Legitimate targets

[DaveKuzminski]

Should current PA employees be considered legitimate targets for criticism?

I view them as soldiers of the enemy, so to speak, to put it into a framework that might be more understandable. In other words, to get to the enemy country, you have to first deal with the enemy soldiers.

[Rose colored glasses]

I don't think you can make a blanket assumption. I had a few PA employees who were very nice to me and even did things they weren't required to do for my book.

That said, I would think their consciences would bother them after a while. If they can be faced with the consequences of what they are helping promote with PA ( and for $11/hr??) , maybe PA will implode.

[LloydBrown]

Should current PA employees be considered legitimate targets for criticism?

I view them as soldiers of the enemy, so to speak, to put it into a framework that might be more understandable. In other words, to get to the enemy country, you have to first deal with the enemy soldiers.

I've stated this before: they have to know that their "authors" won't sell very many books. They know that PA's authors buy more books than they sell. They know what marketing (that is, none) PA does for its authors. They process the few outside orders that actually come in. These people are fully aware and knowing participants in this process.

There might be a few part-timers whose tangential duties leave them out of the loop. I'd compare them to support personel and MASH units, not the active soldiers. Don't beat on them. As far as the "editors" and other decision-makers at every level--yeah, they're targets of opportunity.

[DaveKuzminski]

Rose, this one was talking about saving up enough money from her PA job to take a two-week trip to Europe. She doesn't really care about the authors she's helping to harm. I think she should be a valid target.

If the individuals working at PA had any integrity, they'd quit upon seeing what's going on. If they don't have that, then they ought to share in the guilt and punishment.

[James D. Macdonald]

You'll get far farther by making them your friends. They'll become sources of information.

Most of the PA employees, so far as I can tell, are young women with liberal arts degrees -- just graduated from college and in their first jobs. They don't know any better.

Look at how much good attacking you did PA.

[Rose colored glasses]

Hmmm, well, it will come back to bite them in the butt when they try to move on to a better job in the publishing industry and have Publish America on their resume'. Just how much chance do you think that will give them?


I totally agree about the culpability.

[James D. Macdonald]

As far as how much good it'll do 'em on their resumes -- it'll do as much good as a PA author listing their book in a cover letter when submitting a work to a legitimate publisher.

This'll be the blank space on their resumes, the period where they claim they were clam diggers or hitch-hiking around America trying to find themselves.

If they ever do go on to legitimate publishing they'll have a lot of bad habits to overcome.

[triceretops]

I think the employees came in wide-eyed and ignorant, given the rah-rah pep talk, followed by a vinegar sandwich and a cup of Koolaid. They were told they had just stepped upon the ground floor and were participating in a historical event--one that would change the (Printing) industry forever. Then some time later they got gut cramps and bad breath. But they are most likely aware now, but holding on to their jobs out of obligation and necessity. Most likely they've all been given the helm of Info-Lier at one point or another to test their company loyalty. That would be their initiation--similar to sacrificing a rabbit over an altar. I would like to know if they rotate the InfoLier shifts to most employees, or whether this aspect is kept on the hush-and-hush.

I think their guilty after the fact.

Tri

[Rose colored glasses]

Here's my philosophy on InfoCenter. Every Monday, they have a meeting to prepare for the week. One of the head honchos gets up and says " Ok, which one of you will be having really bad PMS this week?" And those who raise their hands get to be InfoCenter for the week. It spares the other employees from dealing with their moods, and gives the PMSers an outlet for their frustrations.

[LloydBrown]

Dave K, what, specifically, did you have in mind?

[Aconite]

I personally worked at a job I hated, doing something I found morally disagreeable, because it was literally the only job I could find and I needed rent and groceries. I've got no right nor inclination to condemn anyone in the same position.

OTOH, I wasn't saving up for a European vacation; that job wasn't about earning extra pocket money for me, but about survival.

[James D. Macdonald]

I would far rather have a mole than a target.

If I couldn't befriend them, I'd sit quietly, listen to what they said, and hope they didn't notice me listening in order to gain useful intelligence.

[Cathy C]

Fair enough, Jim. If we can manage to capture one of them, the Geneva convention rules will apply... ;)

[Banned-Aide]

I think the employees at PA were duped the same as the authors were. Lets face it people; they are good at weaving a good sounding game. They give the rah-rah speech to the newbies and it sounds wonderful. Just like the newbie writers, they think they have hit the big time. Imagine how many kids right out of college are impressed with finding their first real job with a publisher? I would be impressed with myself at first too.

However, when it becomes clear how deceptive PA is, I only respect the ones who run, and run fast. I personally could not work for a company that is killing people's dreams and lying to them over and over again. But then again, I've never wondered where my next meal was coming from either. I cannot judge but I have little respect for the ones who stay and take part in the games. I have seen more of them leave in the last four years than stay and I would like to think that has something to say about the integrity of the average person.

BA

[James D. Macdonald]

If I were the cops, and I had a phone tap on a couple of low-level Mafia guys' phones, my first move wouldn't be to knock on their doors and say "I'M FROM THE POLICE! WE HAVE YOUR PHONE TAPPED! ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE MAFIA IS A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION?" And I wouldn't run around posting transcripts of their phone conversations on pro-Mafia web boards, either.

[astonwest]

Indeed...we see what happens when people post links to threads on the PA boards...

[LloydBrown]

I would far rather have a mole than a target.

If I couldn't befriend them, I'd sit quietly, listen to what they said, and hope they didn't notice me listening in order to gain useful intelligence.

I totally agree, which is why I was trying to find out more of what Dave was planning to do to them. That could be extraordinarily useful.

[KTC]

I'm reminded of the song and dance pep talk the Wal Mart employees supposedly get before they start work each morning. Is that true or a myth? Anyway....I'm just suggesting that maybe the employees were duped? Like the WalMart employees who think it's so wonderful that this mighty giant helps them do morning jumping jacks and paints there faces with scary symbolic smiles..."Wow, it's great working at WAL MART! WooHOO!" And then, after every other store in the area folds into bankruptcy, and Wal Mart decides, "Hmmm, maybe this is not a good spot for a store afterall?" the scary-faced smiling WalMart employees show up one morning with their roll of yellow stickers and they're all gungho to do their jumping jacks...only to find out that they are out of jobs. They served on the evil empire...selling everything under God's sun for $197.77 or less, but they didn't know they were plugged into Satan? They walk up to the locked doors, try to open them with their smiley stickers, realize they are out in the cold with the rest of their burned out town and they finally deflate from their 2-year jumping jack frenzy and they start to realize that they helped to eat their own young and some fatazz named Walton is living high on the hog in a winterwonderland somewhere in Kissmyazz, Kansas. (Whoa! Slow down self. What the heck are you talking about?)

It's just something to mull over?

[Aconite]

I'm reminded of the song and dance pep talk the Wal Mart employees supposedly get before they start work each morning. Is that true or a myth?
Off-topic, but I'm posting it anyway because I understand having to know something:
True. I have seen it. It was very creepy and is why I now shop mostly at Target and other places that don't make brainwashing rituals part of the morning startup.

[KTC]

Thank you for clarifying. I meant it to be on topic...I was merely making a comparison...maybe suggesting the employees of PA had no idea of the wreckage they were causing, so happy were they to be able to be doing jumping jacks.

[astonwest]

Our roommate is a Wal-Mart employee...
Although it does happen each day, three times a day (three shifts), it's not a "brainwashing" technique...
They also discuss daily sales, celebrate anniversaries and birthdays, and announce what areas they need to improve in, customer complaints and whatnot.

The "song and dance" is to try and keep up morale...
(btw, each store has a different cheer)

[Aconite]

Our roommate is a Wal-Mart employee...
Although it does happen each day, three times a day (three shifts), it's not a "brainwashing" technique...
My brother's a Walmart manager. I consider it corporate-identity brainwashing. YMMV.
(Since this is OT for this thread--sorry, Dave--shall we continue it elsewhere, if we feel the need?)

[underthecity]

Job seekers are advised to research the company they are applying to and/or interviewing for. They are supposed to ask questions and have a fair knowledge of the company during the interview. And of course the web makes this easy.

Wouldn't college graduates who apply to work at PA as editors and whatnot research PA before their interviews? And we all know what kind of information is available about PA on the web.

I wonder what kinds of questions they ask? Or do they even dare?

allen

[DaveKuzminski]

My idea is to send a copy of the blog page to MP without the name. If they figure out who she is, that's her tough luck. She's down on PA authors and is just working there to get a jumpstart on her employment record and earn enough for a trip to Europe. Bah! I really think she deserves to be outed.

[Aconite]

My idea is to send a copy of the blog page to MP without the name. If they figure out who she is, that's her tough luck. She's down on PA authors and is just working there to get a jumpstart on her employment record and earn enough for a trip to Europe. Bah! I really think she deserves to be outed.
Do you think PA cares what the employees think of PA or of authors?

[astonwest]

Do you think PA cares what the employees think of PA or of authors?

One employee posted on her blog what she thought of all the submissions, and (presumably) PA made her take it down once it was mentioned over here (and offered as evidence of what they really think of their authors' work). I don't believe that employee works for them anymore.

[book_maven]

My idea is to send a copy of the blog page to MP without the name. If they figure out who she is, that's her tough luck. She's down on PA authors and is just working there to get a jumpstart on her employment record and earn enough for a trip to Europe. Bah! I really think she deserves to be outed.

Dave, I strongly oppose this. I have seen that blog, and the young person is already disillusioned, unhappy and nearly ready to bolt. In addition, thanks to the links posted in the NEPAT thread, we can all read that quite a few of the authors think AW is scum, filled with hate toward PA authors.

In our quest to take down a thieving, lying company we must not lose sight of the fact that we may look like vindictive, mean, even jealous people to the PAers. We know this is wrong, but their perception is all they have to go on. We are the outsiders. Therefore, we should act with the utmost dignity, thorough honesty and genuinely caring attitudes possible. Our eyes must always be on PA as the target.

To drag an unwitting, unhappy employee into this using a personal blog is in my opinion absolutely wrong. It is morally repugnant. It is not the act of a savior, of someone trying to help.

Even if you use it, it is unlikely to have the desired effect. Consider that PA has already proven its strength against its enemies by using its authors. The authors will consider this a personal attack on "their" editors, the ones helping them become published. It will feel personal, and only embitter them further against AW, P&E and everyone here. And if that happens, then what? They will most likely never turn to any of these places or people to help them in the future.

Remember, AW is already seen as the enemy by those in a position to help bring down PA--its unhappy authors and its former employees. AW (as well as any "name" connected with it such as Jenna, Victoria, Ann, James or you) cannot afford to further inflame people if it is to work effectively. Please re-think your position on this. I urge you not to do it. If you go ahead, you risk generating enormous, possibly longterm, anger, and you may well end up causing more damage to AW than PA.

I say no, absolutely not. Not now, not ever.

[DaveKuzminski]

Book maven, I feel you don't understand how to fight back against something insidious like PA. You cannot go with half-measures. You have to attack them on every weakness they have. That means you have to take out their key employees when the opportunity comes because that deprives them of one more individual. It will weaken and threaten the other employees because they will see themselves in a less secure position. As it is, if that employee's admission is correct that the PA employees are already feeling threatened by PA, then more pressure from the outside should be what is needed to convince them to quit.

The same goes for any rah-rah types among the authors. They are dragging in more victims and that's wrong. There's no telling how many HB brought into the fold before he went too far with his antics. For all we know, he's still in the fold in reserve for when he's needed again as a clown.

You disagree with my opinion, but mine is based upon combat. You don't target only the top leadership and leave the soldiers alone to overrun your positions. You target everything. That includes their soldiers whenever you have a shot at them.

By the way, I'm not a savior. Never claimed to be, either. I'm just a fighter who's willing to get down and dirty and determined to win.

[book_maven]

I understand what you are saying, Dave, but consider this. Their editors are not "key" employees. True, management couldn't run PA without their editors and graphics people, but these employees are inexperienced beginners who come and go. None of them could be considered "key."

And again, I come back to this: Your reputation, P&E's reputation, James', Jenna's, Victoria's and Ann's and especially AW's reputations are all on the line. How each of you behaves in public reflects on the fight.

PA fights dirty, and the authors (and to a lesser extent, the editors) often begin to see that when their reason eventually reasserts itself over their blind adherence to PA. If AW can maintain its reputation as a fair fighter, bound by a code of honor, then all of you involved in the front lines only gain in credibility. If you get as down and dirty as PA, who will these authors trust after they have sadly moved on from PA? Not someone who has acted as badly as PA.

Dave, you do such good work with P&E. Jenna does great work here. Ann and Victoria's Writer Beware is fabulous. Why put all that at risk for what is likely to be minor gain since PA will only replace this employee with another poorly paid one? What you propose would seem to me to scare off potential PA authors. Rather than getting them to trust you, you may well ruin what could be their trustworthy lifelines when they begin to seek out other information on publishing.

It seems to me that this type of action may have a short-term success, but in the long run, cause major damage to the good guys. A scorched earth policy won't help anyone.

[James D. Macdonald]

What purpose could that possibly serve? What good could could possibly come from it?

Why go out of your way to make an enemy of someone who could be an important ally, in return for no conceivable benefit to anyone?

[LloydBrown]

I gotta admit, Dave, I think you're overestimating the value of PA's editors. These "editors" are hired because they demonstrate the ability to run spellcheck in word. They're not real editors. They're not even competent copy editors. If you can hit F7, you're qualified to be a PA "editor."

They'll just go get another one. I'm sure Frederick, Maryland is full of near-high school graduates.

[DaveKuzminski]

I sometimes think that some of you don't realize that this is a fight and there are no rules other than not breaking the law.


The only reasons for some PA actions is that they realized they had to back down or face the law. That's why they removed Dave Bowlin's name from that topic where they conducted a character assassination against him and myself. He could have sued them big time and won and they knew it. Plus, he only demanded they remove it, so they had no way of knowing if he'd take the next step since they didn't have a contract with arbitration in it governing their actions and his. They gave in, but it was because they knew he'd win at a crucial point where their cash cow was beginning to really produce.

PA will do almost anything, not because they can get away with it, but because they know most of the writers signed with them do not understand their contracts and do not have the resources needed to face them down. We know that's true and when one writer did, they tried to send the cops after him. They know that most people are honest and obey the law, even though they don't know what the laws really are much of the time. PA takes advantage of that too to misdirect them as to what the law is and isn't.

You don't agree with me, but now is not the time to go easy on PA or any of their underlings who still work there. They haven't earned the right for us to go easy on them. I don't care if some of them were nice during editing to some PA writers. What matters is why are they still there? Why haven't they given evidence to the authorities already? It's apparent from that one blog page that they know what's going on and have for some time. I've learned this also from other former PA employees. They know, yet they haven't helped the authorites because if they had PA would be surrounded by yellow tape already as a crime scene.

[Rose colored glasses]

She definitely sounds very young.

All I could think of as I read that is how it would burst quite a few bubbles on the PA board. I admire your restraint in not posting it on a board, Dave. That's some pretty heady stuff.

[DaveKuzminski]

Don't be too proud too soon. I posted two paragraphs without her name on a forum where it will hopefully do some good.

What I'm asking about here is whether it should have her name included. She really doesn't deserve our protection when you consider how many authors she's helped PA harm.

[James D. Macdonald]

First of all, this isn't combat. I've been in combat. I can tell the difference.

Second, this young editor, or others like her, is in a perfect position to pass along what Larry said to Willem in the office this morning, or what the water-cooler gossip about Brittanica lawsuit is. Do you think that friggin' Prather is going to be so pathetically grateful to you for identifying a security leak in their office that she's going to write back and tell you where the bodies are buried?

Listen -- after you posted portions of that blog page over on a pro-PA board, the odds are close to 100% that Prather already has it, and has already fired the girl. Not that it changed one opinion on that pro-PA board one inch, of course. That's giving away the farm and not even getting a handful of beans in return.

What did you do for anyone who's opposed to PA? You closed down a window into their office, made it less likely that other windows would open, and made an enemy of someone who could have done some serious damage to the PA bigwigs. Smooth move for sure, big guy. That's called "shooting yourself in the foot."

Your friend Bowlin could have sued PA. Great. Why didn't he? That's a whole different case from this, and you and I both know it.

[Rose colored glasses]

I found it interesting that they are being pushed to make increasing acquisitions quotas.
Author farm indeed.

I tend to agree that it's better strategy to make friends of the underlings, rather than alienate them. Remember, it was a "deep throat" who outed the Watergate scandal.

[book_maven]

Oh damnit, Dave, by posting that piece you ensured that they could identify the blogger. Googling something is easy. Now she has no job. You closed a window as James said. And you in essence told the other employees that AW posters cannot be trusted.

And what did it accomplish? Is PA suffering more tonight because you did that?

You have lost my respect.

[DaveKuzminski]

James, you'll have to ask Dave Bowlin why. I can't speak for him.

As to deep throat, he had integrity and convictions about what was right and knew that the law was being broken, so he revealed the information. The woman in question is no deep throat. Her only concern was for herself. If she was fired, then she's better off already.

As to being hated, that comes with the territory when you take on scams head on. I've been in similar positions before. Once was in the military when an officer demanded that I replace my evaluation of another soldier who worked for me. I refused even though the officer stated that my own evaluation would depend upon my reply. I still refused even though that officer then went through with the threat. But it was worth it. That soldier later approached me ten years later and thanked me for standing my ground because it was what she needed to recognize that she didn't want a military career and wasn't suited for it, either. Well, I'm willing to take that kind of stand here, too.

Now if you all feel that I would reflect badly on you, just say the word and I'll stop posting here. Then you can wage a clean war and I'll wage one that's all out. After all, I can understand why some of you want it to remain clean. You have successful writing careers that you don't want sullied. I simply don't have the same risks as you have.

[DaveKuzminski]

Book maven, she'd already posted it in public. She was going to be discovered regardless and was before I got to it. However, I'm not going to reveal my source.

[roach]

Dave, I have the utmost respect for the work you do with P&E. I also have a lot of sympathy for what PA has done to you.

However...

What's the point of being the good guy if you can't be distinguished from the bad guys by your actions?

[DaveKuzminski]

I haven't asked for any sympathy. I haven't even asked for recognition that P&E was among the first, if not the first, to post a warning about PA when a writer in January and February 2000 wrote and sent a copy of their contract asking if it was okay. That was what triggered P&E's first warning.

At the time, I thought that was enough. I'd done my share by getting an opinion from an attorney and then posted a warning. It took me awhile to recognize just how much of a fight PA wanted as a result of that and that a lot of newbies just don't do enough research to find those warnings.

I'm no savior. I'm not looking for respect. I'm just fighting for what's right. Furthermore, I figure that most people will recognize that when the dust clears. If not, well I can handle the heat. I also figure there will be some who will never recognize how they were harmed and will blame me or others for stopping a scam that I know can be stopped. When you know you can't please everyone, then it's time to do what you feel is right.

In the meantime, remember "The Savage Curtain", ep. 322.

[pepperlandgirl]

Hey, if you don't want to be fired, chastised, mocked, or otherwise distressed for your thoughts/feelings, don't post them or identifying information on the Internet.

[writerjenn]

Hey, if you don't want to be fired, chastised, mocked, or otherwise distressed for your thoughts/feelings, don't post them or identifying information on the Internet.

(sigh) While I don't always agree with Dave's tactics (we've butted heads on opinions before, probably will again), I have to agree. If you post something on the internet, it's pretty much fair game. Someone you don't expect to see it will see it. By cutting and pasting it onto another board doesn't negate the fact that it was already broadcasted into the wide, wide world and would surely have been found out anyway.

I feel bad for the young lady, but there is always cause and effect.

Jenn

[JennaGlatzer]

Ugh. More than anything, I see that as poor strategizing. I don't see how her losing her job hurts PA in any way whatsoever, and I think we could have learned an awful lot more by keeping our mouths shut.

I don't think PA employees are "innocent"-- at least once a month or two has passed and they understand the score. I don't buy into the "I was just carrying out orders" stuff. But neither do I think it serves any purpose to get them fired when all it means is that PA will hire a new unqualified person tomorrow.

Oh, and everything book_maven said. And James. And roach. Etc.

I'm not concerned with sullying my reputation as an author. I'm more concerned with sullying my conscience as a human being. I fight clean and fair, always have. And that's how we're going to win.

I'm no savior. I'm not looking for respect. I'm just fighting for what's right. Furthermore, I figure that most people will recognize that when the dust clears. If not, well I can handle the heat. I also figure there will be some who will never recognize how they were harmed and will blame me or others for stopping a scam that I know can be stopped. When you know you can't please everyone, then it's time to do what you feel is right.

I agree entirely. Just like you do, I get shat upon quite regularly by people who do not understand or do not believe I'm trying to help them, not hurt them. Just like you do, I get nearly-daily lawsuit threats and nastygrams from people listed on the Bewares board, and I quietly deal with them and stand my ground because I have this horribly expensive and troublesome habit of wanting to do what's right in the world.

But Dave, again, what purpose did it serve? This specific act. Not the whole idea of fighting the battle. What purpose did it serve to potentially get this one editor fired and cut off any future communication with her or anyone else who might have followed in her footsteps and given out information that we might have actually used to do some good? What purpose did it serve to get the rumor mill going at PA that the people at AW can't be trusted? So now Miranda will once again go over the company rules about how they'd all better never speak to any of us and never blog or speak about PA in any way, or they'll get fired, sued, etc.

I don't care what I think of a PA employee... if she's ready to talk, I'm ready to listen, and I don't need any more obstacles in the way that make it look like I'm someone vindictive or not to be trusted.

[James D. Macdonald]

Outing this person -- posting to Ghod and the world -- isn't fighting the good fight. It isn't being courageous. It's an incredibly short-sighted action that has harmed the cause of bringing PA to justice.

What might this person have told us, if youhadn't taken it upon yourself to reveal that you were watching, then to burn a source? We certainly won't find out.

Unfortunately, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

Let me make this very, very simple for you.

Why might Miranda Prather fire this person?

Because she was talking about her workplace where people who oppose that workplace might find out.

Why would we want to keep her talking?

Because we oppose that workplace, and want to find out what she knows -- the things that aren't meant for public consumption.

What did the stupidly selfish act of burning this person accomplish?

Well, for Miranda Prather it accomplished quite a bit -- it made her workplace a little tidier. It closed a security hole. It made others less likely to talk in an unguarded manner. It left her better off than she was at this time yesterday.

What did this foolish blunder accomplish for us?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's like FDR calling up Hirohito in the days just after Pearl Harbor and saying, "Oh, by the way, your ciphers aren't terribly secure. We're reading them all."

[Mac H.]

In continuing the 'combat' analogy:

The scene: Combat HQ. The Americans are meeting to figure out how to stop the impending Japanese invasion.

GENERAL: Well, we've got good news. David K has discovered that one of the enemy foot soldiers is giving out information on the Japanese Troop movements.

There is general applause. Everybody is very impressed at this turn of events.

GENERAL: So, David, what have we done with this new intelligence?

DAVID: Well, you'll be happy to know we haven't just sat on this information. We've sent a message all about the leak on a channel that the Japanese high command monitor all the time.

There are general gasps of disbelief.

GENERAL: What !??

DAVID: You don't understand the brilliance of the plan. This way, the Japanese will find out about the leak - and they'll execute the foot soldier who is leaking the info. It's pure genius! The foot soldier is a member of the enemy forces - and we've just eliminated him!

Silence.

DAVID: Err, guys. I don't think that white jacket will fit me. And it only opens at the back....

[JennaGlatzer]

Unfortunately, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

My only hope right now is that Dave gets over there immediately and erases the post. There is still a slim possibility Cruella DeVille hasn't seen it yet. There's still damage done either way, but the damage could be lessened.

[HapiSofi]

Should current PA employees be considered legitimate targets for criticism?

I view them as soldiers of the enemy, so to speak, to put it into a framework that might be more understandable. In other words, to get to the enemy country, you have to first deal with the enemy soldiers.I emphatically do not agree, and I think you're being unkind, unfair, and not the least little bit constructive.

We all understand that PA's authors aren't "soldiers of the enemy," even when they come here and denounce us. We know they'll be singing a different song, sadder but wiser, within a few months to a year. This woman is no more a minion of the enemy than they are.

(Come on -- soldiers? How many regiments hath Publish America? Willem Meiners, Larry Clopper, and Miranda Prather are the ones who've always been in on the scam, plus wotzisface their copywriter, and possibly H. B. Marcus their sometimes enforcer. Everyone else is sooner or later their victim.)

This young woman took on what she had every reason to believe was a legitimate editorial job. She's been down there in the literary equivalent of the front-line trenches of the Somme, trying to edit books when she doesn't have the time or training or authority to do a proper job. All the same, she's given it her best try.

And what has she gotten for it? She's gotten to work on an unending string of unsaleable, unfixable, unreadable books. That would be hard to take if you knew from the start that the books you were working on were slush. She hasn't. She's been working for an operation which pretends it's normal for books to be that bad, so she's been trying to see them and respond to them as though they were real books. You have no idea how miserable a task it is to do fix-up editing on thoroughly bad books.

Listen, because I'm not speaking metaphorically: that hurts. It causes nausea and depression. If you keep force-feeding yourself bad prose over an extended period, you can do long-term damage to your love of writing and language. It's an injury, just as surely as pulling a muscle or dislocating a joint. And she's a writer.

Meanwhile there you are, lighting into her with your BS "soldier of the enemy" attitude, so now she's probably not going to talk to us, and she's friend-locked her Live Journal. Bleeping brilliant! I can't talk to her now. I can't even get a message through to this fellow-editor of mine to say "Kid, get out of there if you can, that job is not good for you."

So she works for crooks? Big deal! I've worked for crooks too. Most editors do, sooner or later. You don't know they're crooks when you take the job, and by the time you figure it out, you've gotten invested in your books and authors and co-workers, so you stick around because you think you can help. It happens. Did you imagine I'd picked up all of my knowledge of bad publishing practices by reading about them in a book?

[Aconite]

And what a PR coup for PA: "We found out that one of our editors was being disrespectful about our authors, so we fired her."

[Richard]

I concur. Short-sighted and spiteful, not constructive in the least.

[DaveKuzminski]

We see things differently.

What you saw in that blog was something we already know. What I saw was an opportunity to restrict all the word of mouth recommendations by honeymoon PA authors to those who might sign up because of them by letting them see how their editors feel about them. If you don't cut off the flow of new writers, PA's war chest will replenish itself and there won't be any progress in defeating it. If enough honeymoon PA authors see what their editors think of them, it just might throw them onto the right track. They already think everything we tell them is a lie because that's what PA claims while it lies about how it gave them a chance.

So yes, I'm willing to give up one pawn in exchange for a whole lot of other pawns. I'm not as shortsighted as some of you believe. I do reason things out contrary to how those who see things differently feel.

As far as the remark about me trying to be a big shot, that's as far as you can get from my reasons for being in this fight. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep all the glory when it's over. I'll be satisfied knowing I did my part to the best of my ability. I'll just continue doing my best to set some standards in this difficult industry and give out recommendations to help guide other writers.

[James D. Macdonald]

So, knowing now that you blundered, that you gave up a "pawn" that wasn't a pawn and wasn't yours to "give up" in return for nothing, I hope in the future you'll act differently.

[HapiSofi]

Dave, you screwed up.

[roach]

Dave, I honestly don't understand this. And I get the feeling it's pointless to post this, but that hasn't stopped me yet.

You posted a question, asking for opinions. Obviously many here did not write what you wanted to hear. I don't know why you asked for opinions as you seem to have gone ahead and done what you wanted to do in the first place.

I don't see anyone accusing you of wanting to be a "big shot." (I even went back and reread the thread and still don't see it.)

What I do see are several of your brothers-in-arms (to mangle the war metaphor and insult the female posters all at the same time) trying to show you why this course of action is futile and most likely to have no effect--if not backfire.

*goes back to work*

[DaveKuzminski]

Like I stated, we see things differently. I don't consider it a blunder. Besides, it's too soon to see any results in either direction. It's even quite possible that no one will ever learn which direction was influenced the most. But you obviously know better than anyone else.

Anyway, if anyone reads carefully what I stated, I asked if it would be a good idea to give the employee's name. I didn't say a word about restricting access to what that employee expressed. However, keep twisting everything to fit your views if that's what you want.

I've nothing more to say on this.

[book_maven]

Dear young editor,

I am sorry.

BM

[James D. Macdonald]

But you obviously know better than anyone else.

I don't claim to know better than anyone else. In this case I certainly claim to know better than you.

Don't do this again.

If you can't help the fight, please stay on the sidelines.

[JennaGlatzer]

Dave, I don't want to pile on you. I know very well that you're not in this for the "glory" and I respect what you do at P&E an awful lot. But you're not in this fight alone, and I do sometimes wish you'd check in with the others who also work really hard on this stuff before taking an action that will affect all of us. Others among us had seen the blog, too, but nobody posted-- there was a reason for that. Who knows what the next post would have contained, or the next? There was so much possibility there for us.

Now that you've explained, I do understand your reasoning... but I still disagree with it. And I'm still very frustrated because I feel it was a major blunder.

I'm also uncomfortable with telling PA authors that their editors hate them and think their writing stinks... it may be true, it may feel like "tough love" to you to tell them, but damn, that's awful for any of them to read. Once they hit reality, enough of them already feel low enough to want to give up writing. Can you imagine finding out that not only did your editor not truly want to give your book "the chance it deserves," but she actively hated it and was glad it would never be in a bookstore?

I know you well enough to know you're not going to back down on this, Dave, but it makes me really hesitant to share anything with someone who may go "kamikaze" and act against others' interests.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Should current PA employees be considered legitimate targets for criticism?

I view them as soldiers of the enemy, so to speak, to put it into a framework that might be more understandable. In other words, to get to the enemy country, you have to first deal with the enemy soldiers.


No. I think that PA employees should be left out of the issue entirely. I think that to treat them as enemies is to sink to the depths that Guestbook Slammers have in the past--and presently, with the so-called Guestbook Slimer--have sunk in attacking PA authors as enemies.

In my own experience as a PA author who has been slammed repeatedly by several different Guestbook Slammers, the picture these people left of the truth about PA was not good. They helped along the 'Us vs. Them' mentality I've seen mentioned on the NEPAT again and again. These attacks strengthened our resolve to refuse to accept that PA could be anything other than the benevolent and kind publisher giving us a chance. As you know, PA loves to say they're willing to give authors a chance whereas most publishers won't.

So the point I'm making is, if we were to attack those 'foot soldiers' simply because they work for PA, I believe we would be showing them that we are bashers and not wanting them to succeed--which is the farthest thing from anyone's mind on this board. We want writers to succeed, or we wouldn't be coming to a board like AW to encourage writers.


So no, I think it would be unwise to attack these PA employees. Very unwise. In the end, I think that doing so would hurt not only our cause, but our reputation also as writers.

[James D. Macdonald]

A bit of a followup.

The young lady was fired the next morning. Two weeks later she got notice that she was going to be sued. (The suit was never filed -- Prather et al. still don't want to go into a courtroom. The notice was purely for intimidation purposes. A bit of extra sadism.)

The other PA editors who had journals/blogs shut them down.

And that was the great outcome of this glorious attack on the "enemy."