court declares them
guilty of defrauding authors, as is the case with Light Sword).

The authors are inevitably tainted by their association with a scammer or an inept wanna-be publisher. As Victoria says:

This is not to say that good books can’t be published by amateur
micropresses. […] The enormous number of unpublishable books
with which society has been lumbered as a result of the proliferation
of micropresses–not to mention the POD self-publishing services–is an
annoyance and a nuisance, but the real tragedy of all these faux
publishing options, in my opinion, is that they can entrap writers
whose books deserved better.

That
said, the aspiring writers entrap themselves with their desperation, impatience, gullibility, and their
laziness.

The majority of writers who have been scammed by PublishAmerica,
Authorhouse, Airleaf, Tate, Quiet Storm, Light Sword and countless other vanity
presses and pseudo-publishers could have easily avoided their fate by
using common sense, doing a tiny bit of research, and asking some basic
questions about the professional qualifications and experience of the
people they were getting into business with BEFORE signing a contract. Others were simply looking for a short cut and discovered the hard way that there aren’t any. But I think Victoria said it best:

There are any number of reasons why writers ignore clear warning
signals, including the frustration of a long and unfruitful publication
search. Other writers, of course, don’t take the time to learn about
the field they’re trying to break into, and don’t know what the warning
signs are. But whatever the reasons writers fall victim to schemes and
scams and amateurs–and with every effort to maintain respect and
compassion for those victims–writers need to understand that THEY
ARE RESPONSIBLE for educating themselves, for researching their
options, and for making informed (as opposed to wishful or ego-driven)
decisions.We don’t help them by pretending that this isn’t so.

UPDATE: Blogger Michele Lee makes a strong case (with great links) that it’s time that authors took more responsibility for their poor choices:

The blame lies with both parties of course. Much of the behavior of
scammers and crappy publishers is reprehensible and inexcusable. But
there is so much information available to writers these days. We don’t
live in the world of ten years ago. There are so many places to research agencies and publishers these days (and for free!). I simply do not understand. There’s no excuse anymore, other than sheer newness, not to be a well researched. I suspect the professional publishing world is starting to view
things this way as well and the tolerance for lazy writers is severely
plummeting.

Fanfiction Friction

The July/August issue of the Literary Review of Canada features an extensive overview  of the controversies  — legal and artistic — surrounding fanfiction in the U.S. and Canada. The article is written by copyright lawyer Grace Westcott, who is Vice Chair of the Canadian Copyright Institute, and she does a very good job of presenting the arguments on both sides of the issue.  But there is one unique, Canadian wrinkle to the debate:

it’s hard to see a case for fan fiction as fair dealing under Canadian
law. Besides, there are the author’s moral rights to consider. The US analysis
of fan fiction makes barely a passing nod to moral rights. No wonder: in the US
the notion of moral rights is fairly slight. (And a media corporation cannot
have moral rights; it’s strictly a personal right.) But in Canada, and much of
the rest of the world, an individual author has the moral right both to be
credited as the author (or to remain anonymous, if he or she chooses) and to
have the integrity of the work protected. That integrity is infringed if the
work is, to the prejudice of the honour or reputation of the author, distorted,
mutilated or otherwise modified, or associated with any product, service, cause
or institution.

Obviously, a moral right that a work not be “distorted, mutilated or
otherwise modified” poses a serious legal impediment to the fan fiction writer.
It is a significant fetter on the fan’s freedom to rework the canon without this
act being viewed as an attack on the artistic integrity of the source work and
ultimately on its author’s reputation. After all, an author may well feel that
something he or she has spent years researching and writing is a finished work,
not a literary buffet or a cultural spare parts counter for others to rummage
in. An author may object to distortions of his characters when they are
appropriated to the divergent narrative sensibilities of fan imaginations.

She concludes:

So where does all this leave fan fiction? It may be that its shadowy
status – largely tolerated, but legally vulnerable – leaves it just
where it ought to be, in a healthy state of tension between fans and
authors. Because the fact is that fan fiction has so far been able to
operate as a tolerated use, if not a fair use. Both parties have good
reasons to accommodate the concerns of the other. No one wants to crush
a fan; and fans don’t want to damage their favorite author’s livelihood
or reputation. Fan fiction, particularly under Canadian law, and in
view of authors’ moral rights, requires the author’s forbearance, and
probably deserves a degree of that. There is a danger, in this balancing game, in taking a militant stance.
What is needed is a kind of digital civility, an online code of respect
in engaging with cultural works that recognizes and addresses authors’
rights and legitimate concerns. This, together with the recognition
that fan fiction comes from basically ‘a good place’, should encourage
authors, media owners and fans to develop a code of fair practices to
define what’s fair in fandom, to allow fans to engage creatively with
the works they so sincerely admire.

The Mail I Get

James-roday-psych
Based on the emails I have been getting lately, TV show fans who are aspiring writers seem to have a fundamental mis-understanding about how tie-in novels get written and published. They think that you just send in your fanfiction and the editor picks the best of them to be the official tie-in (I guess we can blame STAR TREK for that…the publishing franchise has occasionally snapped up unsolicited manuscripts). Here’s an excerpt from an email that I got yesterday:

I’m writing because you have authored a number of books for
various series, and I’m in the infant stages of attempting to do the
same thing.  A longtime friend and I have both been writing for many
years- and also happen to have a very similar style.  We are planning to collaborate on a novel for the USA series Psych. What I’m hoping you’d be willing to share with me are the
requirements for gaining permissions to actually step forward with this
process. […] I am simply looking for the entrance ramp to get me on the
publishing freeway (sorry, that was a horrid analogy).

I replied:

Don’t waste your time and
effort, Tanya, I’m afraid that you’re too late…there already are PSYCH novels being
written by William Rabkin. He has a contract for three books with
Penguin/Putnam. The first PSYCH novel comes out in January, the second
in July. Even if there weren’t already PSYCH books in the works, I
would have given you the same advice.  Studios routinely “shop” their
successful TV series to publishers (if the publishers haven’t already
come to them first). Once a publisher pays for the license, they hire
writers to pen the books. Usually those writers are people the editors either
already know or who are established in the business and who can be
trusted to deliver a book on deadline.

The “entrance ramp” into publishing isn’t complicated: write a good ORIGINAL novel, not a tie-in based on other
people’s characters. That’s how I got in, that’s how every author I know got in.

Falling on your Lightsword

Seaof_Lies_CVR_Daly-263x381
The wonderful Writers Beware blog reports that Lightsword Publishing is a scam run by imbeciles (no news to anyone who is a regular reader of this blog) and that the owners have been successfully sued for fraud by one of their swindled authors:

Linda Daly, Bonny Kirby, and Light Sword Publishing were sued by one of
their authors for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Writer Beware has seen
the complaint, as well as numerous other documents involved in the
lawsuit). 

Although the defendants filed a counterclaim,
alleging that it was really the plaintiff who provided
misrepresentations and breached contract, the plaintiff was ultimately
successful. On April 15, 2008, a default judgment in the amount of
$15,342.64 was entered against Bonny Kirby, and on July 8, 2008, a
default judgment in the amount of $16,558.63 was entered against Linda
Daly and Light Sword Publishing.

Linda Daly bills herself on her website as an “author, screenwriter, and now publisher.” Uh-huh. Let’s look at that, shall we? As an author, all of her titles have been self-published. As far as being a screenwriter goes, she must be unproduced, because she’s not a member of the WGA nor can I find any screenwriting credits for her on IMDB (or anywhere else). As for calling herself a publisher, well, I think the lawsuit and the cover of her latest book say it all. Her stunning editorial skills are on full display in the description of her book on her site (all the errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar are her own):

From Detroit to the Isles of Scotland;  a deadly sea of lies is exposed as a super-spy solves another treat to world security, or is it deadly greed by a man shamed into giving up his heritage. This riveting tales has been adapted into a ‘Feature’ film and is currently being considered for production.

The Mail I Get – July 4th Weekend Edition

A self-published author sent me this email today. I have removed his name to save him embarrassment.

I, XYZ, author of the book [Really Pretentious Title] am looking for an agent who will work on percentage. I am
planning on publishing two more books in the near future. If you are interested
please feel free to call me at ###-###-####.

I replied that first of all, I am not an agent, so why would I be interested? And even if I was an agent, his pitch  has no salesmanship whatsoever. Why would any legitimate agent bother to respond? It’s amazing to me how clueless some people are. It’s no wonder the vanity presses do such good business.

I also got a note from a Monk fan, who is troubled by something on the covers:

In the books, you mention that
everything in Monk’s life must be an even number or it upsets him to much.
However, in the show and on the cover of the books, he is wearing a jacket with
three buttons on it. Is there a reason why? I just happened to notice and would
like to know why.

I replied:

Why? Because Monk isn’t real. the person on the cover is an actor. I mean no offense by that answer, but there are lots of continuity
mistakes in the show….which is bound to happen,
since it’s all make-believe anyway. It’s not always possible,
economical, or reasonable to remain consistent with everything that’s
said and done in 100 hours of tv (and seven books) . The priority for
everyone involved is to make an entertaining, great-looking
show…whether Monk, or rather the actor portraying him, is wearing three buttons on his jacket or not ultimately doesn’t
matter. You could also argue, for instance, that all of his shirts and
his jackets have a pattern on them that isn’t consistent or
symmetrical…so how can he ever wear them, regardless of how many
buttons they have? Bottom line…it looks good and its cheaper for the
wardrobe department. So my advice is to relax, it’s just a TV show!

My favorite email of the weekend (so far) comes from someone who wants my help usurping me as the only author of MONK novels. He wrote, in part:

A friend and I co-wrote a script for
MONK […] I notice that you write books based on the MONK series, and was
hoping you could tell me what my friend and I can do to turn our script
into a book. […] I figure you are the expert
here. Please, what do we need to do? What permissions do we ask for,
and would we have to contact the network? I hope you can help us. We love the show, we’ve grown very close to the characters, and we believe we have a good storyline here.

I congratulated him on completing their spec script and told him that, unfortunately, my publisher isn’t in the
market for other writers for the MONK books since they have me under contract for a few more and I seem to be doing a pretty good job at it. What chutzpah. Did he really think I’d help him take my job? He got right back to me:

My co-writer and I wondered if you would be interested in our script,
in terms of you turning it into a book. (And we both think we’ve seen
at least one other MONK book written by someone else. Is that possible?) It’s awfully hard to let go of this plot. We would love to see
someone turn this into a MONK story, one way or the other.

I informed him that he was mistaken about another author writing MONK novels and I politely passed on his generous offer to use their screenplay as the basis for a book.