So I Was Only About 4 Months Off: Wasserman Resigns From LA Times

LA Observed reports that sources have confirmed the resignation of LAT Book Review Editor Steve Wasserman, rumors of which have been bandied about since the end of January.

About two weeks before the Festival of Books, Steve called me and asked me out to lunch, which was something of a surprise since I'd written a rather lengthy piece on what I thought was wrong with the book review when the rumors first began circulating, and because, well, it's not every day that I come home from grocery shopping at Trader Joe's and have a message from Steve Wasserman on my voice mail. At any rate, I was compelled by the invitation and we agreed to meet a few days later to talk about books and about the book review and about whatever people generally talk about on a first date -- life, love, mistakes, that sort of thing.

I didn't know Steve before we went to lunch -- I'd met him on a few occasions, but never anything beyond a handshake -- and I can't say I know him now necessarily, though I will say that we had a very enjoyable two hour lunch at the Times and that for those two hours we talked, often passionately, about what we both liked and disliked about the Book Review and about what the future might portend for the Review. I told him my opinion of different reviewers and reviews, queried him on decisions he'd made and not made and left the conversation feeling like being the editor of a book review was a job without much margin for victory, or error. Steve took it on the chin from me for two hours and gave it right back, which I respected, and in the end I felt like he took some of my harshest criticisms to heart. I wouldn't say we reached an accord necessarily, but my sense was that he understood my voice wasn't singular, that I spoke to him as an author, a journalist and, perhaps most importantly, a devoted and disappointed reader.

And I liked him. Really. He was funny and personable and interesting. We even talked about his white suit. Really. I guess the one thing that sticks out most in my mind about our lunch was that he seemed invested in his work and that he'd come to a point where it had become important to meet his detractors head on, if only to find out information he might have preferred not to know. Of course, I write fiction for a living, so maybe my impression of him is colored by what I'd hope a character of his ilk might feel inside, and in that way I suppose it's all supposition on my part. Even still, when I asked him, "So, are you leaving or not?" he smiled and said, "I'll be here until I'm not." It was something of an existential response, but it also turned out to be startling accurate.

Whomever takes over the top spot at the Review, be it someone like Nick Owchar, the acting deputy editor, whose reviews I've always found well-written and well-thought out (and who once had the indignity of moderating a panel I was on directly after I'd spent the previous 30 minutes vomiting across the UCLA campus as a result of some very bad Thai food the night previous) or someone from outside the paper, the onus will be on them to create a book review that manages to marry Wasserman's admittedly lofty literary goals with the public's very vocal desire to have a review they can actually read come Sunday morning. That means matching strong reviewers with strong books, understanding all the while that good authors aren't always good reviewers, and that fresh voices in all categories of the review would be a welcome change, especially as it relates to genre fiction. In short, relevance and importance befitting a book review in the nation's 2nd largest market.

Whatever happens, Wasserman can hang his hat on the massive success of the Festival of Books and the increased influence of the Book Prizes, both of which have prospered under his tenure. I'd also venture to say Wasserman will find a new home soon, be it back in publishing or at the helm of another paper's book review, and I'd put good money on him taking the white suit with him.

Finally, perhaps the one thing people forget, and which I am certainly guilty of as well, is that Wasserman is just a guy with a job, a guy with a wife and kids (four, I believe) and a mortgage like the rest of us, and so even if I wasn't always happy with the product he produced, I do hope his career move is one he wanted to make.

Comments

[Angela]

I think it's time. Here's hoping the LATBR does become something I'll read all the way through, not skim. But Tod, you make some good points and I am happy to see you not completely bash the hell out of the guy. I'm glad Wasserman has come to the conclusion we all had come to many months ago. Good luck to him.

[Guyot]

"Hi, Tod. Long time listener, first time poster... just wanted to say 'Excellent piece.' And I don't mean your ass, which isn't bad from what I hear. Oh, and by the way - anyone who has Bon Jovi lyrics on their banner can't be all bad."

[Molly Luden]

"Whomever takes over the top spot at the Review, be it someone like Nick Owchar."

Just wanted you to know that the correct usage is "Whoever takes over the top spot..."

You're welcome.

[David J. Montgomery]

Damn, I hope she's trying to make a joke.

[Tod Goldberg]

Always weird when I get an email from a character I've created...but the correction has been made. And, uh, just for clarity: what is the rule on that one?

[Guyot]

I don't like it nearly as much now...

[David J. Montgomery]

Word is, Wasserman is going to be an agent.

By the way, isn't he the same dude who invented the test for syph?

[Karen]

If it's subject-y, use "who" (substitute he/she/they). If it's object-y, use "whom" (substitute her/him/them).

Who gave you the book?
He gave you the book?

You gave the book to whom?
You gave the book to her?

But why is the grammatrix talking about your ass? And who else is involved? ( . . . which I've heard . . . )

Did Wasserman ever write any reviews himself? How were they?

[Tono Rondone]

I was there at UCLA for that zoo that Goldberg praises (of course, he got paid to present a class at the LATFB, so why not?), but the reality of the situation is that Wasserman was inacessible to the vast majority of writers in America because he was a member of the elite establishment of journalists that can afford to have a mortage like Tod, too, an established, albeit minor commercial writer of pulp fiction. But what about the unknown and prohibited from being reviewed self published authors of real literature, those voices squashed by the corporate greed mongers and their lackeys like present company?
Sure I'm biased because Goldberg panned my latest novel, but then again, if he'd liked it, then I'd be like him, which I'm not. I haven't sold out to the programmed appetites of the masses lulled into apathy by an unscrupulous press.
I haven't put my great talent to the craft of selling garbage and calling it great art.
Gosh, what an American Tragedy. Meanwhile, check out The Martyrs, a book Tod Goldberg nor Steve Wasserman could have ever written, by none other than me, a shameless self promoter.

[David J. Montgomery]

Tono, I wonder if you've ever considered that your books have failed because they're no good?

[Tod Goldberg]

I got paid for that? Why didn't anyone tell me? I am apparently now a shill for the LA Times, which would be cool provided I got the paper for free and periodically got to wear Pat Morrison's hats.

[Mark A. York]

"self published authors of real literature" That's a tough one to support with the track record. Even if you're good it's guilt by association. Submit to legitimate publications for the real test. There is always a chance what David said is true.

[frakman]

"But what about the unknown and prohibited from being reviewed self published authors of real literature, those voices squashed by the corporate greed mongers and their lackeys like present company?"

They suck, Tono.

By your "logic," the unpublished, or self-published, are writing real literature and everyone else is a talentless lackey...

...though you;d gladly jump at the chance to be published and paid.

So what does that make you? A talentless asshole.

"Sure I'm biased because Goldberg panned my latest novel, but then again, if he'd liked it, then I'd be like him, which I'm not."

Goldberg read your swill? Why??

"I haven't sold out to the programmed appetites of the masses lulled into apathy by an unscrupulous press."

But you would in an instant. You're transparent AND an asshole.

[Tanya Mravik]

Tono,

Why don't you take writing courses at UCLA Extension? Even though Tod teaches there (and you don't seem to like him - although if not then why are you reading his blog site? Just curious.), there are lots of other instructors who have all had work published.

The writing courses offered by UCLA Extension Writers' Program are taught in workshop format so that you get feedback from the instructor (again, who has been published) as well as fellow students who are also writers (some of whom have already been published - see Bylines in the Writers' Program Quarterly) and are your potential market for buying your books once they have been published.

All good writers worth their salt belong to writing groups or take classes. Writing is a continual revision process.

For advising, please contact Tanya Mravik (yes me) at 310/ 825-9416 or tmravik@uclaextension.edu or visit the UCLA Extension Writers' Program website at www.uclaextension.edu/writers to view course listings. The summer quarter schedule will be posted online (and the print catalog will be available for pick-up) on Wednesday, May 11th.

Being published does not make you a sell-out. It makes you a published author.

[David J. Montgomery]

"All good writers worth their salt belong to writing groups or take classes."

Have to disagree with that one. I suppose a few successful writers do that, but most are too busy writing to play around. Writing groups and classes are helpful for some, but they're hardly requisites.

[rob roberge]

David--

Not trying to start a fight here, but taking some issue...

I suppose "successful writers" becomes a subjective thing (for instance, Jackie Collins is 'successful' in terms of sale, as is Tom Clancy, but they both suck...and, yes, i've read them)...it's been my experience that most writers who are any good (and yes, I realize that's a loaded term...'good' being at least as subjective as any other term) have studied their craft...whether in a class setting (as most writers), or in a literary salon (like Hemingway, who studied privately at the feet of the best teacher of the generation, Gertrude Stein).

It's not the path everyone takes, but most published writers (and I say this as a writer and editor for 20+ years now) have taken classes, and to suggest otherwise is to (unwittingly or not) particpate in a dumbing down anti-intellectual position that, I'd argue, isn't really based in fact.

Who, for instance are these "most" writers who are too busy writing to "play around?" Let's name names?

My off-the-top-of-my head list of those who "played around" in classes includes Raymond Carver, Amy Hemple, Darrell Spencer, TC Boyle, Anne Beattie...I could go on...for a really long time...Russell Banks, Richards Yates...Marquez, Joyce C. Oates, Joy Williams...

who are these great writers (the majority of writers, you seem to claim) who didn't study their craft in a class or with a direct study with a great editor/write (like Elliot with Pound)?

And please--not fighting--just a topic I love :)

All best--yours in cheerful debate.

Rob

And Tanya--NEVER send people like this Tono person to anyone's class. It's not nice.

Tod got paid? I didn't get paid. Tod always does better than me!

Angry and bitter

R

[David J. Montgomery]

I was thinking more of the writing group aspect of it, when I mentioned playing around, but I hardly think it's necessary to study creative writing in order to be a good writer.

I haven't done a study of it, but I know a slew of successful crime fiction writers and, although the rare few have MFAs or whatever, I've never heard any of them attribute their success to classes they took. They are people who loved to read and decided to write. For most folks, it doesn't seem to be anything as formalized as studying to be a writer.

I was being a litle flippant, but telling people they need to study writing or workshop in order to be good writers is just silly.

[rob roberge]

Well, whether it's formalized (in a class) or not, all writers 'study writing,' but i hear you.

But writing is a craft and studying one's craft is never a bad idea. The idea that knowldge is bad is a dangerous one. The idea that it's not necessary to study a craft is at least as silly as saying it's needed. I'm not big on absolutes...people arive at their destinations different ways...

I like to drive on bridges built by people who studied structural engineering and, in general, though there are exceptions of course (but they are the excetion rather than the rule...again, for me), the books built to last were built by people who studied how to make them.

Miles Davis went to Juliard, and no one but a moron suggests you can't teach music theory...why is there such a resistance to suggesting that writers benefit from narrative theory?

Whether it's formalized in a classroom setting, or from an editor or agent (which i'd guess every writer you're talking about has been through) every writer gets tips from someone with more experience and a trained eye.

But--I'm using what you said as a taking off point--and more reacting to a general attitude that's out there (more tahn a direct response at this point, David...you seem like a fine and smart fellow :) that writing is this savant art form (which it's not), rather than a craft that is studied (and, in general studied hard) by the people who do it.

All best-

love your websites by the way

Rob

PS--on teh self-pub front...Walt Whitman and Katchy Acker did it, and they both were pretty great.

[David J. Montgomery]

Sure, everyone studies their craft and works their fingers to the bone to hone their abilities. I was just responding to the idea that it needs to be done in a formalized way.

I'm all for scaring off would-be writers (there are too many bad ones around as it is) but you certainly don't have to take a class to be a good writer.

[rob roberge]

True.

There are good writers who don't take classes. We're in agreement there :)

Off to ebay.

[David J. Montgomery]

By the way, I was sorry that I missed your book when it came out recently. I heard good things.

[rob roberge]

It's still out :) Can still be gotten.

And thanks, to whoever (whomever? i didn't study the above posting) said those good things.

[David J. Montgomery]

I have it. :) I just wish I'd had the chance to read it and review it back when. There are too damn many books published.

[Tod Goldberg]

Uh, yeah, Tanya: please no more advertising to people who don't like me...I already gotta sweat out the evaluations of people who do (and besides, Tono lives in Las Vegas).

[David J. Montgomery]

How bad was his book?

[Tanya Mravik]

Hey Tod,

Tono can always take online courses through UCLA Extension Writers' Program.

That's my way of saying, "Please continue teaching for us on-ground and don't move to online teaching." :)

For those people who are not necessarily great writers and who write books without ever having taken a writing class (and I do not know that this is necessarily the case with Tono), writing classes can be beneficial even when taught by someone other than the great Tod-meister. Or Rob. :)

And you won't have to worry about bad evals once I start taking courses with you! :)

[Lee Goldberg]

David,

You can read the first couple chapters of Tono's self-published masterpiece on line (www.piscesbooks.com). You should...it's a howler.

[Lee Goldberg]

All good writers worth their salt belong to writing groups or take classes. Writing is a continual revision process.

NO offense, but I think that's an awfully broad generalization. When I was a student at UCLA, I took one creative writing class (with Brian Moore) and one screenwriting class (with Richard Walter)...and that's it. I have never been part of a writing group. I may not be worth my salt, but I've still managed to have a fairly successful career in both publishing and television.

Yes, it's a good idea to take classes (and I always recommend that aspiring writers take as many as they can), but I'm sure there have been many acclaimed and successful writers who haven't (beyond their high school or college English classes, of course). By the same token, there I'm sure there have been some truly awful writers who have taken dozens of classes and will never be successful writers and who will always suck.

[anonymous]

I took the bait and went to the website of Tono Rondone and can say without shame that his writing is some kind of awful combined with the ramblings of a true mad man. I then did a quick web search on him and for good fun you should see the comments he leaves in other places.

[Tono Rondone]

Gosh, I really dig the insinuating and deglamorizing comments posted here!

They remind me that the only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you.

It's glorifying to read comments about my work like "The ramblings of a true madman," "(His) self published masterpiece is a howler," "Goldberg read your swill, why?" and finally, "Your books have failed because they're no good."

Now, one must ask oneself, if I'm so daft, how come all these people spent the time to diss me?

None of them has the book except Goldbrick, and to him, in person, I was just too much. Plus The Martyrs is not a me too book, not a formula book, not a money making book by NYC or UCLA standards, and that stuck in Todless' fat craw.

He said to me, "It's too bad you don't take your writing talent and write something of commercial value, something that will sell, something like everybody else writes, copying others that have made a buck, like me."

Well, not exactly in those words, but you get the point. Gosh, and that's Literature, that's art. What a nebish.

Notice the anonymous post? Also, on my Amazon.com page, there's a similar anonymous denigrating post, at about the same date. Why? Because I called Goldburger onto the carpet for his trash and in return he got his twin nerd and his cache of anonymous purveyors of calumny to launch a smear campaign against me and my books and other works of art.

Tod Goldberg didn't even have the guts to post a derogatory review on Amazon.com; he did it in disguise.

Oh, yeah, I'm glad to see Toddler bash the hell out of me. Makes my millenium. Meanwhile, what'll he bash next?

Oh, BTW, I'm grateful I have never read a word of the Godburn twins.

[Lee Goldberg]

None of them has the book except Goldbrick, and to him, in person, I was just too much. Plus The Martyrs is not a me too book, not a formula book, not a money making book by NYC or UCLA standards, and that stuck in Todless' fat craw.

I love it! I have no idea what the point is of calling him Todless (is he less Tod than you, or me, or anyone else?) but I laughed loud any way. For what it's worth, I bet THE MARTYRS isn't a money-making book by anyone's standards.

Because I called Goldburger onto the carpet for his trash and in return he got his twin nerd and his cache of anonymous purveyors of calumny to launch a smear campaign against me and my books and other works of art.

"His cache of anonymous purveyors of calumny." Great stuff! (as if Tod or I are shy about stating our opinions in public, but that's beside the point). This entire comment of your is hands down the funniest piece of writing I have read in months. Tono, please, get a blog of your own. I'm being honest here. Trash Tod. Trash me. Trash whoever you want. You're hilarious. It's a shame your other writing isn't this entertaining...

[Jocelyn]

The Martyrs is not a me too book, not a formula book, not a money making book by NYC or UCLA standards, and that stuck in Todless' fat craw.

Ye Gods, and I thought I was pretentious!

his cache of anonymous purveyors of calumny

I agree, Lee, that line is a gem. It needs to be engraved on the Trophy of Grandiloquent Language for all time.

to launch a smear campaign against me and my books and other works of art.

That's it, Tono! Why didn't I see it before?! Lee and Todd are the true philistines of the twenty-first century, crusading to destroy all those works of art, those noble failures written by people just too damn brilliant to be understood by normal members of the human race, with a BLOG SMEAR CAMPAIGN!

Call the newspapers! Call the press! We must stop their smear campaign to destroy your works of art, which otherwise would languish in obscurity basking in the light of your solitary joy in their undiscovered, unconfirmed, unapproved BRILLIANCE!

Oh, weep for the art that is sullied on the blogs of the Goldbergs! WEEP FOR IT!

[Tod Goldberg]

I don't know how many different ways to say this to you, Tono, because all the times I've said it to you via private email hasn't worked. So let's try it in public and see how that works:

I don't care about you. I don't care about your work. I don't care that you both envy me and hate me because I've 1)been published and 2)you haven't and 3) I thought your book wasn't very good and 4) on occassion, people have found my work enjoyable. I didn't leave any remarks about your book on Amazon, positive or negative, and never would because...well...see the first line of this paragraph.

I didn't like your book Tono. Sorry. I've come to find out that I don't like you, either. Sorry about that as well. But really, who the fuck cares? On the upside, it's been about 25 years since anyone made fun of my first or last name, and oddly, that person probably was a shitty writer, too. But of course, that person was only 9.

[Lee Goldberg]

Tono has a blog! http://piscesbooks.blogspot.com/

He laments on his blog that the National Endowment for the Arts won't give him a grant.

[tonouno]

Nice. Just want I was hoping for. All kinds of mentions of my name, my work, my blog. Nice and nicer still. It's fun to be a remedial writer and a boring human being. It's fun to see how easy it is to rile the vain and the petty.

And, amazingly, I actually had a couple of Tod's blog posts defect over to my blog and give me a little veiled encouragement in my fight against the corrupt and the banal . . . in art.

I'm glad to hear Tod didn't post a hate review on Amazon.com. Still, it's a remarkable coincidence, and I don't believe in coincidences.

Just so we can set the record completely straight in the public eye, here's how Tod got my book.

I met him in Vegas at a bookfest in front of the booth for a now defunct rag in town called The Mercury. I knew him, knew the titles of his books, and was glad to meet him and more than glad to shove a book in his hands.

He read a few chapters (maybe) and told me later, "It's not my cup of tea." What eloquence!

Then he said he might be wrong and I might win The National Book Award (wrong again, it's self published), but hey, you can't put chapter seven there because it doesn't move the narrative along and it's too bad you don't take your talent and write something of commercial value.

Then later still in an email he said it was boring, etc., ad nauseum.

Fine. I gave what turned out to be a Christian book to a member of the Jewish religion. What could I expect?

But my beef has been the same all along. Dig, don't you people understand that the individual artist doesn't amount to squat in this environment of monopolies and trusts? Don't you realize that in America, there is no free speech because freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if no one can hear your words or read them because the powers that be have very effectively made them mute by not allowing them to be broadcast, be printed, be heard and read?

Why do you think I'm here, working so hard and taking so many knocks? Because I'm a tenacious son of a sheep herder from Sicily and I want the American Dream as much as anyone. But where is it for me? Seen my website lately? www.piscesbooks.com? How much money have I got from working in the arts for thirty years? Nothing. I've spent my entire fortune trying to enrich this miserable culture, and what I get for it is abuse and riotous laughter? It's no wonder I've stooped to 9 year old name games.

Meanwhile, individuals will comment about whining and sour grapes. I challenge each person who lambasts me or my work: what have you done lately that you would put up as an example of courageous, non market driven, unique art?

[David J. Montgomery]

Sorry, Tono, but it all just sounds like excuses to me. You've practiced your art for 30 years with no success? Doesn't that tell you something? Isn't it at least possible that the reason you've failed to find an audience is because what you're writing isn't to readers tastes?

If your art is so courageous and non market driven, why do you continually lament your lack of commercial success? If the publishers are nothing but evil corporate lackeys of the bourgeois, right-wing capitalist establishment, why do you care if they reject you? Shouldn't that be a badge of honor for you that your work is "too good" for New York?

You've self-published your novel, it's available for anyone who wants to buy it. Why do you keep railing against all the "forces" that you suppose are keeping you down?

Your speech is out there. You are free to be heard. No one is silencing you. But no one is guaranteed an audience. I think that's the part that is really upsetting to you. No one is listening and no one cares. So either change the message or suffer in silence.

[Jocelyn]

But where's the blog? I keep getting a "Cannot Find Server!" I want to read Tono's railings against the Publishing Machine! (/whine)

[Jocelyn]

I gave what turned out to be a Christian book to a member of the Jewish religion. What could I expect?

Ya know, Tono, I think that definitely ranks among the most classless statements I've encountered on either of the Goldbergs' blogs, and considering the knock-down, drag-outs I've had with some of these guys, that's saying something.

That was also one of the major beefs I had with The Martyrs in the excerpt on your website: you never explain to the reader WHY Justina and whatshisname go Christian! These kids have supposedly been reared and taught faith in their parents' deities their whole lives--what about the Christian "cult" wins them over?

That's a basic rule of writing, I don't care what your art of choice is. If the reasons behind the characters' choices don't make sense, the story doesn't make sense.

So YOU like your own art. Big fat hairy deal. That's not enriching our miserable culture--that's enriching yourself. More power to you. But don't whine if as a result nobody feels especially enriched by your work.

I challenge each person who lambasts me or my work: what have you done lately that you would put up as an example of courageous, non market driven, unique art?

http://www.fictionpress.com/read.php?storyid=1741721

[claire]

http://www.fictionpress.com/read.php?storyid=1741721

That's not bad, Jocelyn. I mean that. Do you do a lot of flash fiction?

[claire]

Oh. I'd show Tono my "courageous, non market driven, unique art", but, like him, I'm trying to sell it.

[Jocelyn]

That's not bad, Jocelyn. I mean that.

(Blushing) Thank you. I admit I didn't think it was bad, although considering I wrote it in forty-five minutes during class last semester, I didn't think it was great.

Do you do a lot of flash fiction?

That's the first original short story I've done in a long time. I'm working on two-and-a-half longer novels that I also intend to try and sell.

And I suppose you could call my stuff "market-driven", if by that you mean that I actually try to do RESEARCH for my historical and Biblical novels and believe in a little thing called character development, which as far as I know are industry norms!

[claire]

Who the hell knows what Tono means by 'market-driven'. I presume he means writers write what people want to buy, or some such nonsense. Stupid, really. I mean, Why the hell would I want somebody to buy it? How much more noble to keep it hidden in a locker under my bed.

believe in a little thing called character development, which as far as I know are industry norms!

I've heard the same. You are so going to smack me for saying this, but the Legions have a song about how fanfic differs from realfic. Pretty much made me shoot my tuna sandwich out my nose when I saw it. Well, maybe you should smack them for it. I think they plan to post it sometime.

[Jocelyn]

Like I told him, if you want to write for YOU, stories that YOU like and YOU feel are good and entertain YOU, more power to you. (And I won't smack you if you don't smack me for saying that the aforementioned is not unlike the motivation for writing fanfic.)

The problem crops up when Tono and his ilk scream because other people don't find their "art" as artistic as they do and can't understand why they don't want to read it. It's a self-absorbtion thing, really.

"Gee whiz, if someone else doesn't agree with my exceedingly BIASED opinion of how good my art is, there must be something wrong with THEM!"

[claire]

I was kidding, Jocelyn. I write my stuff for market. I want to get paid for it. I like to receive checks. Checks are good. Especially if they're good checks.

I know about the motivation for writing fanfic. Used to do a fair bit of it myself. So I know about MY motivation for writing fanfic. And don't smack me for the songs, I didn't write them. You can smack The Legions and Shaking Heads, but I don't think they give a shit if you do.

Regarding Tono. He's in it for the money, just like the rest of us. Problem is, he's pissed nobody will pay him for it.

[Jocelyn]

By YOU, I meant people generally, not you personally. I think most writers who aren't completely impressed with themselves write for "the market" (translation: general ability for people to read and like and buy them).

I quite agree with your assessment of Tono, though his problem is that he presumes that the reason he isn't getting paid is some flaw in other people, rather than with his "art". Hence the self-absorbtion thing I mentioned. Maybe if he'd accept the idea that his writing DOES need some serious editing and style changes, he'd have more success getting people other than himself interested.

[claire]

Heh. He's not accepting anything until he gets himself dx'd and on the proper meds. Hollering at the people he wants to help him doesn't help either.

[Jocelyn]

(Giggle!)

That kind of thing works for Anne Rice and other published nutsos AFTER they've made their zillions of bucks, but to scream, "I'm not letting anyone change my pwecious ART!!!!!" BEFORE getting his contacts established isn't exactly the best policy.

[claire]

Sheesh! Did Anne Rice kill your kitten or something? Fanfic people go so nuts over her. She just doesn't want you mucking with her characters. What is the big deal? Plenty of people say stupid stuff everyday, but the woman can't say anything without FW making a case out of it.

Did you see that article about JKR not wanting obscene stories written about her stuff?

[Jocelyn]

Oh, my laughing at Anne Rice has nothing to do with the fanfiction issue. Haven't you heard? The woman is BONKERS! She sells T-shirts with prints of a scan of her BRAIN on them, refuses to let any of her work be edited, replies to reviews of her material on Amazon (she said something about how "if you don't like my story, you aren't interrogating it correctly," I'll see if I can find the URL), and shows up at book signings dressed in a wedding gown to remind the Vampire Lestat that she's his bride.

Celebrity shenanegans always get attention, especially when they're so frickin' funny!

And I approve and endorse JKR's attitude towards obscene material on her stuff, as do most fanwriters. I (like most of the FW crowd) laugh at Anne Rice because her ego has formed a personality of its own, and the resulting antics are just hilarious.

[claire]

dressed in a wedding gown to remind the Vampire Lestat that she's his bride.

blink.

What's unusual about that? I do it all the time.

And I approve and endorse JKR's attitude towards obscene material on her stuff, as do most fanwriters

yeah, yeah, the official stance. You may approve and endorse it, but I think most fanwriters pay it lip service at best, judging by the amount out there and the places its housed. But we're back to what's considered 'obscene' and that's best discussed elsewhere.

[Jocelyn]

Well, if you plan on cat-fighting Anne for him, let me know. Wouldn't miss it.

JKR is fairly tolerant of some of the weirder kinds of fanfic out there (she herself cites free speech often as why she lets it go on) and saves her lawyers for only the kinds of material that could be stopped in court under child pornography laws. Believe me, you won't find THAT in the average archive.

[claire]

I hope to hell JKR isn't tolerant of the 'weirder' brands of fanfic as you put it. Her agent says in the article that her books are aimed at children. If her idea of 'all right' are stories of Harry and Draco dropping ecstasy before they have explicit sex, then she's got as many screws loose as Ms. Rice.

As I said, this is better discussed elsewhere. We've rather commandeered this thread, and it's not our blog.

[Jocelyn]

Agreed. I am doing a little bio on the antics of Anne Rice on my LJ, which shall be up shortly. Feel free to pop over and find out why the Fandom world keeps such a close eye on the lady.

And you can always commandeer my LJ for discussions of obscenity, free speech, and fandom. You might have gotten the impression that I enjoy gabbing on that subject. ;-)

[claire]

Thanks for the invite, but better you join the jam if you feel like talking with unlikeminded individuals. None of us cares for LJ and won't post there. I know why Fandom keeps such a close eye on the lady. She won't let you play in her sandbox. Anyway, enough of this over here. Apologies, Mr. Goldberg. Got away from us.

[todfan]

you have to love blogs. an essay, and a rather good one, about steve wasserman becomes a rant by an anti-semite and a discussion on fan fictio and ann rice.

[Jim Winter]

The only real tragedy here is that we keep devoting so much energy to it.

But then people tend to do that with trainwrecks, don't they?