★ The GRAVITY Lawsuit ★ | Tess Gerritsen v. Warner Bros.

I feel awful about what’s going on with the Gravity lawsuit and I support Tess Gerritsen in her bid to be made whole, 100%, because from my own legal experiences in filing original and amended complaints against a large corporation, it's very clear to me that she does indeed have the legal grounds to be made whole here.

After a review of the filings and judgments, I must say that I see it as only logical for Tess to consider retaining new counsel before amending any further. Here’s why I say this: the original complaint (which is loaded with inappropriately timed and unnecessary allegation bloat) set the tone and scope of this litigation and, in my view, it and it alone created this whole dismissal quagmire. Specifically—I cannot understand why it opens with excessive arguments, talking like this at #6:

 "6. Gerritsen is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in and subsequent to 2008, New Line and Katja have been and continue to be shell corporations wholly owned by WB and mere conduits through which WB conducts business. To the extent New Line and Katja continue to transact any business at all, it is at the sole direction and for the sole benefit of WB. Throughout the period 2008 to the present, WB exercised complete management, control, ownership, and domination over New Line and Katja. As such, there has been and is today such a unity of interest and ownership between New Line and Katja, on the one hand, and their parent WB on the other, that the separate personalities of New Line and Katja no longer exist and if their acts are not treated as the acts of WB an inequitable result will follow.”

All three entities were already named in the complaint, all three share the same address. Why did attorney Glen Kulik go into this in his initial complaint with hostile language alleging "shell corporation," and "mere conduits" and "shielding from liability," etc. right out the gate? Had WB yet claimed (publicly) that Katja or New Line were NOT shell corporations or mere conduits? Had they even denied they owned the rights to Tess's book? So why bring it up? Why open that door? If they would have been so inclined, the burden would have been on Warner Bros. to explain/deny the relationship between the entities, not on Tess. And at the very least, the initial complaint would not have given WB frivolous ground to argue for dismissal based on a phantom technicality!

Further, in Tess' first amended complaint, after a prolonged rendition of the various names New Line DBA's, we have language like:

"WB has operated under an even larger number of names. The end result is a business structure so complicated that often the individuals who run the studio cannot even keep the relationships and their own multiple titles straight at any given time."   

Why the bleep is Tess’s own attorney padding his AMENDMENT with street talk that's not even probative at this stage? His second chance to get it right?? He sounds like counsel for Warner Bros.! Why not address the fact that the contract was shuffled around and activated without Tess' knowledge, despite having an "Assignment" Clause, which was blatantly ignored?

It's a good thing these gross errors can still be corrected!

Furthermore, in its initial dismissal, the court acknowledges that Tess has made a plausible pleading to support that the movie “Gravity” is based on her book “Gravity,” but then it subsequently demonstrates all manner of etymological and linguistic failures in reasoning:

"While the court will assume for purposes of this motion that she plausibly pleads the Film was based on her Book, a "literary property” owned by Katja, in that she pleads purported similarities between the two works, and alleges that she and Katja entered into the Contract, she alleges no facts supporting her conclusion that “Katja is controlled by WB and WB is effectively the owner of the motion picture rights in the Book.” Conclusory allegations of control do not give rise to a plausible inference that Katja “transferred” rights to the Film to WB for a “fraudulent purpose.” See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (“a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”). Because Gerritsen’s fraudulent purpose theory is not supported by factual allegations, the court concludes that she has failed plausibly to plead successor-in-interest liability on this basis." 

 And in its 2nd dismissal, the Court talks like this:

"...the facts Gerritsen plead to show "total control" suggest only that WB, as parent, engaged in routine oversight of its subsidiaries, and provided support for their activities. The court previously concluded that this was not sufficient to state a claim for implied assumption of liabilities." "While such facts might give rise to a plausible inference that WB impliedly assumed Katja's and New Line's liabilities at the time it acquired their assets...the court concludes that Gerritsen has failed adequately to allege an implied assumption of liabilities sufficient to impose successor liability on WB."

Is the judge trying the case here? When the facts to be tried have already been firmly established? 

Where exactly is this judge setting the bar for "plausible inference" and "sufficient" pleadings? And why? Isn't the judge supposed to determine whether or not issues are alleged that need to be tried? Or is the Court supposed to determine whether or not the allegations are actually true? This is beyond the scope of her purview. Based on the Court's own words (which sound redundantly like those of Warner Bros.), it's clear this judge is plagued with incompetence in reasoning and, in making appropriate distinctions under the law. If Warner Bros. moves to dismiss by denying they had a contract with Tess, isn't that enough to deny their motion and allow the litigation to proceed with discovery??

As I see it, the problem here is two-fold: the tone of the judge's rulings seems fraught with bias that favors Warner Bros. + Tess's attorneys let her down in the initial complaint, either due to incompetence or deliberate sabotage. How can experienced entertainment law attorneys set the stage the way they did with that initial complaint? Are they trying to win, or just rack up billable hours? 

The initial complaint against Warner Bros. gave them the ability to assume the position that their movie “Gravity” is not even based on Tess’s book, “Gravity.” And they’re free to make this claim because they know she cannot now claim copyright infringement without contradicting her initial arguments. They are able to fabricate the claim that THEY never had a contract with her, so their movie is an ORIGINAL screenplay, and they have Tess’s own public statements to back them up.

How do we like those legal apples?

Legal acrobatics aside, what's happening here is blatant theft. Tess Gerritsen put a tremendous amount of time, research and hard work into writing GRAVITY, only to wind up screwed out of the contractual profits from a film that was brazenly based on said research and hard work. That’s just wrong.

I sincerely hope she stays strong and resolute, and takes this to the mat. If I were her, I would promptly motion to remove Judge Morrow from this case, based on her biased characterizations of the allegations (while conceding to facts already alleged) and her clear efforts to prematurely guide this toward dismissal with prejudice. Warner Bros. cannot be allowed to get away with this, whether or not it was intentional, or a structural and time-lapse oversight. They should not legally get to piecemeal this contract, benefiting from the optioned film rights but not having to fulfill the indivisible obligation to its author.

Oh, boy. What goes down sweet in your throat can certainly wind up bitter in your belly. When you get that call from your agent, or whomever, telling you you've just sold the film rights to your book, do you ever think it could wind up here?

Brainwashed...or Bribed?

O. J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark has a very interesting explanation for why the Casey Anthony jurors rendered a not guilty verdict. It's worth a read.

My take? It's more reasonable to assume these jurors were bribed than to believe that all twelve agreed such damning evidence failed to meet the State's burden.

In the face of the evidence they were given, they will never be able to speak coherently or intelligently enough to defend or explain such a verdict.

R.I.P. Caylee.

Are Book Publishers Racist?

Great article by NYC publicist Sherri Rosen: Are Book Publishers Racist?

One Small Step For Man...

Yes We Did
By Marianne Williamson

America has had a non-violent revolution.

As long as there are historians writing about the United States, this moment of fundamental re-alignment of our national purpose will be remembered, pored over and analyzed. It will be seen as one of the shining points along the evolutionary arc of the American story. Yet it will never submit itself to being summed up in a nice little package that reason alone can understand.

It's been noted before that Americans get excited about politics every forty years. Then, in the words of comedian Will Rogers, "We have to go sleep it off."

We were certainly excited in the l960's. And this is 2008; exactly forty years since the most dramatic and violent year of the Sixties decade: the year when both Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were literally killed before our eyes.

At that point, a generation of young people -- looking much like the youthful army so out in full force today, only grungier -- marched in the streets to repudiate an oppressive system and to try to stop an unjust war. And then bullets stopped us. The shots that killed the Kennedy's and King carried a loud, unspoken message for all of us: that we were to go home now, that we were to do whatever we wanted within the private sector, yet leave the public sector to whomever wanted it so much that they were willing to kill for it. And for all intents and purposes, we did as we were told.


According to ancient Asian philosophers, history moves not in a circle but in a spiral. Whether as an individual or as a nation, whatever lessons we were presented once and failed to learn will come back again but in a different form. For the generation of the Sixties and for our children, the lessons of that time -- as well as its hopes and dreams and idealism -- came back in 2008.


During our forty years in the desert, we learned many things. Then, we marched in the streets; this time, we marched to the polls. Then, we shouted, "Hell no, we won't go!" This time, we shouted, "Yes, we can." Then, we were so angry that our anger consumed us. This time, we made a more compassionate humanity the means by which we sought our goal as well as the goal itself.


In the words of Gloria Steinem, "I feel like our future has come back." And indeed it has. For in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "No lie can last forever." What Bobby Kennedy tried to do, and was killed for trying; what Martin Luther King tried to do, and was killed for trying; what the students at Kent state were trying to protest, and were killed for daring to; Barack Obama and his army of millions of idealists with the audacity to hope have now succeeded at doing.


Praise God. Praise God.


And that praise to God didn't just go out last night, when Obama's election to the Presidency was finally achieved. That praise was part of what allowed the waters to part here in the first place. Millions of Americans have been deeply aware that this kind of historic and fundamentally positive effort has not gone well in the recent past, and the spiritual understanding of this generation of Americans -- an understanding not yet fully formed forty years ago -- created an invisible light around the Obama campaign. How many people over the last twenty-one months have posted, in their own way, angels to Obama's left and angels to his right, angels in front of him and angels behind him, angels above him and angels below him? I know I have, and so has everyone I know. Hopefully we will continue to do so.


The Obama phenomenon did not come out of nowhere. It emerged as much from our story as from his -- as much from our yearning for meaning as from his ambition to be President; as much from our determination to achieve collective redemption as from his determination to achieve an individual accomplishment. And those who fail to recognize the invisible powers at work here -- who see the external drama of politics yet fail to discern the profound forces that moved mountains by moving the American heart -- well, they're just like Bob Dylan's Thin Man to whom he sang, "You don't know what's going on here, do you, Mr. Jones?"


Back then, Mr. Jones didn't know what was going on, but many of us did. We knew what was going on then and we knew what needed to happen; we simply weren't mature enough and we were too wounded then, as people and as a culture, to pull it off.


This time, we both knew and we did. We knew who we had to become and we knew what we had to do. The violent American revolution of 1776 entailed separating from another country. The non-violent revolution of 2008 -- a non-violent revolution that did not quite fail, yet also did not quite succeed in the l960's -- has entailed separating from who we used to be.


In the l960's, we wanted peace but we ourselves were angry. This time, after hearing Gandhi's call that we must be the change we want to see happen in the world, we came to our political efforts with an understanding that we must cast violence from our hearts and minds if we are to cast it from our world; that we must try to love our enemies as well as our friends; and that when a genius of world-historic proportions emerges among us, we cannot and we must not fail to do everything humanly and spiritually possible to support him. For his sake…and for ours.


Having gone to a higher place within ourselves, a higher level of leadership began to emerge among us. A higher level of leader now having emerged among us, he calls us to an even higher place within ourselves. And from this spiraling dance, these two forces together can and will, as Obama has told us, truly change the world. Having moved one mountain, we will now go about the work of removing the ones that remain.


With God's help, yes we can. Yes we did. And yes we will.



--- by Marianne Williamson,
author of Healing the Soul of America Visit www.marianne.com

Yes We Can.

Zoe Kravitz, et al. - "We Are the Ones"

I love this.

The Wall Street Journal Investigates

There's a very interesting article by Jeff Trachtenberg in today's WSJ entitled, "Why Book Industry Sees the World Split Still by Race."

Definitely worth reading.

If I Did It (Updated)

Ed Wyatt at the Times reports.

Why is O.J. Simpson doing this? Why is there a publisher out there willing to lift so much as an ink cartridge to put something like this in circulation?

Moral propriety anyone?

Even if the book doesn't contain the implied content, the insinuation of such content is condemnable. They (O.J. & publisher) knew the ubiquitous uproar this would incite - they must've counted on it.

Perhaps his primary goal is to earn the 33.5 million he owes the Browns and the Goldmans, but with a good dose of malevolent sarcasm?

I can't imagine what he's saying to his children, both sets. This entire happening - the upcoming book, the insidious publicity being generated, the notorious Fox interview coming up on the 27th - it's all unbelievably mean-spirited, not to mention cruel. Disrespectful squared. And the title's all wrong, no? Personally, I think WHEN I DID IT has a better ring to it.

At any rate, let's see how many curious viewers Madison Avenue thinks there'll be on the 27th.

Update 11/21/06:

NEW YORK (AP) "Maybe we won't find out how he would've done it. After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and television special "If I Did It". "I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman. "We are sorry for any pain that his has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson." A dozen Fox affiliates had already said they would not air the two-part sweeps month special, planned for next week before the book's publication.

Better late than never, I suppose, but you can't un-ring a bell. No doubt this book - and interview - will turn up online soon, if they haven't already.

You know....this calls the Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam acquittals to mind. They were both acquitted for the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till, but later confessed to journalist William Bradford Huie in a story for Look Magazine--a story for which they were paid. Why was there no public outcry toward Look Magazine? Take a wild, wild guess.

I'm exhausted just thinking about it.

Graceland ~ A National Landmark!

So everyone knows how I feel about Elvis. I'm planning a trip to Graceland for later this year, and I was so proud to hear the buzz surrounding the recent National Landmark news!

MEMPHIS, TN, USA -- Elvis Presley's home in Memphis is the most visited private residence in the world. And on Monday it became a National Historic Landmark.

"American culture and music changed irreversibly because of Elvis," said interior secretary Gale Norton. "It would be difficult to tell the story of the twentieth century without discussing the many contributions made by this legendary, iconic artist."

The designation puts the Tennessee mansion on the same list as other notable US landmarks like the Alamo, the White House and Mount Rushmore. Fewer than 2,500 historic places have been awarded the designation.

Elvis bought the sprawling property for $103,000 in 1957 with earnings from his first hit record, "Heartbreak Hotel". His ex-wife Priscilla Presley first opened Graceland's doors to visitors in 1980. It now draws nearly 700,000 visitors a year.

"Graceland is my childhood home and it holds so many great memories of the time I shared there with my father, our family and our friends," said Lisa Marie Presley, who is the sole owner of Graceland Mansion. "It is my honor to have shared it with my father's adoring public all these years and I am committed to ensuring that it will be preserved forever for all future generations of fans and of my family to enjoy."

Presley died on August 16, 1977. His popularity continues to surge, annually placing the rock and roll icon atop Forbes' list of top dead celebrity earners. It is estimated that he has sold more than 1 billion records worldwide.

I'm just in awe of the fact that 700,000 people visit Elvis' beloved home each year. That's a lot of people. Ditto for him being the highest-earning dead celebrity when he's been gone for over 28 years. I believe Forbes estimates that he still pulls in around $50 million/year. Wow. A truly fantastic testament to the magic that was Elvis Presley.

I simply can't get enough of watching him perform. Let's face it - he was one of the most captivating performers ever. Michael Jackson is the only other artist that can even begin to compare.

Whether you're a fan or not, if you simply love dynamite entertainment, check out Elvis: Aloha from Hawaii (1973) & Elvis: That's the Way It Is (1970). Both absolutely superb! You can hardly take your eyes off him! Even my younger brother (who, at 23 finds it extremely un-cool to be into Elvis Presley) gets hooked on the concerts! Because of that, he tries to avoid seeing them at all, LOL. Can't let his friends catch him sitting around watching Elvis! God forbid. :)

So....who's ever been to Graceland? How was it? Stay at the Heartbreak Hotel?

I can hardly wait to make my "pilgrimage"!

And the Oscar Goes to....the Pimp Song.

Huh?

I have to throw my hat into the ring of disappointment about this one. I thought it was a mockery. I'm a movie buff, so I watch the Oscars every year (hey, Hollywood isn't what it used to be - no more Cary Grants - but it's all we seem to have left) and I enjoyed Sunday's show....except for the part when the award went to the pimp song over a beautiful song like "In the Deep" from CRASH.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a hard time believing that the majority of the Academy members voted for "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp". Don't get me wrong, I love hip-hop just as much as the next person, thought it was a cool song - but Oscar worthy? Uh....no.

Sofia Quintero cracked me up with a much needed question: If it's so hard out there for the pimp.....What's it like for the ho?

Columnist Rochelle Riley penned a well-rounded take on it. Here's a bit of what she had to say:

Here's the debate: Is the award a recognition of what rap and hip-hop have become in America, pervasive and powerful with an audience of all colors, or was the academy having a laugh?

I'm happy that three young brothers have an Academy Award and were honored as artists regardless of the package they presented with their sneaks, jerseys and gleaming grillz.

I'm happy as long as the academy doesn't get so comfortable honoring films and music about pimps, bad cops and caricatures that it forgets to honor honest but conflicted cops like the one played by the unparalleled Don Cheadle in "Crash" or a no-nonsense life mentor like the one played by Samuel L. Jackson in "Coach Carter." Neither of them was nominated.

There's nothing wrong with the pimp song -- although, quite frankly, I'm glad it's hard out here for a pimp.

There's nothing wrong with it unless it becomes the blueprint instead of the anomaly, the expectation instead of the surprise, and it makes it harder for audiences to see films where black people solve crimes, teach English and can't sing or dance.

ROCHELLE RILEY'S columns are published on the Sunday Voices page and the Wednesday and Friday Other Voices page. Contact her at rriley99@freepress.com or 313-223-4473. You can read Rochelle's columns at www.freep.com/columnists.

It's unfortunate, but why does it seem black talents (Jamie Foxx in RAY being a rare exception) are receiving Oscars mainly for the most unflattering and stereotypical of roles? Or in this case---songs. Rich, well-rounded work goes largely unrecognized.

How come they didn't give Nicole Kidman or Tom Cruise Oscars for EYES WIDE SHUT? I know they said it was a flop, but so was MONSTER'S BALL.

Ali Gilmore

Have you heard about the Ali Gilmore case?

I just saw it on Anderson Cooper 360 last night. Ali Gilmore is 30, pregnant, and vanished without a trace over a month ago. It's unfortunate it took a month for her disappearance to get national media attention. Will Ali Gilmore become a household name like Laci Peterson? If not, can you guess why?

There's a $21,000 reward being offered. My prayers are with Ali's mother and family. At best, I hope they find her alive. At worst, I hope they find out what happened to her.

Gilmore, 30, was four months' pregnant when she was reported missing on Feb. 3 by her supervisor at the Florida Department of Health, where she worked as a statistical analyst. She also worked in the bakery at Publix on Apalachee Parkway. Police think foul play is involved because of the length of time she's been missing.

She and her husband, James Gilmore, were living separately when she was reported missing. Gilmore has been cooperating with police in the investigation. The case also has been discussed on national cable-television shows.

Paula Abduliar

I knew it!

Been meaning to blog on this for a few days now. Ever since she cried us a river on Dr. Phil's "poor lonely Paula Abdul, let's help her find a man" show.

I never did believe the virtual consensus that Corey Clark made this entire affair story up. All the while he was getting raked over the coals, I always knew Paula Abdul had to be lying. What with the prescription, the voice mail, etc. There was no way that guy just made all that up.

Now the Human Lie Detector confirms it! Look, don't lie. Say no comment, but don't lie. How can anyone respect a liar?

Hollywood Alert: Lee Tamahori Caught...Tama-whorin'

Yikes. Surf over to Lee Goldberg's place for a good laugh! It appears that the director of such blockbusters as "Die Another Day" and "Along Came a Spider" was busted for solicitation while moonlighting....in drag!

Hmm. Perhaps it was simply research...uh, for his next film of course.

Whatever the case, I'm still laughing at LG's "reporting" on the subject. Hilariously funny. :-)

To Frey, Or Not to Frey? ~ Today's Oprah

Great show.

Oprah grilled him good. About the root canal story. Lilly's hanging. Jail time. You could see James Frey squirming. His publisher, Nan Talese, stood by him. She claims the two root canals sans novocaine story didn't raise red flags because she herself had had a root canal without any. Is this to be believed under the circumstances? I wonder. Oprah didn't appear to buy it, as she challenged her. The journalists chimed in and were brilliantly on point. Publishers are to uphold and respect the definition of a memoir. Get busy hiring fact checkers. Make quick work of it. Snap, snap. Truth matters. They even spoke to the ramifications on NIGHT.

My Take?
Alas. I admit it. I was actually endeared to James while watching the show. While he doesn't come out and admit the book should've been classified as a novel and be done with it, he doesn't strike me as a master manipulator who sat back and relished in the fact that he duped millions - even Oprah Winfrey.

As I've expressed before in some detail, I think he made a huge mistake. Now he's realizing just how huge. He passed the book off as fact, got it published, had to follow through and promote it as such, then got caught up in the snowball effect that not even he himself could've anticipated, particularly once it got Oprah's coveted seal of recommendation.

Bravo to James for doing the show today. It speaks to his character. He certainly doesn't have to do anymore press. He can simply retreat now. Cloak himself in the scores of the million little dollars that continue to roll in. He's just trying to back-pedal from a tremendously compromising mistake. Trying to save face.

It's okay to let go now, James. Here's to the essential truth.

Oprah Has a Million Little Questions - James "Stir" Frey on Today's Show

To Memoir, or not to Memoir?

Now Oprah has a million little questions? I can't wait to hear what they are and to whom they'll be addressed.

Needless to say I'll be one of the million little pupils glued to today's lesson on Oprah. Memoir? Or mem-bullshit? James Frey. Nan Talese. Oprah. Journalists. And according to Lady O's homepage, it's all going to be live! Dynamite. Nothing like live TV.

Stay tuned ~ I'm sure there'll be many dynamite blogger recaps.

Lady Babs ~ Scrubs Political

Wow. I didn't realize that Barbra Streisand was so...well, so vocal. I've always loved her voice, but by no means has anyone ever accused me of being a Streisand-junkie, no sir. I'm much more of a Judy Garland kinda gal. Streisand's far too stiff a performer, there's no comparison. Too busy making sure lighting and hair are perfect to really put her all into a delivery. But, I digress.

I'm seeing her in a new light now. A new respect. Without a doubt, she certainly puts her all into her political vents. She's an outstanding vocalist. Way to go, Babs! Look out Bush Administration.

Jennifer Hagel Smith - See "Eyes for Lies"

The Human Lie Detector must have some psych training if you ask me! Check out this dynamite analysis on the ever infamous Jennifer Hagel's Oprah Show appearance. As I've blogged, I saw the show, and although THLD doesn't go so far as to say she killed her husband George, the observations are eerily on point. See for yourself.

NIGHT by Elie Wiesel - Tossed into James "Stir" Frey?

Will NIGHT face an ultra-harsh light of scrutiny?

Who plans to read Oprah's latest selection, Night by Elie Wiesel? I do. I've actually had it in mind since seeing her speak about it so passionately, and interview the author, on her 20th Anniversary DVD special.

But - it being a memoir by a Nobel Peace Prize winner and all - I wonder if it'll be held up to a magnified and unfair scrutiny in the wake of the James Frey "memoirs only need to be loosely based on my version of the 'essential truth' and not on actual events" fiasco. What do you think?

My Take?
I hope it doesn't go too far, but somehow, I think it's unavoidable at this point. In fact, it's already begun. Way to go Frey-boy. Here's an excerpt from the NY Times:

Oprah Winfrey's choice of "Night" as the next selection for her television book club on Monday immediately sent the book to the top of national best-seller lists. But it also revived questions about "Night," one of the first autobiographical accounts of he death camps and a book that changed modern American understanding of the holocaust. At times over the last 45 years it has been classified as a novel on some high-school reading lists, in some libraries and in bookstores. Some scholars who have studied Holocaust memoirs have also raised questions about how much of the book can be verified.

Mr. Wiesel and his literary agent, Georges Borchardt, said in interviews this week that the book was factual and that they had never portrayed it as a novel. They said the differences in the new edition are not significant enough to justify the kind of questions raised about Ms. Winfrey's last book club selection, the memoir "A Million Little Pieces" by James Frey.

Jennifer Hagel = Scott Peterson?

What do you think?

Can't help it. I simply had to blog about this one. Saw Jennifer Hagel's appearance on Oprah today. If her purpose for going on the show was to convince the public (which I happen to be a card-carrying member of) that she had nothing to do with her husband, George Smith's, disappearance and/or murder---it did not work. I saw her previously on MSNBC's Scarborough County (at least I think it was that show) and I remember being struck then by her "ScottPetersonesque" demeanor.

There are three key points in her story that I just can't get past:

1) Her demeanor when she speaks. Allowing for the "everybody reacts differently in certain situations" factor, if there was a multiple choice question featuring a spectrum of how one reacts when one's husband goes missing while alone with you on your honeymoon---this lady's reaction wouldn't be anywhere near it. She turns on the tears as if on cue! Ditto for turning them off to complete her corkers....er, sentences. And what's up with the latent smiling as she's discussing this baffling experience? As if she were discussing something as comical as Janet Jackson's super bowl mystery?

2) When asked why some eyewitnesses have given accounts of an argument between she and her husband - which reportedly got physical - she replies that she can't confirm or deny it? Because she simply can't remember anything? Gosh. Hate it when that happens. If they'd been having such a wonderfully blissful time, then she inexplicably blacked out at some point, wouldn't she be just a little shocked - just a tad - that folks are saying they witnessed such a hostile confrontation between the two of them?

3) She wakes up alone in her stateroom - sans husband - even though there hadn't been any fighting or discord whatsoever......and assuming he'd slept in some other couple's room (huh? I thought we were on a honeymoon here) and without even attempting to find out why, she trots off ALONE to their scheduled COUPLE'S MASSAGE? Did I mention that she made NO attempt to fetch him?

My Take?
She did it. Lord forgive me if I'm reading it all wrong - but I believe she did it. Don't know enough to deduce motive - the whys and the wherefores - but my instincts say she did it. She's got about as much ability to "fake grief" as Scott Peterson did. Hiring Dr. Henry Lee is pure smoke in mirrors. There's not a whole lot he can garner at this point - and she knows it. It's all an act. Even George Smith's parents smell a rat. They've stated they feel she's withholding information.

She was found (as she made a point to say at least twice on Oprah) far away from their room. Lying in the hallway. Passed out. Can't remember a thing. Then she gets up in the morning and has the presence of mind to head straight to the massage appt? But not to go fetch her new hubby from the newly made friends' room? The husband she's been having this blissful time with? Uh-uh. I think she just didn't want to be the one to report him missing. She couldn't afford to be. She's also made it a point to state that she never knew anything was amiss until the cruise staff approached her.

What's next?
How long before we hear the grieving widow's writing a "tell-all" book? It'll no doubt be a bestseller. With any luck, maybe she'll slip up and "tell-all" about what really happened. Or - maybe she'll just launch a crusade for making the cruise industry more responsible for preventing such crimes from taking place aboard their ships. Who knows?

RIP, George Smith. Whatever happened to you. RIP.

Their Eyes Were Reading Smut - Millenia's Take

Nick Chiles recently expressed his anger and frustration about the state of our industry, the racial divide in publishing, with an Op-Ed contribution in the NY Times on January 4th.

My Take?
Mr. Chiles (and others with equally faulty reasoning) should remove his head from his skin—and focus on being an AUTHOR. One who has a book(s) to sell to the book buying public. Period.

Why relegate yourself to being in competition with the “Legit Ballers” and “Chocolate Flavas” of the market? None of them are dominating the New York Times Bestsellers List week after week. Where’s the threat?

Yes, publishing is a business, and “ghetto fiction” wouldn’t be in demand if there wasn’t a market supporting it. Why knock the success of those books? That’s very shallow ground to stand on. They sell. Leave them alone. More power to their authors.

The more appropriate question is this: Why don’t you have ACCESS to the OCEAN of readers in the market who are reading more intelligent writing? Where’s the business sense in restricting yourself to the confines of a “subsection” of consumers, then criticizing them for what they choose to read? Readers have a right to read what they want. Go appeal to the ones that are reading all those NY Times Bestsellers every week—a good 85% of the book buying market. Stop competing for the scraps in the remaining 15%.

Mr. Chiles has a right to his feelings of defeat, disrespect, and to being troubled about his future in the industry, but his gripe is misaimed, at an offender that really isn't.