Stupid Little Authors, Don’t They Know Their Place?
Big publishing has finally responded to the story about indie author Kiana Davenport’s disaster when her publisher went postal.
Here’s a response from Brian DeFiore who formerly worked “as Editor at St Martin’s Press and Dell Publishing, Editorial Director & VP at Delacorte Press, Associate Publisher & Editor-in-Chief at Hyperion and Publisher & Senior VP at Villard Books (Random House)” before becoming a literary agent in 1999. Mr. DeFiore is on Board of Directors of the Association of Authors Representatives and, of course, like all literary agents, fights for authors no matter what:
The author’s conspiracy-theory conclusion that this is about the publisher versus Amazon seems wrongheaded. If these were print books we would understand in a flash that publishing two books prior to a contracted-for work would constitute a breach of contract. These books change the picture of where the author is in her career– and give potential consumers additional buying choices. Things the publisher did not anticpate when making their offer for the novel. The author clearly changed the landscape a bit; and the publisher thought that landscape was now more hazardous…
Link to the rest at AARdvark
Where do we start?
Let’s start with the “flash.”
The reason an author understands publishing competitive books is a breach of contract is if it’s actually written in the contract. Passive Guy knows this is a shocking idea in the publishing business, but, alas, that’s the law.
Kiana seems like an intelligent woman and she definitely has had several traditional book contracts before. PG thinks it’s likely Kiana knows about non-compete clauses. Additionally, Kiana specifically denies she breached her publishing contract with her publications.
Strike one against Mr. Brush-off.
Second, according to Kiana’s account, the publisher complained about two books, then backed off when it discovered she had published one prior to signing the publishing contract in question.
When a publisher backs off on any point in a fight against an author (happens once every thousand years), it’s Strike two against Mr. Brush-off.
Third, the publishing contract was for a novel and the one book she released after signing the contract was a collection of short stories — old short stories — that had all been published before, perhaps as long as ten years ago.
This is a backlist re-publication. Is there really an argument under most any non-compete clause that re-publishing old short stories is direct competition with a new novel on a different subject?
Strike three against Mr. Brush-off.
So, does the non-compete clause (assuming there is one) cover backlist works? Does it cover short stories? Is an experienced author like Kiana likely to willfully violate a non-compete clause?
But wait, does Mr. Brush-off contend the publisher can decide what is competitive or not regardless of what the contract might say? That would certainly be convenient. And only right. In a flash.
What does Mr. DeFiore say specifically? “These books change the picture of where the author is in her career.”
Well, if that’s not a violation of a non-compete clause, Mr. Brush-off has never seen one. Let this be a warning to all you little authors. DON’T CHANGE THE PICTURE OF WHERE YOU ARE IN YOUR CAREER!
Your contract says you can’t do that. Somewhere. You should know that in a flash.
But Wait! There’s More!
Kiana’s short stories “give potential consumers additional buying choices.”
So, little authors, here’s lesson number two: DON’T GIVE POTENTIAL CONSUMERS ADDITIONAL BUYING CHOICES!
Your contract says that. Somewhere towards the end. You probably can’t find it because of all the flashes going off around you. Your agent can tell you where it says that. Authors shouldn’t be reading contracts anyway.
And what do all of Kiana’s forbidden actions create?
“Things the publisher did not anticpate when making their offer for the novel.”
Of course, the publisher couldn’t know Kiana had written lots of short stories, not after her blog and numerous online bios say “My short stories have won numerous O. Henry Awards, Pushcart Prizes, and Best American Short Story Award, 2000.” Not after Kiana published “House of Skin – Prize-Winning Stories” before she signed the contract, which is, according to the first line of Amazon’s product description, a “collection of prize-winning stories.”
Clearly, Kiana was hiding her old short stories from her publisher.
So, little authors, here’s another lesson for you: DON’T DO ANYTHING YOUR PUBLISHER DOESN’T ANTICIPATE!
How could a publisher anticipate Kiana would publish old short stories? They were totally in the dark.
And to sum up Kiana’s many sins, Mr. DeFiore explains, ”The author clearly changed the landscape a bit.”
He’s referring, of course, to the famous Landscape Clause. You’ll find it in any publishing contract. In a flash.
So, little authors, be warned: DON’T CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE ONE LITTLE BIT!
Any fool except an author fool would know that in a flash.
Of course, Mr. DeFiore’s short little brush-off ignores virtually all the details Kiana included in her blog.
What does that matter anyway? She’s an author isn’t she? She’s fighting with her publisher isn’t she? Everybody understands who’s wrong in a flash.
Stupid little author, who does she think she is, talking back to her publisher?
It’s always the author’s fault.
Terrible cover? It’s the author’s fault the book didn’t sell.
Inept PR? It’s the author’s fault the book didn’t sell.
Sales department ignored the book? It’s the author’s fault the book didn’t sell.
Somebody screwed up a publishing contract? It’s the author’s fault. The author has to pay.
Who better to explain the facts of life in Big Publishing than a distinguished Authors’ Representative?
So now you know.
Almost makes me glad I don’t have an agent to represent my interests.
I think the most worrying idea was that the publisher could attempt to terminate the agreement, and hold the rights to the book.
I haven’t read the contact, I don’t know if there is something in the small print that allows them to terminate the contact. It is possible.
But to terminate the contact, and then try to hold the rights to publish the book… that is enough to make my blood boil.
The publisher has no right to do that.
Exactly, Thomas. The contract is for the rights to publish the book according to the limitations set out in…the contract! So what publisher couldn’t figure out that they either have the rights (as outlined in…you guessed it), or by terminating the contract they surrender the rights therein contained. It’s a no-brainer, and apparently so is her publisher.
You know, PG, I’m sweeping my house for hidden bugs and cameras. Because you just stated clearly what has been gnawing at my brain ever since I read Mr. DeFiore’s snarky response. I wouldn’t have paid all that much attention to it EXCEPT that he’s on the board for AAR. Remember the AAR’s utter silence in regards to the conflict of interest issue with agents acting as publishers? Maybe I had it wrong. Maybe there is no conflict of interest because the agents are secure in where their interests lie. And it isn’t with the authors.
Authors need to wake up and realize that agents work first for themselves, secondly for the publishers and in a distant, lagging third their clients. It’s a business with no standards, no governing body, no regulations and no recourse for a client with a beef.
If everybody were honest, the agents would state up front whose interests they are actually serving. Publishers should be paying agents for scouting, reading the slush pile, first editing and slapping around writers who dare step out of line.
Shees. Great post, PG.
That’s…hilariously patronizing. Nobody knows the facts here, nobody’s seen the contract. But he’s pretty confident that she got it wrong.
I am surprised that the head of an Author’s Rep organization would publicly weigh in on a dispute on the side of the publisher when he has no need to say anything at all.
Unforced errors are always the best errors. And by best, I mean most entertaining.
Precious! Don’t be suprised, Genevieve. Who do you think is buttering the agent’s bread? Think it’s you, the author, and not the publisher? Really? No, not unless you’re Harlan Coben or James Patterson or…. You get the idea.
I always had a love/hate relationship with legacy publishers and agents, but now that I have a hate/hate relationship with them, this stuff just makes me laugh.
Great stuff, PG.
I’m not surprised an author’s rep would weigh in on the side of the publisher, either. In fact that is even more likely than writer’s organizations doing the same. Sadly, they, too, are supporting that pervasive attitude, while not quite going as far as DeFiore does, at least not publicly. In response to a previous commenter’s post a few days ago, I outlined my own experience with RWA over the last 10 plus years. While there is much I’ve gained from RWA on the national and chapter level, I still find a similar, blind support for the traditional industry model. This is understandable if you consider that the old guard who founded that group is tied very closely to the largest romance publishers in the world, and since romance accounts for over 13% of the total market at about $1.4B a year, they have a survival interest in seeing the old business model stay in place. I don’t fault them for wanting to maintain a relationship with those houses and their author-members who write for same. I do fault them for the pervasive attitude of denigration they’ve shown to the self-published and e-published authors, and also to the erotic romance subgenre as a whole–both its publishers and authors. After hearing far too many horror stories over the last few years, like the one Davenport is dealing with now, I’m fairly ecstatic to be going the indie route. I certainly hope Ms. Davenport’s lawyers can obtain a good outcome for her. No one deserves that kind of unprofessional treatment, regardless of the legal details of the contract.
I’m thinking that if he had anything better than changing the landscape of her career as a breach of contract, he’d have mentioned that.
I think her future communication with that company should be done through an attorney.
Genevieve, you took the words right out of my mouth!
This quote almost made me throw my coffee cup:
“If these were print books we would understand in a flash that publishing two books prior to a contracted-for work would constitute a breach of contract.”
Sorry, WHAT?!
Publishers poach authors from each other all the time. Authors print simultaneously all over the place. It’s not a breach of contact, and if this is the new and improved contract language or intent of the publishers, nearly half their list would be in breach! Including some of their biggest sellers! (ie. King’s backlist is over at Penguin/NAL, but his new stuff is at S&S; would they consider him in breach because he was “previously published”?)
If the books contracted were of a certain kind (e.g. Romantic Urban Fantasy), then there might be a clause to make certain the author doesn’t write a competing series of the same kind for another publisher. But if author wants to write a Carrie Bradshaw-esque romcom for another publisher, she could do that so long as there isn’t any “fantasy” remotely related to the new books. Lots of writers do this, usually under pseudonyms to maintain branding, but not all of them have to. Or they used to do it more frequently.
And short fiction usually falls under the first and second serial print subrights clauses. When I was acquiring, we only asked about short fiction sales as a marketing blip–could we use that to our advantage? Were they continuing characters or setting? Otherwise, we didn’t really care too much because it was irrelevant to the new novels. IRRELEVANT.
If the new & improved world of publishing really and truly means to go in this direction (acquiring only high-risk never-before-published authors or renewing only their top sellers), then it’s a no freaking wonder they’re circling the drain. And good riddance to bad business.
Normally, when an author has a successful book, the publisher wants another one from her, as soon as possible. Why would they want to give the readers more buying choices? Oh yeah… because if people like one book by an author, they will probably buy another book by that same author!
I would understand the publisher’s feelings if she self-published another novel, at the same time they were releasing her contracted novel. That wouldn’t justify any sort of bullying behavior, but it would certainly appear to be a competing work. $20K isn’t a huge amount, but it’s pretty nice as advances go these days.
“Do self-published e-books qualify as competitive works? Or as books ‘published’ prior to a contracted for work?” This should be defined in the contract, should it not? And if it’s vague or “unclear” as Mr. DeFiore suggests, the publisher has no one to blame but themselves. Every author I know who gets a non-compete clause tries to get rid of it entirely; or failing that, to narrow it down as much as possible.
I do wonder if publishing contracts will start to include explicit mention of self-published works now–and how hard agents will fight against it.
“So now you know.”
And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!
Legal wrangling over literary publications was a frequent subject for discussion on the classic 1980s animated law review program, GI JOE. Most deadlocks were resolved by the arrival of Sergeant Deadlock, a street-smart demolitions expert with a penchant for detonating micro-explosives under the fingernails of dishonest publishers and agents.
Of course the author was “changing the landscape” — she was out beating the bushes, building up her following of readers so that the trad publisher’s book would potentially sell better when it came out. The weird thing about this story isn’t that the trad publisher (and the agent defending them) are complaining about the author doing something that she was not contractually forbidden to do, but are complaining about the author doing something that was actually in the trad publisher’s commercial interests. In other words, no good deed goes unpunished in the world of traditional publishing.
So what Mr. DeFiore is saying is that I seriously screwed up by selling my novella and two novels AT THE SAME TIME.
And those poor readers were so overwhelmed by choices that they bought the novella, then went back and bought the two novels accidentally?
*facepalm*
PG, thanks for this post. I think it’s your best yet. All that fire in your belly! Love it.
I’ve been following this story, annoyed that even on author-centric blogs people are questioning Kiana’s right to make a fuss. The put-your-big-girl-panties-on school of Suck It Up. As if rolling over is somehow a sign of empowerment.
There is gray area here. Authors need to fight for their own interests. Legally. Maybe they’ll lose because, yes, they signed a shitty contract. But maybe they’ll win or settle. Thank you to those of you who are fighting, because uncontracted writers like me will benefit from the battles you’re fighting.
I’m self-pubbed now, but I don’t think print is dead. I hope to have a print contract some day because I hope to be in airports, Costcos, and libraries. If and when on that distant day I am dealing with a publisher (and, God forbid, and agent like the one above), I will be better off for the battles being waged now by writers like Kiana.
Pow! Flash! Changing landscape!
Love it.
Well, where to begin! I completely agree with JW Manus. Agents have a vested interest in themselves. After all you are their product, their moneymaker and God help you if you do something to jeopardize their career.
Like the music industry,I feel I am repeating myself as I had this conversation with another writer this morning, writers need to learn to protect their vested interest -their work.
You are responsible for the work you produce and therefore you should have a vested interest in how much profit you are going to make for yourself.
Call me crazy but this is making self publishing look so much more appealing.
Social media is helping writers/musicians/photographers to put their name out on the market, and for free I might add. Paying the extra money for copy editors and some promotional that Social Media can’t give you for free is worth it.
Walking the fine line between having an agent or not is really up the individual but just like a writer can be expendable, so too can an agent.
Again, Excellent post, PG.
Hey, PG, you forgot the nice little rejection Kiana has from that same company for her collection of short stories. You know, the same one they’re complaining about? But, of course, the publisher doesn’t know anything about that, either.
Hehe
By the way, I LOVED seeing your take on the agent who stepped into the manure bad. I’m seeing writers all over the place on some author-centric forums questioning Kiana and giving their opinions (I’m not going to read those boards for a week. I’m pretty disgusted at it all). I think it’s too soon to question anything, as we only know part of the story. Other than perhaps questioning why this smells so bad over the publisher actions.
At this point I’m waiting to see more details come out. I’m sure the lawyers on the other side are hoping to string this out for a while, perhaps bankrupt Kiana into submission, but I hope she is able to get this resolved soon and return to her livelihood: writing good stories for the READER.
Notice how the needs of the reader got lost from the publisher and agent POV? But, then, the readers are as stupid and don’t really know what they want as the author…
Great post, PG.
Actually, Mr DeFiore’s denouncement of giving “potential consumers additional buying choices” nicely illustrates what Dean Wesley Smith would call the (misguided) “produce mindset”: According to that, by setting up a stand and selling her own tomatoes, Ms Davenport is responsible if the tomatoes she sold to the supermarket will not be sold and have to rot away there.
Thanks for the kind words. I’m afraid it’s too much to hope for that a lot of negative publicity would cause Kiana’s publisher to back down, however.
Thanks for breaking down his argument, PG, because reading Mr. DeFiore’s words made my eyes cross. I sorta felt like I’d fallen down a rabbit hole and was maybe having tea with the Mad Hatter.
This post made me howl with laughter (must’ve been all the flashes), which is good … because otherwise I’d probably be throwing things. I’m very disappointed in the AAR. What a wonderful example of being an “author’s representative.”
[...] remaining (it hasn’t all shot out of your eyeballs) go read the Passive Guy’s article, Stupid Little Authors, Don’t They Know Their Place. Stay for the [...]
[...] http://www.thepassivevoice.com/09/2011/stupid-little-authors-dont-they-know-their-place/ [...]
I really enjoyed your pov on this. I read the author’s blog post, and the responses seemed overwhelmingly in her favor. But in some other places on the Web talking about it, they seem to be overwhelmingly in the publisher’s favor. It’s hard to know what to think with so little info out there though, but later, I believed it was likely the contract wasn’t as clear on this issue as it the publisher wanted it to be. Do things like this cause the publisher to redraft their contracts for any future authors? Because I see this as being an issue for many authors and publishers in the future.
Either way, I hope it works out.
Jodi
This is a point that I have been trying to make about this when talking about it. NONE of us know enough to make a judgement either way. Without seeing the contract or being one of the partied involved, all we have to go on is what we are told, which so far is only coming from one side, and one side of an argument is not enough to based a judgement on.
I would just like to point out that I did not, in any way in my post, indicate that I thought the author was wrong in what she did; or that the publisher was right. The only thing I said I thought the author was wrong about was her idea that this had to do with publishers armwresting Amazon. It’s not about Amazon. Publishers’ fights with Amazon are being fought on a different canvas.
The point of my post, which was clear at the end (which was not included in the summation) was that this story demonstrated a new wrinkle, which agents and authors need to be aware of. Yes, publishing contracts DO have non-compete clauses, virtually every one of them, and my point was that any agent would have known to advise a client that to publish two story collections IN PRINT while under contract for a novel would be hazardous and might lead to a cancellation of the contract. The stuff about ‘landscape’ is what we deal with on behalf of our clients every day. We hate those non-compete clauses, but there’s no way around them and we know how to avoid being trapped by them.
But to have a publisher invoke this clause via self-published digital editions is something new. I thought it was something agents and authors should make sure to pay close attention to.
Why? So that we can protect our clients’ interests better. Period.
And as for all the talk here about the AAR not yet speaking out about agents as publishers– first, the AAR is very carefully looking at the issue. It’s a complex one. And in the world that is changing as quickly as this one we all find ourselves in, we need to make sure we are doing what is right for authors and for agents. The complex issue is that in the world we’re seeing evolve and change every day, it’s not always exactly clear what constitutes digital ‘publishing’ versus an ‘advising’ role on self-publishing, which many clients have indicated they would like their agents to do. We are all grappling with it, and the AAR will soon be making clear how this issue fits in with its very public canon of ethics.
No disrespect intended, Mr. DeFiore, but I call shenanigans. I’ve read your post several times. None of the points you make here are the same as you made there.
Way I see it, by posting what you did on the AARdvark site, you were speaking in an official capacity. Your message came through loud and clear.
Way I also see it, agents have been walking the tightrope of trying to serve two masters for quite some time. Agents claim to represent authors, but at the same time serving as slush pile readers, first editors, talent scouts and body-farmers for publishers. The authors pay the bills, but agents know where the real money is and who it is they better stay chummy with (hint, authors are expendable). With the rise of self-publishing the tightrope is unraveling. I’ve been publishing almost twenty years. I have heard countless stories about author/publisher disputes. I can count on one hand the number of times the agent has truly stood up for the author. In fact, I’ve heard of many instances where agents have dumped authors due to disputes.
As for the AAR “carefully looking at the issue (agents as publishers)” Really? Your own canon of ethics clearly states member agents can’t represent both sides. Sounds like AAR is carefully looking for loopholes.
Bottom line, Ms. Davenport wasn’t hiding anything from her publisher. She isn’t a first time novelist either. A quick search of Amazon shows she has a long and distinguished publishing career. If her agent wasn’t aware of her publishing history and wasn’t aware of any breaches in any non-compete clauses, then said agent is an idiot and shouldn’t be in business. Why the hell isn’t the AAR dumping on the agent for being a knucklehead who has clearly harmed her client?
About the non compete issue, and to underline one of JW’s points… Non compete clauses can be struck from a contract. They have been before, and they will continue to be in the future wherever savvy lawyers and agents are present. I have dealt with non compete in the IT industry as a consultant. Total control of anything is not in the interest of the creative party.
The publishers want unreasonable control despite being faced with extinction if they continue to stamp their feet and throw things at the creative party that keeps them in latte and ensconced in their expensive NY offices. They’d rather pull the whole industry under than change their business model… this reminds me a whole lot of something going on in D.C. right now… but I digress. Perhaps a lot of agents feel the same? They’d rather go under and pull it all down to spite everyone, and excuse me but where in blazes is the reader in all this “landscape” and “flash” discussion?? Certainly not in the forefront of anyone’s mind except the author who is trying desperately to reach said reader and is being bound and gagged by a psychotic, and now spiteful system that insists that nothing should survive if it can’t be done “their way.”
In this consumer-driven economy, the publishers still want control of the author’s entire life, even in a contract situation where the author’s track record is a perfectly known commodity, and is available publicly to agent, publisher or anyone else. If an editor is behaving abusively and unprofessionally toward the author and the agent does nothing, and if the publisher throws a temper tantrum because they didn’t do their basic homework about the author’s previous print career before signing them, and didn’t understand the background of the author they were signing… and on top of this the agent didn’t know either and didn’t make the publisher aware prior?… Well, shenanigans are incidental to the real problem, aren’t they?
Given all this, I fail to see why any author would trust AAR or any other organization with a vested interest in the old business models? Clearly this is about money, especially now when it cannot be from a solely practical standpoint, because agents need to make authors and their readers priority #1 if they hope to survive. Traditional houses are not going to change if it kills them. And, it will. Clearly no one is looking out for author interests anymore and never mind the readers (but don’t worry, they’re making it very clear with their wallets where they stand. Time authors did the same. I believe Kris Rusch has devoted much of her blog recently to try and inspire authors to do just that? And, while we’re on the subject of why AAR isn’t dumping on the agent for harming Ms. Davenport’s career… Will someone remind me why, if you have enough intellect to write a fabulous book and negotiate the paperwork of your home mortgage, which makes a publishing contract look like a twp-page resume, for the love of all that’s green, would any author desperately need an agent whose livelihood is dependent on the status quo publishing model? How about getting a lawyer like PG instead? If the non compete is too complicated and the publisher wants digital rights in perpetuity (%$^&*!) hiring someone like PG is the best investment of your money and time you could make. But seriously now, we are all capable, smart, creative writers. There’s no one better to look out for our own interests or to hire, on a per-project basis, a lawyer who has no vested interest in whether the trad houses make it to next year. Let’s agree to stop handing off our responsibility for our own careers, integrity, and interests to those who have a vested interest elsewhere. Apologies to PG for going on here, but it’s like we’ve suddenly discovered that the institutions of publishing look upon as little more than slaves in some Darwinian fantasy or that domestic abuse is actually a problem, to echo Sarah Hoyt’s recent blog, and it makes my reason and sanity meter peg at 11.
With all respect, I think this post is a little out of order. It’s rude, it’s aggressive and it’s patronising. It’s also assuming facts based on the authors rather heated rant.
I agree with Brian that this is something worth paying close attention to, for everyone in the publishing industry.
Without seeing the contract or being privvy to the correspondance between Davenport, her agent and her publisher, none of us can say for sure who is right and who is wrong in this instance. Although I’m sure that we are all agreed that it’s a horrible situation for a writer to be in, and I’m sure it’s very stressful and emotional time for all concerned.
Nah, Claire, rude is licking the orange off the Cheetos and then dropping them back in the bowl. This is disagreement.
It’s true we haven’t seen the contract nor do we have all the details. There’s a bigger picture here. It is time for agents for to choose a side and take a stand. We pay them 15% for the life of a project. Why? To make contacts in the industry? Are a few phone calls and schmoozing over lunch worth 15%? Agents tell us to not worry, they will negotiate the contracts. If they don’t understand the contracts, then we’re fools to trust them, right? So why are we paying them? They say they’ll handle disputes, but if their handling involves telling the writer to shut it and suck it up, again, why pay for that privilege?
According to the AARdvark post, Mr. DeFiore “currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Association of Authors Representatives, as Chair of the AAR Digital Rights Committee.” That makes his position official. If he’d like to do something truly useful, how about censuring agents who pull their clients into messes like the one Ms. Davenport finds herself in now?
Since my words of disagreement, as JW aptly labeled it, occur to Claire as rude, aggressive, and patronizing, I’ll respond not with my own words, but with those of other women, wildly different, but both admired by this author:
“When those who have the power to name and to socially construct reality choose not to see you or hear you … when someone with the authority of a teacher, say, describes the world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked in the mirror and saw nothing. It takes some strength of soul—and not just individual strength, but collective understanding—to resist this void, this non-being, into which you are thrust, and to stand up, demanding to be seen and heard.” ~Adrienne Rich, poet and essayist
“A lot of people are afraid to say what they want. That’s why they don’t get what they want.
I’m tough, I’m ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, okay.” ~Madonna
Though I never intend the speaking of my mind to occur as rudeness, I don’t express myself with the intention to placate, either. I have done that far too often in my early years and have regretted it. Staying silent to keep the peace, in order to survive is really an illusion we have been agreeing to in this industry for a long time. I have been that non-being, thrust into the void that Rich speaks of, and the collective in my case were fellow writers who helped me climb out of it. I have only one life to express with no guarantee of a tomorrow. To stay silent in the face of even the most subtle, pervasive abuse seems to me an admission of agreement with the ‘overlords,’ to quote Anne. I will not agree to be a non-being, or to suck it up, or to look the other way when a group I care deeply about is asked to play the role first of serfs and then of whipping boys… or whipping persons if I must for those who are easily offended.
I read Kiana’s post when it first went up, but I hadn’t heard the Industry response. Glad to get your take on it all. Thanks. The real message seems to be: We’re the overlords; you’re the serf. We will squash you like a bug for even thinking you are an autonomous individual.
A voice of reason in a world gone mad. Thanks for going where others fear to tread.
That reminds me. I’ve got a couple of novels here, and I’ve been meaning to get around to submitting them to somebody…somewhere.
PG, I gotta say it: you’re beautiful when you’re angry.
[...] defend the publisher. The Passive Guy (a lawyer by profession) tears this response to shreds in a very amusing post titled 'Stupid Authors, Don't They Know Their [...]
Thanks for all the terrific comments.
[...] Buckell on writers and pellets. And last but not least Passive Guy on Stupid Little Authors (another hilarious reading to conclude the [...]
[...] expresses himself quite unfortunately. Passive Guy, who actually is a lawyer in his offline life, takes apart his arguments here. The agent responds to Passive Guy [...]
This was awesome.
Thanks, Joe.
[...] But this publishing company saw it as competition. Not only that, but an agent was blind enough to back the publisher’s approach on [...]