When publishing goes wrong…

[mr ploppy]

http://mandydegeit.wordpress.com/201...-undead-press/

Don't know how common this is, but I think she was daft to give away a story under those terms anyway. No money, no free book, and you can't do anything else with the story for a year. I bet it only sells to the other writers who are in it too.

[teh603]

Did anyone forward a copy to the SFWA and the other writers' guilds? This is the kind of thing everyone needs to know about, especially if they go around adding really glaring usage mistakes.

[kennyc]

That horrible. I just posted on her blog and suggest she sue the bastads!

[Elfwreck]

I doubt there's grounds for a lawsuit; "edit" has no nice universally accepted limits. If her contract didn't allow her final proof, she's probably out of luck.

If she were in Europe, she'd have some claim to moral rights, to have her name not associated with a work that's much different from (i.e. worse than) what she wrote. I don't think US has much in the way of laws about that. (OTOH, it might; Harlan Ellison got his named pulled from the Starlost and replaced with a pseudonym--Cordwainer Bird. But I've no idea what kind of approval agreements he had built into his contract.)

Probably the best results she can get is to speak loud and often about how they mangled her story, possibly following their announcements of new releases etc. on Twitter and using the same hashtags to say "don't buy from them" followed by a link to her article.

[HarryT]

The author seems to be unaware of what the word "Edit" means. The spelling mistakes are inexcusable but the story changes... that's what editors DO.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That horrible. I just posted on her blog and suggest she sue the bastads!

Sue on what grounds, Kenny? She signed a contract saying that the publisher could edit the story. They edited the story. I doubt that "liking" the edits was a clause in the contract. This is an excellent example of the necessity to be wary of what you sign. Throwing a public hissy-fit like this woman's done is hardly a professional response.

[andyh2000]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The author seems to be unaware of what the word "Edit" means. The spelling mistakes are inexcusable but the story changes... that's what editors DO.

Does the usual meaning of edit include adding chunks to the story? Not just rearranging, trimming etc., but adding new story elements? I don't think so.

Andrew

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

Does the usual meaning of edit include adding chunks to the story? Not just rearranging, trimming etc., but adding new story elements? I don't think so.

I don't think there are any defined limits on what changes editors can or can't make. That's why it's important, as someone commented previously, that you make sure that your contract includes "approval" of the edited work.

I sympathise with this woman, but I think that:

1. She should have checked what rights she was signing away. It's often been said in the forum - and it can't be stressed too heavily - that you should ALWAYS get a publishing contract checked over by a lawyer before signing it.

2. A professional, business-like, conversation with the publisher would almost certainly have been more productive than a hysterical rant.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HarryT

2. A professional, business-like, conversation with the publisher would almost certainly have been more productive than a hysterical rant.

From reading the blog entry, she already tried that and got the answer. "STFU, we made your story better."

[HarryT]

STFU?

Certainly doesn't sound like a very good deal for the author. No payment, no other distribution for the story for a year, not even a free copy of the book? Makes you wonder why anyone in their right mind would agree to such a thing!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

STFU?

"Shut the f* up."

Which is not literally what the publisher said, but very close. Some excerpts:

wow, i truly cant believe that e,mail. you go girl. this one one hell of a story about dealing with unstable writers
...
we did what we had to do to make the story printable. you should be thankful, not complaining. ah, the ungrateful writer, gotta love it
...
any more correspondences from you must be from your lawyer. ... i dont waste my time arguing with writers over legalities. thats what lawyers are for.
you are so funny.

While I suspect her letter to the publisher wasn't as calm or reasonable as you (or I) would consider proper, I don't believe it warranted that kind of response.

Certainly doesn't sound like a very good deal for the author. No payment, no other distribution for the story for a year, not even a free copy of the book? Makes you wonder why anyone in their right mind would agree to such a thing!

Before ebooks and POD, accepting such a contract for the advantage of getting in print at all was reasonable in some cases. Sort of. While a good author was better holding off for a paying deal, "I have been published, and not by paying for it myself" was a mark of some distinction, and useful on a resume and possibly a way to reach other publishers.

Of course, before POD, a publisher wouldn't be willing to take the financial risk of untried authors unless they (1) knew they had a great eye for talent and (2) had excellent editors on staff.

Excellent editors don't use apostrophes in verbs, and an eye for talent means not bothering with works you think are so bad they need extensive editing. And at no level of business is it reasonable to mock and insult the people providing you with what you want to sell.

However, she does have her rights back and can seek her own market for it, and if that's the level of editing they've done, I doubt the book will sell enough copies to impact her future career much.

I do think she should attempt to get her name removed from it and a pseudonym used instead--I know that some authors have managed that in the past, but I don't know if that's because of specific contract arrangements.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Excellent editors don't use apostrophes in verbs, and an eye for talent means not bothering with works you think are so bad they need extensive editing. And at no level of business is it reasonable to mock and insult the people providing you with what you want to sell.

I agree that they don't sound like a terribly reputable outfit. By the sound of it, it's more or less a "vanity press" kind of deal. But there's probably no legal comeback if she agreed to let them "edit" her story.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

Does the usual meaning of edit include adding chunks to the story? Not just rearranging, trimming etc., but adding new story elements? I don't think so.

Andrew

Yes. I presume there are many interpretations of "edit" but from what I'm reading this was not editing, this was re-writing and poorly at that.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree that they don't sound like a terribly reputable outfit. By the sound of it, it's more or less a "vanity press" kind of deal. But there's probably no legal comeback if she agreed to let them "edit" her story.

The "editor" in question doesn't seem that bothered about law ... not copyright law anyway.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Reckoni.../dp/193545806X

"Follow Peter and Fran as they leave the home comforts of the mall and fly to destinations unknown. With the safety of the mall a thing of the past and Fran ready to give birth, we follow our heroes from Dawn of the Dead in the helicopter looking for a safe place to settle."

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sue on what grounds, Kenny? ....

This is the U.S. Harry, the land of the lawsuit and home of the outraged.