✰ Raindrops on Roses ✰ Audiobook Blog Tour!!

Join or follow the tour and enter the giveaway here!

Join my Facebook Group for exclusive excerpts, sneak peeks, giveaways and book talk!

★ 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?

★ RAINDROPS ON ROSES ★ Lola's Blog Tour Begins Today!

Follow the tour and enter the giveaway to win a ★ $100 Amazon Gift Card! ★

The blog tour begins today and ends February 22, 2015!

Lola's Blog Tours: Raindrops on Roses!

Raindrops on Roses will be on a blog tour February 9-22! Lola's Blog Tours is organizing and anyone interested in hosting can sign up here.

There will be a tour-wide giveaway of a $100 Amazon gift card + a $25 Amazon gift card for participating tour hosts only!

Mythical Books: Passions are high, but bitter vengeance gets even ...

Mythical Books: Passions are high, but bitter vengeance gets even ...: P ublished: November 16th, 2014 D escription: From the #1 Bestselling Author of THE GREAT PRETENDER comes a highly-anticipated ne...

VBT Cafe' Blog: Raindrops On Roses by Millenia Black - Tour Kickof...

VBT Cafe' Blog: Raindrops On Roses by Millenia Black - Tour Kickof...: Title: Raindrops on Roses Author Name: Millenia Black Author Bio: Millenia Black is the bestselling author of the novels THE...

✷ Book Spotlights and Giveaway!

My good friend Darlene over at Peeking Between the Pages is spotlighting the $.99 Kindle sale of THE GREAT PRETENDER and THE GREAT BETRAYAL!

Visit her site to enter the giveaway! First prize = $25 Amazon Gift Certificate, and then two paperback copies of TGP and two of TGB to 4 lucky winners!

Deadline to enter is 4/2/11.

Good luck!

Update:

Darlene announced the winners on Sunday, April 3rd, and all prizes have been awarded/mailed!

Congratulations to the winner of the $25 Amazon gift card: Sarah E.

Winners of paperback copies of THE GREAT PRETENDER: Cheryl Kelley in Illinois, and Anita Yancey in Georgia

And of THE GREAT BETRAYAL: Debbie Penny in Michigan and Birgit Lehner in Austria, Europe.

Are Book Publishers Racist?

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

The Ongoing Saga of Jim Crow Publishing

Yes, it's happened again. Yes, I'm still talking about it. And yes...I'm pissed.

Jaclyn Dolamore, author of MAGIC UNDER GLASS wrote a "brown" skinned protagonist.

Her publisher "white-washed" the cover:

Putting a white person on the cover of a book about a brown-skinned character doesn't merely imply that people of color aren't worth as much to publishers; it pretty much says it outright.

 (To see Jaclyn's view of her lead character, check out her trailer for the book here.)

So now we have yet another crop up that exposes the publishing industry's present-day Jim Crow practices. Remember Justine Larbalestier's cover just a few short months ago?

Why do you think this topic is ignored by the mainstream media? Why isn't this a hot topic on The View? Could it be because of the "crony" and "good-old-boys" club? After all, journalists and producers want book deals (and powerful friends), too. So shining a spotlight on the blatantly racist practices of the publishing houses probably wouldn't keep one in their good graces.

This upsets me because I feel the implications of each and every one of these incidents deep in my soul. Things like this should not still be happening.

Justine Larbalestier expressed it very clearly:

Every year at every publishing house, intentionally and unintentionally, there are white-washed covers. Since I’ve told publishing friends how upset I am with my Liar cover, I have been hearing anecdotes from every single house about how hard it is to push through covers with people of colour on them. Editors have told me that their sales departments say black covers don’t sell. Sales reps have told me that many of their accounts won’t take books with black covers. Booksellers have told me that they can’t give away YAs with black covers. Authors have told me that their books with black covers are frequently not shelved in the same part of the library as other YA—they’re exiled to the Urban Fiction section—and many bookshops simply don’t stock them at all.

She also said:

The notion that “black books” don’t sell is pervasive at every level of publishing. Yet I have found few examples of books with a person of colour on the cover that have had the full weight of a publishing house behind them. Until that happens more often we can’t know if it’s true that white people won’t buy books about people of colour. All we can say is that poorly publicised books with “black covers” don’t sell. The same is usually true of poorly publicised books with “white covers."

When does this end? When does the book industry's white supremacist activity end? So many people are affected by this insidious system, yet the scars go unseen, the pain ignored.

Freedom? How can people who are treated like 2nd-class human beings actually be free? Every time something like this happens, it exposes the unspoken and closeted enslavement that still exists in the United States. And the offense is compounded by the fact that, for various reasons, people allow it to continue month after month, year after year, both directly and indirectly. In silence.

"The Negro was to accept the biracial system and his subordinate status. He was to seek advancement within the confines of his segregated black world. He was to develop the friendship of influential whites and use their assistance.

By cultivating habits of hard work, thrift, and honesty, he was to demonstrate his claim to wider acceptance and better treatment. Above all, he was never to present any organized challenge to the existing order of things or engage in movements which might be regarded by whites as detrimental to their economic and political interest." - Booker T. Washington

The Advantages of Being a White Writer by Justine Larbalestier

I'm extremely encouraged to see this recent post by author Justine Larbalestier. In my last post on character treatments, I asked who is decent enough to get honest about the literary climate and its effects. Justine Larbalestier certainly is. And we need more writers willing to step up to the plate like her and be honest about the climate and what it means for authors who aren't white...until the climate improves and provides equal opportunity for all.

This writer has a very clear understanding of the problem, as you can glean from the way in which she introduced the discussion:

I know that the title of this post is going to lead to some comments insisting that it’s not true that white writers have any advantages and that many white people are just as oppressed as people of colour. I don’t want to have that conversation. So I’m going to oppress the white people who make those comments by deleting them. I don’t do it with any malice. I do it because I want to have a conversation about white privilege in publishing. We can have the discussion about class privilege and regional privilege and other kinds of privilege some other time. Those other privileges are very real. But I don’t want this discussion to turn into some kind of oppression Olympics.

Can you even imagine the verbal lynching a non-white author would receive saying something like this?

Justine goes on to say:

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying that we white writers should feel guilty about any of this. Guilt is a pointless emotion. White writers who’ve written about people of colour and won acclaim and awards don’t have to hand their prizes back. That would change nothing.

What I am saying is that we need to be aware of our privilege and listen to criticism and act upon it. We need to do what we can to change things. The more novels with a diversity of characters that are published and succeed in the marketplace the more space there will be. The more people who can find themselves in books, the more readers we’ll all have, and the more opportunities there’ll be for writers from every background. Of course, it’s not just the writers who need to be more diverse, but everyone in publishing, from the interns to agents to the folks in sales, marketing, publicity, and editorial, to the distributors and booksellers.

There are many wonderful books by writers of colour. Read them, talk about them, buy them for your friends. Point them out to your editors and agents. Be part of changing the culture and making space for lots of different voices. The problem is not so much what white people write; it’s that so few other voices are heard. If the publishing industry were representative of the population at large we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.

Thank you, Justine. Where have you been all my life? :-) You've actually lifted my spirits and renewed my hope.

Character Treatments: Do They Tell a Story?

Here's commenter Rowan Michaels' enlightening view on my previous post:

Millenia - it is so true what you say about white writers. If they can't even see their characters equally, what does that say for how they see real people? White characters get described to the reader: face features, hair color, eye color, etc. but when the character is not white, they get treated differently. They can't just be described to the reader like the white characters are, the reader is told first off that this is not "one of us". It's really sad. I always noticed it, but never thought of it in terms of how it exposes the way most whites (even when they don't consider themselves racist) view non-whites and how that results in subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) acts of discrimination.

Can Oprah do anything about this? Hell yes! Oprah is one of the most influential people in the world. She commands attention and respect. Nobody preaches finding your "authentic self" and living your "best life" like Oprah. Is it just a sham brand, or does she really mean it? She could make a huge difference by talking consistently about these types of ways that racial division rears its head and hurts people, cripples many lives and family potential.

It is not so hidden after all, is it? Walk into any bookstore and crack open a bestseller--race division screaming at you. So true. This is no doubt a hard post to read for white authors and white persons in general, but it is still the truth, and somebody needs to have the courage to say it.

What is the key to solving a persistent problem? When symptoms of an imbalance keep cropping up, doesn't that mean the cause of the imbalance isn't being addressed? Complaints abound, but for those of us seeking a solution, isn't something missing?

Who is decent enough to get honest about the literary climate...and its effects?

Book Industry Racism...Where is Oprah?

With the news that Oprah’s latest book club selection will be announced on September 18th, the question of where she stands on the indisputable practice of racism in the publishing industry remains outstanding. Her announcements are major events, and play a significant role in the landscape of the book industry and marketplace.

In December of 2006, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Why book industry sees the world split still by race.” Considering the fact that Oprah Winfrey is the publishing industry’s greatest marketing tool, it isn’t unreasonable, in my view, to wonder why she hasn't addressed the sustained system of racial marginalizing in which, even as I type this, most publishing houses are engaged. Oprah's selections help to line the pockets of these corporations, while they consistently - and unapologetically - treat acquisitions according to the author's race vs. the manuscript's content. And in many cases, expect and force non-white authors to write their manuscripts according to their race so the publisher can limit the author's marketability to his/her own race of readers, and not to the much larger, universal marketplace.

Why haven’t we heard from Oprah on this issue?

Here's my view. She’s likely not really aware of it. Unless an issue reaches her directly, it must go through the Oprah Show’s “producer mill.” If they decide an issue isn’t important or have reasons for not wanting certain things made public, it never gets through to Oprah herself. On the issue of racism in an industry Oprah has such a powerful influence on, many of her producers work and have formed relationships with the major publishing houses – they are not interested in disrupting their cushy acquaintances, and the advantages they may provide. So they turn a blind eye to the blatant racism their “buddies” are engaged in, even tipping them off about efforts to call Oprah's attention to the matter. Like most of white America, the producers are invested in ignoring it. It’s not their problem, and most of them cringe when Oprah does shows about racism, anyway.

I submit that due to her attained significance in the industry, Oprah, herself, is the only one who can have a significant impact on this issue, and put it to bed once and for all. If she speaks out against some of the proven, racially discriminatory practices, the publishing houses will listen. They will have to stop seeing the world split still by race, hence stopping the perpetuating of the split itself. They will have to stop justifying racially-based marketing and internal business practices. They will have to think twice about angering the biggest marketing tool they have ever had, and maybe ever will have.

How can she not talk about this?

The recent issue with author Justine Larbalestier’s book, Liar, shows that such incidents aren’t going anywhere, as the real dirt has yet to be cleaned up. Publishers continue to maintain (despite their vehement denials) a very racist mindset, culture, and business model, and it’s reflected in their most consistent practices. The fact that this white author sees a need for greater inclusion and commercializing of non-white characters/story/plot, etc., into the “mainstream” shows that clearly non-white authors are marginalized, even to the disturbance of fellow white authors, who are feeling urged to do something about it.

Who has noticed this about most books by white authors? That the use of racial identifiers is reserved for the non-white characters in the stories. I have noticed this for years. It’s an easy place to see the deeply ingrained racist conditioning that still plagues this entire society, and will continue to do so until it is acknowledged by those who perpetuate and sustain it, and is finally honestly addressed. Most white authors don’t even realize they are subconsciously marginalizing “others” who are not of their own race. Think about it. What is a non-white reader to think as they read these books? Books that are clearly being written with a white audience in the subconscious mind. Why doesn't the author have to tell the reader that all the white characters are white? But they feel compelled to tell the reader when a character(s) is Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc. Why is that? What does this reflect?

So why wouldn’t Oprah – the most prominent figure in publishing – want to talk about this?

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

Publishing Survey

Blogger Karen Scott's conducting a survey. Check out what she has to say about it, and participate if you're eligible.

A Book By Any Other Name.....

Will it be as sweet?

Fortunately, I chose the name of my first book, THE GREAT PRETENDER. It's the title I originally self-published with. When Penguin bought the book they liked and kept that title....thank God.

Alas, this was not to be the case with book #2.

I got to thinking about the title tug-a-war after reading Tess Gerritsen's entertaining yarn about how her most recent work got its name. Oddly enough, Barnes & Noble wound up choosing her title. Go figure.

On that note, here's a peek at the title maze of my second gem:

Doomed Title #1) A BLOSSOM FELL - this one lasted about a minute and a half because, although it had a special place in my heart being a Nat King Cole song and all, everyone agreed it sounded too "romancy".

This one was nixed very early on. Pre-1st draft. :-(

Doomed Title #2) RAINDROPS ON ROSES - I loved this one, too - started the book with it, but for obvious reasons, it didn't live any longer than its predecessor.

It, too, was nixed. Sniff.

Doomed Title #3) A LIFETIME OF LIES - Now this one I really loved! So did my agent. So did my editor. This doomed title survived the longest. I wrote a good chunk of the story under this one and it really changed the tone and the intended execution of the plot.

So there I am, plotting away when--wham!---publishing suits have their meeting, someone (art person I think) decides it doesn't have the same punch as THE GREAT PRETENDER and, just like that, we're back to square one. It was also nixed.

Alas, book #2, now nearly completed, was nameless once again. Sniff.

Doomed Title #4) A GRACEFUL DECEIT - Now this one was my favorite, because it has tremendous plot significance and would tie into the overall reading experience. I loved it. My agent loved it. Editor, etc. felt it lacked "oomph".

My agent did a survey of her own on it and she reported that, hands down, folks greatly preferred the winning title......

What is the winning title?

**THE GREAT BETRAYAL** Ding, ding, ding! This one won the gold. I picked it, liked it, but felt readers would think it a sequel to THE GREAT PRETENDER.

They did some kind of in-house "survey" (not sure how credible those can really be) and it was decided that 1) TGB is simply building on my first title, 2) it helped the branding effort, and 3) no one would think it was a sequel. Go figure.

So - which one do you prefer? Anybody agree that folks just may assume book #2 is a sequel to book #1?

Warning to my fellow authors - don't get any ideas about stealing any of my "bit the dust" titles - I have every intention of using them all! Stay tuned. ;-)

Lynn Raye Harris ~ The Borders Report

I've dubbed her "Agent Lynn." See why.

Storm Brewing - The Motive for Racism in Publishing

You know, God bless Tess Gerritsen.

It appears she got a very important ball rolling on what is one of the most important subjects in America today.

Here's some of what Tess had to say:

In this way, I've been able to slip into mainstream publishing, without the barriers that black novelists, who are often confined to "black niche publishing" have to face. The exception that's been pointed out on other blogsites is Stephen Carter, whose debut novel hit the bestseller lists. But as others have also pointed out, his novel was NOT marketed as a "black" novel, but as a mainstream mystery. The author's race was simply incidental to the larger marketing plan. His race did not hurt him.

Another case in point is James Patterson, whose megaselling thrillers feature a black detective (even though the author himself is white.) The character's race doesn't hurt sales, which shows that, yes, white readers ARE happy to cross racial lines and read about black characters. Patterson's photo is frequently missing from the books, so you'd have no idea what race he is. The important point: his books are marketed as MAINSTREAM fiction. You look at a Patterson book, and the main impression you get is that it's going to be a scary ride. Not that this is a book about black characters.

And the storm has brewed into an excellent discourse. This is the kind of exchange and awareness that's been lacking. More than lacking - avoided. Which reminds me of a recent exchange I had with a very well-known, writing advice presence in the blogosphere. I asked him what his thoughts were on the subject and he replied that "minorities" were not discriminated against in publishing anymore than he was. And he's white.

Now - he seems to be a fairly intelligent guy - is that just plain ignorance on his part? Or is it a conscious choice to remain blissfully unconcerned with that which does not directly affect him, but still corrupts the industry within which he takes part? One has to wonder.

I'll quote a few of the brave commentators.

Patrick from Willoughby says:

We all would likely assume that if a publisher didn't think the book would be a success, the deal would never be made. That is to say, a publisher is unlikely to buy a book that it thinks won't find an audience.

So the question that comes to my mind is this: if a publisher thought that it could get more sales by going mainstream rather than reducing a potential audience to 15% or so of the total reading universe, why would it still cram the book into the niche?

Again, I'm not trying to justify their behavior; I'm just wondering what information they have that so completely convinces them that this is the right way to do things. It would be illogical for them to intentionally limit their own profits, so logically, they must be certain that the only way to make a profit is going the niche route. If they were trying to "hide" black fiction, why would they publish it at all? So how on earth could they believe that non-racial fiction that happens to be written by a black writer can't be a mainstream success?

Could it be flawed marketing research? Could that play any part in it? If so, then that's another thing that needs to be corrected, right?

Millenia's response:

Now - on the surface - it would seem logical to arrive at the above question. But, this question is irrelevant. I'll tell you why.

Publishers never think the works they acquire from white authors are better suited for cramming into an ethnic niche.

Therefore - to ask why they would do this if the odds could easily be in favor of mainstream success, is irrelevant. It's a given that publishers are not in the business of creating and operating under self-defeating business models.

If the practice imposed upon authors of color was equitable, we would see them carving out niches such as:

Irish-American Fiction
Danish-American Fiction
Scandinavian-American Fiction
Jewish-American Fiction
British-American Fiction

The relevant question is not why they would do something to hinder their own profit.

The actual question is this - how do publishers justify reserving this ethnicity-based, market-suppressive business practice, exclusively for the work they acquire from authors of color?

This seems to run counter to the civil rights laws. Does it not?

Monica Jackson chimes in saying:

If you are black aspiring author or a black published author, you will be treated and regarded differently than a white author regardless of the content of your work, based on your race.

When James Patterson or any other white author writes black characters, they are not relegated to the [AA] Niche.

But if you were black, your work wouldn’t be considered suitable for the greater white market, no matter what you wrote, with the possible rare exception of literary fiction–unless you concealed the fact of your blackness.

That is the outrage. There are no excuses, no stuttering rationalizations, no worrying about who or who not makes the NYT list that can adequately excuse that ugly fact.

It is institutional racism and if it’s not decried and condemned, we of all races including fellow blacks, are guilty of condoning the practice.

Bestselling Author, Pontif. says:

There are many authors who do write books that should be in the AA niche. The genre is valid for books that pertain to AA culture and therefore an AA audience or AA interested audience. This is true for any genre.

The first step to ending this problem is that publishers and booksellers have to start judging books based on content, NOT AUTHOR SKIN COLOR. What's so hard to get about that?

Would you disagree that a publisher should NOT use an authors skin color when deciding how to classify a book? Was Amy Tan classified as Asian/Oriental fiction and marketed to people who look like her? Is Tess Gerritsen?

Did they take James Patterson's Alex Cross novels and label them AA fiction and market them exclusively to AA people? NO.

What's it to you?
Contribute to the discussion. Contribute to the pursuit of a remedy. Open it up on your own blog, journal, or website. Remember - a threat to justice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.

Regardless of race. Black, white, Asian, etc. What do you think?

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. :-)

A Stop at Willoughby

Take a moment and make A Stop at Willoughby. Chime in on the discussion. My hat's off to Patrick for taking the time to do so.

Publishing Suppression ~ Suffer in Silence?

Whilst this author gives his/her reasoning for remaining anonymous - I'm disappointed. They're SO on point it's inspiring!

Now, you know my take on this calamity. I'm doing what I can to bring awareness to this problem, and to protect yours truly from being victimized. However - one of the more frustrating aspects of this deal is that there aren't any well-known authors doing anything about it. Yes, they grumble privately about racism in publishing, but publicly? Nada. Tight lipped. Gloss over. Business as usual. They dry their tears with the scraps from the sectioned-off AA market because it pays the bills. Yes - scraps - in comparison to the financial typhoons available to those lucky authors whose commercial works are not market-restricted because of their skin color.

I still maintain that most white authors don't realize the advantage they have simply because they're white. Many are too busy yapping about supporting their fellow authors....But how often does that support extend to fellow authors who happen to be of color? I wonder. Maybe many white authors choose not to notice their unjust advantage. I wonder.

This is a huge problem that many in the industry aren't even wholly aware of. Ignorant bliss. It's one of the primary reasons the dream speech still commands action.

I'd love to hear some feedback from folks about all this. Authors, readers, passersby, etc. What do you think?

In other news: Did he have to go there with Zane? Yikes.