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…
My Blog
Free Books
I'm going to be at the The Mysterious Galaxy Bookstore in San Diego on Friday, August 8th at 7 pm to sign my new book MR. MONK GOES TO GERMANY alongside my brother Tod, who will be signing his new book, BURN NOTICE: THE FIX.
Anyone who buys a copy of MR. MONK GOES TO GERMANY at the signing will get a free signed, hardcover, first edition of BEYOND THE BEYOND or MY GUN HAS BULLETS while supplies last.
I'll also be giving away the books at my signings on Saturday, August 16 at Mysteries To Die For (1 pm) in Thousand Oaks, CA and Mystery Bookstore (4 pm) in Westwood, CA.
I hope to see you there!
Ciscos are taking it to The Streets
The recent announcement that CBS is developing a remake of THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO made me wonder how the news was playing with the Ciscos, the diehard fans of the show who inundated ABC with packages of Rice-A-Roni a few years ago.
It isn't going over well. They have taken out a full-page ad in Daily Variety demanding the return of the show with the original cast, wardrobe, and automobiles.
"It's an outrage," said Kirby Sneed, spokesperson for the Save Our Streets Global Alliance. "Any version of STREETS without Karl Malden, Michael Douglas, and Darleen Carr would be an abomination."
His dream of a STREETS reunion nearly came true sixteen years ago when NBC mounted the TV movie/pilot BACK TO THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO, which was written by William Robert Yates, one of the original producers. Malden returned, as did Carr, but he was teamed with two new partners and Michael Douglas' character was killed off. The fans felt betrayed.
"The fen have disowned the movie," he said. "We don't consider it canon."
Sneed says the "horrific creative choices" made in the movie have "been corrected in the subsequent fanfiction, but it took a lot of work."
He says that Ciscos realize that Malden, now in his 90s, might be too old to resume his part, but the fen would be willing to accept Paul Sorvino in his place, as long as he reprises his role as Inspector Bert D'Angelo, the lead of a short-lived STREETS spin-off called SUPERSTAR.
They also have "realistic expectations" as far as Douglas' participation is concerned, acknowledging that its unlikely that the feature film star would return for a TV movie. They are in serious discussions with Douglas' publicist's secretary about the possibility of him doing a cameo if a "true remake" is made.
They are confident, however, that Richard Hatch, who replaced Douglas in the series' final season, would be available to resume his role (he has already written his own screenplay for a STREET revival, which he is adapting into a comic book).
Sneed, who lives in San Francisco, has kept the series alive through fan fiction and a driving tour of STREETS locations that he offers to tourists in his1971 Ford Galaxie 500, the same model as the one Inspector Stone drove.
"It was more than TV show," he said. "It's as much a part of the city, and its history, as the Golden Gate Bridge."
Monk’s 100th Party
I just got back from the MONK 100th Episode party at an Italian restaurant in Hollywood. I had a great time catching up with all the writers and meeting some of the guest stars (as well as new semi-regular Hector Elizondo). I brought along my nephew Killian, who doesn’t speak a word of English. He’s in town with us from France for a few weeks and is a big MONK fan. Luckily for him, USA Network president Jeff Wachtel, actress Glenne Headly (who played Stottlemeyer’s wife), and Jason Gray Stanford’s
girlfriend all spoke French, so he had folks to talk to. He also got to meet the whole cast and have his picture taken with them. On the way out, we all got a bottle of French wine in a “Monk 100th episode” comemorative leather bottle-bag. I let my nephew drink it on the way home (just kidding, of course). Now I am back at home, working on my 8th Monk novel, which is due in less than 90 days. Ahhhhhh!
Lewis: Series One and Two
Over the last few weeks I’ve been watching the first two seasons of LEWIS, the sequel series to INSPECTOR MORSE, one of my all-time favorite mystery series.
Lewis was Morse’s long-suffering sidekick in the original series. Now Lewis is the Inspector and he has a suffering side-kick of his own, former seminary student Sgt. Hathaway. The series features many of the same production team as MORSE, as well as the same Oxford locations and the Hitchcockian cameos by author Colin Dexter, who wrote the books that the series was based on. The commonalities end there.
The MORSE mysteries were rich, complex, surprising and intelligent…and were enlivened by Morse’s wonderfully irascible, embittered and brilliant bachelor and his strained, father-son relationship with Lewis, a simple-minded family man. The writer/directors of MORSE included Danny Boyle and Anthony Minghella…there are no comparable talents on the new show.
The mysteries in LEWIS are plodding, padded and obvious…and worst of all, they are mostly the same story told again and again (a group of current students or former classmates share a dark secret that sparks a series of killings). Lewis and Hathaway end up solving the crime through coincidence and luck rather than deduction or cleverness. The suspects are all one-dimensional cliches.
The absence of John Thaw’s Morse is keenly felt…even more so by the unnecessary references to his character that are sprinkled heavy-handedly and awkwardly through many of the episodes. One of the biggest mistakes was trying to turn Lewis into Morse…by
killing off his wife and sending away his kids. So now he is the lonely
bachelor butting heads with his bosses…almost forcing the audience to compare him to Morse. Unfortunately, his loneliness isn’t nearly as interesting and revealing as Morse’s. It’s just dull.
And while Morse’s ill-fated crushes were sad reminders of his lonely life…and his inability to fit in…the gimmick in LEWIS of having a female suspect in just about every episode wanting to drag him into bed is ridiculous and embarrassing.
And yet…I enjoy the show and pretty much devoured the episodes. I find it oddly soothing…like a cup of hot tea. The primary attraction of LEWIS is the relationship between Lewis and Hathaway (who is, by far, the more interesting character of the two) which sort of plays like “MORSE light.” Hathaway is a fascinating character and actor Lawrence Fox brings far more depth to his performance than there appears to be on the page. Their gentle banter lacks the bite of MORSE, but it has its pleasures all the same.
Maybe it’s more nostalgia for MORSE than any real love of LEWIS that keeps me watching…
LEWIS would clearly like to be the successor to MORSE…and if ratings in the UK are any indication, they’ve achieved their goal…but in my mind, REBUS wins that honor hands-down.
I’m Waiting for the remake of Barnaby Jones
TVSquad reports the surprising news that CBS is developing a remake of the Quinn Martin series THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO, which starred Karl Malden and Michael Douglas as two SFPD detectives. Screenwriters Sheldon Turner and Robert Port are writing the script and Simon West is attached to direct if it goes to pilot. Can CANNON and BARNABY JONES be far behind?
Tempest in an A Cup
Over the last two days, I’ve received hundreds of hits on a four year old post about Disney giving Keira Knightly bigger boobs in the KING ARTHUR publicity stills and poster art. So why the renewed attention? It turns out that Knightly has refused to let another studio do the same thing for her new film DUCHESS:
“Keira Knightly is essentially giving young women permission to stand
up in their communities and their schools and their families and say,
‘Look, this is the way I look and it is OK,” said “Perfect Girls,
Starving Daughters” author Courtney Martin.
The 23-year-old’s chest has been the subjected to scrutiny
before. In promotions for “King Arthur” in 2004, the actress’ A-cup was
morphed into a C-cup on posters. At the time Knightly admitted, “those
things weren’t really mine,” though she still went along with the
publicity campaign. “I think that’s incredibly brave and could have a
huge impact on young women,” Martin said of Knightly’s decision.
The “Affaire” of Unethical Conduct in our “Romantic Times”
I’ve been engaged in a discussion on the Writer Beware blog about the egregious ethical lapses committed by Affaire de Coeur magazine in their editorial coverage (running cover stories and reviews about books published by their advertising director, requiring some publishers and authors to buy advertising in exchange for reviews, etc.). 
I thought it might be helpful to share the portion of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics that applies to the relationship between editorial and advertising content:
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. Journalists should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity
or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced
by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society’s members.
Sigma Delta Chi’s first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.
Most newspapers and magazines have adopted similar guidelines. For example, here are the guidelines for publications produced by the Mystery Writers of America (I should disclose that I was on the committee that drafted these guidelines):
For Articles, columns, interviews and essays:
-
–
The editor should maintain honesty, integrity,
accuracy thoroughness and fairness in reporting and editing of articles,
headlines and graphics.
-
–
There should be a clear distinction between
news/feature stories and opinion pieces. It
should be made clear that any opinions expressed are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Mystery Writers of America or the
local chapter.
-
–
The reporter or author of editorial content in
the newsletter must avoid any conflicts of interest, real or perceived, with
regard to the subject of his articles. All potential conflicts should be
disclosed (eg: an author interviewing his own publisher or editor).
-
–
The reporter or author of editorial content in
the newsletter should refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special
treatment related to the articles they are writing (eg: free travel and
registration at a conference in return for the article).
-
–
Unless a piece is clearly identified as “opinion,”
personal views such as religious beliefs or political ideology should be kept separate
from the subjects being covered. Articles should not be approached with overt
or hidden agendas (eg: someone who hates cozies shouldn’t be writing about the
popularity of cozy mysteries).
-
–
Competing points of view should be balanced and
fairly characterized.
-
–
Persons who are the subject of adverse news stories or features should be allowed a
reasonable opportunity to respond to the adverse information before the story
is published.
-
–
Fairness means that all important views on a
subject are presented and treated even-handedly.
-
–
Authors should always cite their sources and
never plagiarize.
For Advertising:
-
–
Editorial impartiality and integrity should
never be compromised by the relationship and the chapter should retain
editorial control of ALL content. Selection of editorial topics, treatment of
issues, interpretation and other editorial decisions must NOT be determined by
advertisers.
-
–
Editors must never permit advertisers to review
articles prior to publication.
-
–
Advertisers and potential advertisers must never receive favorable editorial
treatment because of their economic value to the newsletter.
-
–
Editors must have the right to review, prior to
publication, all sponsored content and other advertiser supplied material.
-
–
The choice of advertisers (conferences,
self-publishers, editorial services, etc.) should not bring the MWA into
disrepute or imply an endorsement by our
organization of any of the goods or services being advertised. This is
especially important when it comes to self-publishing firms, agency representation,
editorial services, writing contests, and writers conferences.
-
–
There should be a clear and unequivocal separation
between the advertising and editorial content of the newsletter. Editors have
an obligation to readers to make clear which content has been paid for, which
is sponsored, and which is independent editorial material.
For “Non-Paid” Promotion
-
–
Editors should carefully review all “non-paid”
promotional content, such as lists of
upcoming events and contests, to assure the events and organizers are reputable
and legitimate. The printing of these announcements in our newsletter can imply
to some readers an endorsement by the MWA.
-
–
Occasionally, some newsletters post news about
publishers accepting submissions. Editors
should review the MWA’s List of Approved Publishers before printing material of
this nature.
I find it disgraceful that Affaire de Coeur and the Romantic Times require some publishers and authors to buy advertisements in exchange for having their books reviewed. Not only is it unethical conduct, it’s also unfair to small presses & authors … and brings into serious doubt the editorial credibility of both magazines.
Affaire de Coeur doesn’t just sell their reviews to advertisers, they also sell other kinds of coverage. Here’s an excerpt from the Affaire De Coeur website page that explains their various advertising packages:
“To compliment your ad and review we also offer interviews or articles. If you would like an interview let us know 3 months in advance so it will go in the same issue as your review and ad. We accept articles at any time, we need articles 3 months in advance. All articles must receive approval on subject matter.”
“We will not accept submissions less than three months prior to the date of publication unless it is associated with an ad. We do not review books after publication unless it is done in association with an ad”
If you buy an advertisement with Affaire de Coeur, they will “compliment” it with articles and reviews. They will gladly review your book after publication, or if you submit it late, if you buy an ad. There’s clearly a connection between buying ads and getting coverage. They aren’t even subtle about it.
But do they inform their readers which reviews, articles and interviews were published because of their connection with advertising? Of course not.
Basic ethical conduct requires that any review or article that is printed in exchange for advertising should be labeled as such so the reader knows just how “objective” the coverage really is (just how “honest” can a review be if it’s paid for?)
And if a reporter or editor has a financial stake in the books or companies being written about or reviewed, that should also be clearly disclosed, because it’s a conflict-of-interest and has an obvious impact on the “objectivity” of the reporting and placement of the stories.
But those disclosures aren’t being made to the readers of Affaire de Coeur or Romantic Times. If I was a reader or writer of romance fiction, I would be outraged about the conduct of these two magazines. That is why I have refused to acknowledge Affaire de Coeur’s “five star review” of my book.
UPDATE: I just stumbled on a November 2007 blog post on EREC that shows just how much coverage in Affaire de Coeur that Light Sword received in one issue compared to other small press advertisers — which is no surprise, since Light Sword’s co-owner is the magazine’s advertising director:
Light Sword Publishing
* 3 pages of advertising
*
6.5 pages of content (3 being an article that is clearly
self-promotional, aimed at authors not readers and available for free on their website)
* 1.5 pages of book review spaceMedallion Press
* 2.5 pages of advertising
* 2.5 pages of book review spaceParker
* 0.25 pages of advertising
* 0.75 pages of book review spaceDafina
* 0.25 pages of advertising
* 0.75 pages of book review spaceTorquere Press
* 1 page of advertising.My point? I’m not sure. Perhaps that advertisers should buy ad space.
Readers should ‘buy’ the other content by having it aimed squarely at
their interests. 26 pages of large press book reviews, fine. 10 pages
puffing the advertisers wares… not so fine. If you buy ads you can
apparently also write the magazine’s content
and get your small press books reviewed. So if you want only large
press book reviews at least half the magazine will be of interest to
you. The rest seems to be almost entirely at the pleasure of the
advertisers.