 |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) lagringa |
| 2007-12-26 23:44 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| astroboy |
|
Okay, as a SF/F marketing & publicity person, I just have to say I think creating a "fake" publicist is fucking brilliant.
Almost no publisher will look at press material that comes directly from an author. Very few bookstores will book an event with an author who is self-published. (I ran a bookstore event program for six years.)
Let's face it: self-published screams "I AM CRAP!" It might not always be true, but most of the time it is. Most of the time, editors and agents are going to run the other way (and rightfully so).
I know of a couple authors (whose names will never be revealed by me!) who created fake agents for the very same reason. It got them noticed. It was just enough to get an editor to look twice at a query, and sometimes thats all you need.
Now, I wouldn't recommend every author do this, not unless you have some actual PR background and know how to fake it the right way.
But, hey, more power to him!
Reply | Thread | Link
Better that than hire a real publicist, like a friend of mine last year, and have him run off with a check ending in several zeroes, then not do any work...
"Mr. Tompkins, who writes under the name Troy CLE, also combined elements of hip-hop, video gaming, anime and science fiction and peppered the book with pop-culture references. “This book is an ode to everything I loved as a kid,” he said."
I want to know if there's still room in the genre for my mix of alt-rock/indie, cooking, paint-by-numbers and epic fantasy peppered with pop-culture novel!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| karindira |
| 2007-12-27 02:43 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
It reminds me of how Michael Dorris became a literary agent for the purposes of getting Louise Erdrich's first novel read (and subsequently published).
Which, you know, was also brilliant.
Edited at 2007-12-27 02:44 am (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
Sounds like you didn't get my email telling you about that poll when I launched it.
Reply | Thread | Link
I love it! It's a brilliant ploy and as I've always say, if you can pull off the Big Hoax, make it happen! Plus, in reality, the guy probably did really good publicity for himself and could easily become a real publicist if he tired of writing.
Of course, I've always been said to have slightness in the area of ethics.
CHris
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| kadath |
| 2007-12-27 00:55 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
Wow. Talk about bad messaging to aspiring writers. At least that's how it seems to me. What do you think of this?
How is faking a publicist worse than hiring one? It's not like publicists are renowned for being paragons of truthfulness.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| pnh |
| 2007-12-27 03:58 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I don't understand what you mean by "bad messaging to aspiring writers". The entertainment industry changes constantly. When deciding whether to take an unusual opportunity, exactly how much is anyone obliged to consider what "message" it imaginably "sends" to "aspiring writers"?
I understand deploring the valorization of jerk behavior. Lie to me and there's a reasonable probability that I won't want to have anything further to do with you, even if you're a brilliant storyteller. I also understand that in the greater scheme of things, if you're a brilliant storyteller it doesn't entirely matter if you're an asshole who tells lies and cons people.
These two uncomfortable truths co-exist--uncomfortably. First, as Auden wrote in "In Memory of W. B. Yeats" -- and then deleted the lines from subsequent editions: Time, that is intolerant
Of the brave and innocent
And forgetful, in a week
Of a beautiful physique--
Worships language, and forgives
All of those who by it live.
Pardons cowardice, deceit;
Lays its honors at their feet. Second, if you're an asshole in the service of your genuine talent, you're still an asshole. Being talented doesn't make you a good person, nor is it a Get Out Of Jail Free card for treating other people badly. Third, sometimes the system is broken and corrupt, and a certain amount of rascality is necessary to defeat it. Fourth, the fact that you've been rejected so far isn't necessarily proof that the system is broken and corrupt. That's several stages of ambivalence, none of which have anything to do with "messaging to aspiring writers." We have little responsibility to "aspiring writers." We have enough on our plates sorting out our own ethical and aesthetic dilemmas. The needs of "aspiring writers" belong far down the hierarchy of importance, well behind those of "our colleagues" and "our readers".
Reply | Thread | Link
Patrick pretty much summed up everything I wanted to add here. Added some poetry, took out the circumlocutious double-speak and purple prose that I'm prone to write --- took out all my ellipse abuse ... and well... made me sound brilliant.
In truth, that was far deeper than any opinion I had on that particular link-salad snippet.
This: The needs of "aspiring writers" belong far down the hierarchy of importance, well behind those of "our colleagues" and "our readers". <--- that's made of awesome!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| shalanna |
| 2007-12-28 03:42 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I'm hoping that I'm misreading this, and that in context it is less nasty than it seems . . . because it is worrisome if industry people say in general that "the needs of aspiring writers belong far down the hierarchy . . . well behind those of our colleagues and our readers." If this means merely that their first responsibility is to serve the needs of readers and colleagues, and that they don't have to worry about what those who are not part of the industry may think, then that's fine. They shouldn't have to worry about what the unpublished types might think about what they do, and they don't owe us anything except the respect they'd accord to any fellow human being. (They're not in the business of setting examples.) But if it's saying that aspiring writers are such worthless jerks that their needs belong way down below the needs of the Anointed Elect, then it's worrisome. After all, some of us are also readers, and we're fellow human beings (mostly.) It would surprise me to hear that from this quarter, frankly. But perhaps I'm wrong. Why is this quotation "awesome"?
However, I don't quite understand what's being said, even taken in the context of "we dislike this idiot who lied about having a publicist and pretended to be his own publicist." I also don't understand the part about not being able to hire a publicist (assuming the author had the cash to do so). I know several publicists who need the work and aren't tough to find, so I can't see how this person "couldn't get a publicist." (Just hire somebody . . . how tough is that, if you have the cash?) Maybe this is a consequence of poor reading comprehension on my part, but I don't think so, because I generally have somewhat good reading comprehension.
It would be nice if someone could explain.
Maybe it's just me.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link
 |
|
When deciding whether to take an unusual opportunity, exactly how much is anyone obliged to consider what "message" it imaginably "sends" to "aspiring writers"?
If you're the person who will be inundated by more aspiring writers trying to do the same thing or something very similiar, I would think *very very carefully* about what message I am sending. Imagine saying innocently 'it came with a bar of chocolate, so I picked it out of the slushpile and started reading' - and now imagine what your slushpile will look like next week....
We have little responsibility to "aspiring writers."
Maybe not - but today's aspiring writers, at least the best of them, are hopefully tomorrow's bestselling authors, so I would have thought there's a certain self-interest in not discouraging the lot.
the fact that you've been rejected so far isn't necessarily proof that the system is broken and corrupt.
I'll support that statement fully. I'm in that unenviable place right now where nobody loves my writing enough (yet) to buy it, and if you made me dictator over all the world I'd change a few things about the system - but the more I learn about the industry, the less I am willing to join into the 'it's so unfair' chorus.
On balance, though, I prefer a world where hard work and persistence count more than publicity stunts.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
|
| pnh |
| 2007-12-28 14:40 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
"If you're the person who will be inundated by more aspiring writers trying to do the same thing or something very similiar, I would think *very very carefully* about what message I am sending.
Well, arguably, I am that person. Or one of those people.
"Today's aspiring writers, at least the best of them, are hopefully tomorrow's bestselling authors, so I would have thought there's a certain self-interest in not discouraging the lot."
I'll put my own record as an editor and teacher up against anyone else's in this conversation. Count the first novels I've published and the workshops I've taught. I don't need to be lectured about the value of helping talented unpublished writers along.
But if there's a message I'm actually concerned about sending to "aspiring writers", it's that this isn't your sixth grade homeroom, the things that look like a "system" are actually just a set of contingent improvisations that might well change next week, and that while we all "prefer a world where hard work and persistence count more than publicity stunts", the plain fact is that readers looking for something to entertain them don't much care at all. The woman at an airport bookstall, the guy browsing the Barnes and Noble at Union Square--neither of them is thinking to themselves "I want to read an author who got published due to virtuous hard work and persistence." They're thinking "What looks interesting?" Full stop.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link
| (Anonymous) |
| 2007-12-27 04:36 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
I agree, faking a publicist yourself is probably better than hiring one.
It's stories like this that make people not believe me when I tell them that I got my book published exactly the way all the Writers Digest guides and just about everybody tells you how to get published. (query letter to established agent, etc. etc.)
They still want to know my "in" and the secret handshake I used.
Carrie
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| jaylake |
| 2007-12-27 13:55 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
Yep. My story is a little more convoluted, but still involves the traditional approaches.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
Talk about bad messaging to aspiring writers. At least that's how it seems to me. What do you think of this?
Honestly? I'm appalled. And I have read the other comments, so I know I'm in the minority here.
This guy lied, pretended to be someone he wasn't, and not only does he get rewarded by landing a contract with a big publisher, he goes in front of high school classes and brags about it.
There's a real lesson in morality for you. Scam the system, skip all the hard work and hey! its okay because it worked.
Add disgusted to appalled.
Reply | Thread | Link
|
| karindira |
| 2007-12-27 05:45 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I do see your point... maybe it has more to do with people's feelings about the system, as opposed to their feelings about personal honesty?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
I'm as frustrated with the system and the slowness built into the agent hunt as every other aspiring writer out there. But just because I'm frustrated with it doesn't mean I have the right to lie, cheat and con people to circumvent the system.
Old fashioned I know, but I can't separate my personal honesty and my professional integrity.
Will anyone in publishing ever trust this guy? No.
Should they? Hell no.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
What hard work did he skip? The way I read it, he did a lot more work because he was his own publicist.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link
 |
| jmeadows |
| 2007-12-27 16:32 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I have to agree here. His method was dishonest, and telling people how lying can work for you... And people wonder why they can't trust anyone.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
It's doubtless bad morally. I think there's a big split here with people who may think well, yeah, lying is bad and this is a bad example to kids et cetara and, seperately, people who are all "well, writing is hard, selling is harder... and y'know, no-one's going to look out for you, so look out for yourself".
I'm swinging towards the latter, but I wouldn't want him to be an example to my nieces and nephews.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link
His methods are fair, even if they were a bit dishonest. At some point, an editor had to read his book, find it marketable/publishable/etc., and take a chance on it.
What bothers me a bit more is this statement from S&S:
Mr. Pfeffer was also impressed by Mr. Tompkins’s easy rapport with young audiences. “The first and immediate appeal — and the longstanding appeal for us — is the author,” Mr. Pfeffer said.
The author, as a personality, has more of a longstanding appeal than his work? Am I reading this wrong?
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| rosefox |
| 2007-12-27 18:24 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I wonder whether those two sentences you quote are a non sequitur of sorts; both may be true but the second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. I've heard of other publishers--most notably Tom Doherty at Tor, as I recall--talking about wanting to bring on authors, not just books, and that seemed very reasonable to me. It's quite possible that Pfeffer is referring to the same sort of thing, and the person writing the article just put it in an odd context.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| scarlettina |
| 2007-12-27 16:37 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Writing |
|
I have to agree that I dislike the idea of rewarding someone who lies to get ahead. At the same time, the editor had to find the novel publishable; this writer simply found a way to raise his stuff beyond the slush pile--which is what having an agent accomplishes. The editor wouldn't have purchased the book if he didn't find something about the work that was outstanding somehow. Isn't that what levels the playing field?
I also admit to having reservations about the idea that the appeal of the author himself is more important than the work, which is what will ultimately survive. What's the point of honing craft if having a winning smile is what gets a publisher's attention? Personality isn't what survives on the page. Some would disagree, I'm sure, but the marketing tool of the author's own presence won't survive beyond he himself, and that's a handicap.
Reply | Thread | Link
| (Anonymous) |
| 2008-01-09 10:54 (UTC) |
| The Real Story Behind the "Faked" Publicist |
Hey guys, thanks for chiming in on this. Please take a look at the entire story. The NY Times only told about 2 % of the story. Please read it here:
http://blog.marvelousworld.net/?p=7
Please share it with as many authors as possible.
Thanks
Troy CLE
http://www.marvelousworld.net
http://blog.marvelousworld.net
Reply | Thread | Link
|
| jaylake |
| 2008-01-09 12:32 (UTC) |
| Re: The Real Story Behind the "Faked" Publicist |
|
I will do so. You'll be at the top of this morning's link roll.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
|
|
|
|
|
