The Old Neverending PublishAmerica Thread (Publish America)

It's About Personal Responsibility

Simon said it perfectly. No one here is saying that PA should be held blameless but we all need to take at least a small measure of responsibility of being taken. Yes, it is possible to do the research and still get taken but I doubt it would take more than 15 minutes on the internet searching for PA to set even the most trusting person’s warning sirens off.

Re: Give Me A Break

Simon says he agrees with Nameless65? Well golly gosh gee whiz, ain't that a surprise.

There is no reason or need to go muddling our arguments the way Simon and Nameless want us to do. No matter how good or bad their authors are, PA's frauds and misdeeds remain frauds and misdeeds. Our analyses of PA are made no clearer by mixing in irrelevancies like the idea that inept authors are somehow less deserving of our efforts because they've failed to notice that they can't write.

And yes, that argument is irrelevant. It's also untrue. It's also immoral, if one cares about such things.

Should the authors have known better? Could they have known? Alas, they couldn't. If bad authors had enough insight to know that they're bad authors, they wouldn't write as badly as they do. But they don't have the necessary abilities; and so they write badly, and can't tell they write badly.

Everyone who works with wanna-be authors knows that about them. Everyone.

Here's another fact about them: auctorial naivete, sense of personal responsibility, and writing ability are not related. Those are three separate issues. Where does Simon get off equating them?

The business about "personal responsibility" is especially offensive. Many PA authors run themselves ragged on behalf of their books, accepting responsibility for a thousand tasks that at conventional publishing houses would be done for them. They undertake to promote their own books. They make cold sales calls on bookstore managers. They set up signings, send out promotional material, even register their own copyrights. Some of them have tried to work around PA's excessive cover prices by buying copies of their books and selling them at a more appropriate price, taking a loss on every sale in order to get their books into readers' hands. Some have traveled hundreds of miles and spent hundreds of dollars to participate in doomed but earnest group signings.

These are not people who've failed to take personal responsibility for themselves, and I have no respect for Simon's assertions to the contrary.

As for their naivete: PA has been aggressively pushing the idea that they're a real publisher: huge elaborate webpage, testimonials from supposedly satisfied authors, constant self-promotion (the "Up in Lights" section is shameless), and a tightly policed bulletin board where any suggestion that they're not a real publisher with real distribution will disappear within a day of being posted (as will the author of the suggestion). PA's package is a very slick piece of salesmanship. It's no surprise that authors buy into it; that's the effect it's been engineered to have.

What we have here is an unequal transaction. On one side, you have PA doing everything they can to hoodwink and mislead writers. On the other side, you have writers whose everyday levels of caution are inadequate to protect them from such an elaborate and sophisticated con game. The writers are in earnest. PA is not. PA is knowingly and deliberately committing fraud upon them. You could demonstrate PA's bad intent solely by observing that the thing that'll get your post deleted fastest from their boards is any discussion of PA's non-presence in brick-and-mortar bookstores. That's a major selling point for them, so they have an allergic reaction to mentions of the truth.

Exercising due diligence and taking personal responsibility for ourselves is not enough to protect us from professional con artists. If you're not already aware that those scams exist, the really subtle, sophisticated con games require a level of caution and paranoia that would be completely out of line when you're dealing with the other challenges and interactions of your life. You can cheat an honest man, and you can cheat a reasonably wary one, too.

In closing, I'd like to observe that it's a standard trope on the PA boards to refer to dissatisfied PA authors as crybabies who failed to read their contracts. That was the only place I'd run into that viewpoint, until Nameless and Simon started preaching a full-blown version of it here. Feel free to draw your own inferences.

Sheesh!

I never said, or even implied that "personal responsibility, and writing ability are related!" Good writers can be as irresponsible as bad ones. Bad writers can be pillars of responsiblity.

I said that the "denial fantatics" were not injured and in fact, in their eyes PA HAD made their dreams come true. And since the chances of those who are bad writers being published by any other means was nonexistent, I don't necessarily see that they have been harmed. Who are you to say that they have? They're living their dream. So I think with PA the issue of harm is truly in the eyes of the beholder.

As for those who have been harmed, I have never said they shouldn't try to break their contracts, I just said they should quit whining on these boards! And take responsiblity for their own bad judgement.

The fact is you can be wronged and still be wrong. And just because someone does you wrong, it does not absolve you of your own actions. Most con artists prey not on naivite, but on greed, avarice, vanity. "Give me 10 grand and I'll give you 1000% return on your investment in x amount of time." And people who are looking for the easy buck, who want something for nothing fork over the dough. Has the con artist committed a crime? yes. Does the idiot who forked over the dough bear any responsiblity for his bad judgement? yes. He's the one who cleared out his savings account. And even if the con artist is convicted, it doesn't mean the guy's gonna get his 10 grand back.

As for your implication that because I think someone should read a contract before signing it means I'm a PA mole - I don't know whether to laugh or puke. Basic common sense says that if you are entering into a legally binding agreement of any kind, it might behoove you to read the damn thing before you sign it. And if you don't read it and later realize that you don't like the terms.... well.... who's fault is that? In that case you have not been duped, you have not been conned, you have just been irresponsible.

I have no idea whether PA lives up to it's contractual obligations or not. If they don't, I'd think it would be fairly easy to break it, in fact I'd think that even the threat of litigation (as in a nasty letter on law firm letterhead) would be enough to get you out of it, because they're not making enough off of any given author to justify the legal fees it would take for a court fight.

Re: Sheesh!

Uh-huh.

Paranoia is setting in

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In closing, I'd like to observe that it's a standard trope on the PA boards to refer to dissatisfied PA authors as crybabies who failed to read their contracts. That was the only place I'd run into that viewpoint, until Nameless and Simon started preaching a full-blown version of it here. Feel free to draw your own inferences. <hr></blockquote>
Wow, all this hostility from, "A writer should do his/her research". It's pretty childish to suggest that anyone that "preaches" personal responsiblity as Simon and I have done is "in league" with PA - actually it's downright paranoid. <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/image/posticons/pi_freak.gif" />

If you'd read the thread instead of just picking bits and pieces that you disagree with you would have seen that we say over and over and over (for those sitting in the cheap seats or just plain hard of hearing) that we do not absolve PA of their blame.

For the rest of your post - I'd challenge you to have any high schooler do a search using Google, Yahoo, or even AOL's cheap search engine for PA and see what they get. Tell them they're about to give something they cherish, something incredibly important to them, to PA. If they don't come up with some major warnings within 10-30 minutes I'd be incredibly surprised. Or does this go beyond "everyday levels of precaution"?

For my part, I respect the work that the PA author goes through to get his or her book "out there". I sympathize with them for trying to make a bad thing less bad. I would also hope that they learn from their mistake and scrutinize any future publishing house thoroughly before jumping in.

Re: Paranoia is setting in

Vide supra.

Re: Actually. . .

(I'm always sorry when I jump into these things, but nonetheless...)

Actually--I'm an unpublished writer. I have a novel-in-progress that I've nursed along with cherished hopes and dreams.

I'm not an idiot. I write sales-copy for a living. I understand a little bit about different business models. However, it would never occur to me in my wildest freaking dreams that an entire company would exist just to scam would-be writers like myself.

For that reason, it wouldn't occur to me to do an in-depth google on a company that offered to publish my beloved prose. Sure, I'd check out their web-site. I would probably call the BBB. I would probably even look to see if they're listed in whatever year's edition of Writer's Market my library happens to have--gosh, they aren't listed there. Well, hey, no reference book is perfect. Besides, it tells you right there in the front that publishers come and go.

So, if I hypothetically finish my deathless masterpiece, and send it out a few times, getting more and more discouraged as the rejections pile up--about the time I've decided I'm just not cut out to write fiction, after all--PA tells me they want it.

Sure. I'd rather TOR or someone was publishing it, but you dance with the one what brung ya, right?

Naive? Sure. But the fact remains, I found this site by the merest fluke. I'm an insomniac, I live alone, I have internet access in my home. Take away any of those factors--I could've been here sometime next year or the year after, sadder-but-wiser. Instead I'm here now, forewarned and forearmed.

So a hearty thank-you to Jim, Hapi, Victoria, Dave, and everyone else who cares enough to try and head naive writers off before they must learn the hard way. And another thank-you to the former PA authors who've made a point of sharing their own stories.

Re: Paranoia is setting in

>> For the rest of your post - I'd challenge you to have any high schooler do a search using Google, Yahoo, or even AOL's cheap search engine for PA and see what they get. Tell them they're about to give something they cherish, something incredibly important to them, to PA. If they don't come up with some major warnings within 10-30 minutes I'd be incredibly surprised.<<

Prepare to be surprised, then. If you use specific word combinations that many people doing this kind of general search probably wouldn't think of, you might wind up at this message board on the fifth or sixth page of your search. Otherwise, apart from the P&E mention, you'd find little but general publisher listings, PA author websites, and happy PA author interviews. A websearch on PA is more likely to encourage an author to think PA is legit than to make them smell a rat.

This is true, BTW, of many scammers. There just aren't all that many general warnings floating around. Authors who've been hoodwinked are often too ashamed to publicly proclaim their humiliation.

I agree with those who point to writers' personal responsibility. I communicate all the time with writers who think they can plunge into the world of publishing without knowing a thing about it, and are very resistant to being told to take some time out to educate themselves about how it all works. A lot of people just don't want to bother with the research. That doesn't mean they aren't worth warning or saving, though. And in some cases, such as PA, the scam really is difficult to spot--intentionally so--unless you're fairly savvy.

- Victoria

Re: Actually. . .

Absolutely, Mac. Look how many people get married without running a check on their sweetie's finances, legal history, marital status, odd hobbies, and other essential issues.

If signing with PA is a big step, marriage is a bigger one, full of catastrophic possibilities for the unwary. And yet, when it turns out that someone's promising new spouse has a long history of battering his girlfriends and the two previous wives he'd never mentioned, or is a grifter who's left a trail of kited checks, stolen credit cards, and plundered employers in the last four cities where she's lived, we don't tell their confused and grieving partner that it's all their fault for not finding it out in advance. We certainly don't mock them for being so deluded as to believe that anyone worthwhile could have wanted to marry them.

To carry the analogy further, PA isn't the equivalent of a guy with too many tattoos, too few teeth, and a string of odd friends who turn up at odd hours -- the kind whose past any reasonably prudent woman would investigate before marrying him. PA is the guy with good manners, capped teeth, a nice suit, and a habit of ingratiating himself with young women who've just inherited real estate or received a fat insurance settlement. F*ckups and losers are easy to spot. Professional con artists aren't. That's why they're professionals. And that's PA, which presents itself as a successful, squeaky clean, public-spirited enterprise.

Ol' Nameless here says

I'd challenge you to have any high schooler do a search using Google, Yahoo, or even AOL's cheap search engine for PA and see what they get.

Click to expand...

I used Google, the best and most popular search engine going, and "publish america" as my search string. The entire first page of hits consisted of jolly PA promo. The first blip of negative information, on the second page, is Caveat Scrivener at Speculations, which leads to a lengthy ongoing discussion. The currently topmost post might or might not say anything useful. Then there's some more jolly PA promo. Then you hit the VOY Forum, with some few bits of negative information.

The second item on page three of the Google results is an interview at Fiction Forum that so completely fails to be hard-hitting thit might as well be a paid advertisement for PA. A little further down that page you find ABCtales, with more PA disinformation. The second to last hit on the third page, finally, is a writers.net discussion of PA that has a big post from Dee Power in it. That's where you really start to find out about PublishAmerica.

If this were a high-school assignment, would the students get that far? Don't kid yourself. They'd have to have waded through site after site that represented PA as a legit publishing company. The fifth or sixth or twelfth time they saw the same results, they'd have figured they had their answer, and quit looking.

One reason for this is that PublishAmerica gives a "free website" to all their authors. However, those sites aren't controlled by the authors. They can't update them. They have to submit updates to PA -- which won't post negative information. What you tend to get are the excited early testimonials of authors waiting for their books to come out, and their first few experiences once they're published. Later experiences aren't reported. This gives a very good impression of PA. It also chokes the Googlestream.

Easy to research? Malarkey. This one requires an experienced, cynical old researcher with a lot of time and some idea of what they're looking for. So why would Nameless and SimonSays even suggest that this information is easily found? I'd say there's some possibility that it's because Dee Power is taking serious legal action against PA. Before, PA's big talking point was that they're a real publishing company. Now they're arguing that it was careless and stupid of their authors to believe their misrepresentations. It's a move to limit their own liability. If the authors failed to display a reasonable degree of common sense, good judgement, and prudence, PublishAmerica is less at fault for having cold-heartedly and deliberately scammed them.

I'd say "nice try", Nameless and Simon, but it wasn't.

Re: Actually. . .

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Easy to research? Malarkey.<hr></blockquote>
I thought that vstrauss left it off nicely but you apparently felt that you had to stir things up. Fine.

If you put “Publish America Scam” in Google you will find info on the FIRST page. That’s right the FIRST page. I guess that makes me a cynical old researcher. Wow. If I’m submitting something I value to an unknown entity, you’d better believe that I’m going to put in as much research as I can. As vstrauss said, I’m going to learn about the industry, I’m going to find out about the pitfalls, the sharks, the scam artists – the whole kitten caboodle. I might still get ripped off but at least I tried to educate myself.

Not too long ago my daughter, was approached by a modeling agency (I think it was Wilhelmina) after an open call. They said that they would call the next day. I immediately jumped on the internet and did some research and after about 1 hour I found that (1) many considered them a scan (2) they were being sued by the state of Florida (3) they had changed their business name recently due to other legal action. I also learned a lot about the industry and what to watch out for. Sure enough, when they called they did everything that my sources on the internet said that they would do right up to asking for a $1000 check.

And why did I do this? Because I was ripped off by another slick outfit called John Robert Powers about 10 years ago. I didn’t do a lick of research then and I paid for it. Yes, I blame them – they preyed on a child/parent’s dream (just like PA). However, I recognize that as the scamee, I share a part of the blame for getting scammed. Do you get that HappityHop, or is that too difficult of a concept? I accept responsibility.

If you want to lay all the blame on PA and say that the author has no responsibility – knock yourself out - that is your opinion. But I think it’s more important to educate authors on the fact that there are a lot of scam artists out there besides PA and how to look for them. Besides, if PA does ever close down, they’ll probably just reopen under a new name.

Re: Actually

Hapi,

Your analogy, though interesting is off on a major point. Relationships, marriage are about love, following our hearts - and our hearts are often unwise.

Writing may be driven by passion and love. Publishing on the other hand is business. Pure and simple. And business requires a certain amount of knowledge, rational thought, logic, planning, and yes, that dreaded word - research.

You could go into business without any of the above - but you almost certainly would fail, of course you could fail even with the above, but the chances of success are much better if you actually know what your are doing.

And as for researching, my stand was that one should research the publishing industry in general, not PA in particular. By doing so, one would come to know rather quickly that the large publishers DO NOT advertise for authors with links on websites or classified ads in the back of magazines, and though some independent publishers do, the large majority of those with ads everywhere are vanity and POD publishers. A major warning sign that screams: proceed with caution. Research would also show that most publishers want manuscripts that go through agents, and again while some don't, the large majority that say "NO AGENT REQUIRED" are vanity or POD - another warning sign. Research on vanity, POD, vs. traditional publishers would give one a clear picture of the differences, things like what real editors actually do, so you would know they do more than spellcheck your ms, what the average sales figures are for first time authors in different generes, etc. You would then to be equipped to ask PA intelligent questions that require specific answers that would give you the information you need to make an educated decision.

Back to your abuser analogy, of course it is not the fault of the victim, but if the victim KNOWS that a man has a history of abuse, and chooses to get involved anyway, then although she is not responsible for the abuse she may receive, she IS responsible for choosing to put herself in harm's way.

It is a little scary to me to see that with the exception of Nameless and Victoria, everyone on this thread seems to have the inability to even acknowledge the concept that some of those duped by PA could have avoided being duped if they had taken it upon themselves to learn more about the publishing industry. You make one excuse after another about why they didn't or didn't have to or why it was too difficult for them, yada, yada, yada. My guess is that you're all civil attorneys who represent people who sue companies for things like not putting warning labels on a pair of scissors that they are sharp.

The charlatans are out there, they always have been, always will be. You can bring them to justice AFTER you are conned (if you can find them) and if you are lucky you can try to get back what you have lost (if they haven't spent it already). OR you can be proactive, take precautions that will allow you to avoid being victimized. You may not have control over whether or not you are targeted by a con artist, but it is ALWAYS ultimately your choice whether or not you give the con artist what he wants.

And Victoria, I never meant to imply that I didn’t think you should warn people about PA and the other scammers out there, in fact I have emphasized in many posts in this thread that I respect admire and support what you and Dave do. Obviously, many of those who come across your warnings ARE actively researching the industry, they are taking responsibility for their career as a writer. I applaud that. My issue is with those who did no such research, signed with PA, and now are whining about it AND NOT taking personal responsibility for not trying to educate themselves before signing a bad contract with a bad company.

silly

that's silly, why would someone researching an agent or publisher put that in?

Umm, yeah when I research I put scam with it is I want to know is they are reputable. Wrong, esp a high school student--I know I once taught about that age level kids.

Simple is what they want and they most times use the first link they find as proof positive of what they want to say or know.

Most people start out thinking a place or biz is legit, not the other way around.

They would put in publish America and that's it.

I bet you people are the sort who also say a battered woman asked for it or that she could leave if she wanted to and blame her for everything that happens. Get real folks.

Shawn

Re: Actually. . .

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Simple is what they want and they most times use the first link they find as proof positive of what they want to say or know.<hr></blockquote>Then, after getting scammed, they should be adult enough to admit that they didn’t do enough research.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I bet you people are the sort who also say a battered woman asked for it or that she could leave if she wanted to and blame her for everything that happens.<hr></blockquote>
“WE” are ones that accept some responsibility for getting scammed. How did this devolve to the point where getting scammed is equated to being raped or battered? How about this for an comparison? I bet you people are the sort that sue a restaurant because you spilled coffee on yourself. I bet you people are the sort that sue bicycle companies because you were hit by a car while crossing the street at night without any reflective gear.

I’d like to repeat the part in my original post that started this charming discussion:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>PA seems to be a bit less above-board than the others but… well if you don’t do your research you’re just asking for it.<hr></blockquote>
That’s it people. That’s all I said. I didn’t say that victims deserve it. I didn’t say that they were stupid. That's it.

Re: Actually. . .

Because misinformation is evil....

I bet you people are the sort that sue a restaurant because you spilled coffee on yourself.

Click to expand...

From snopes.com:

Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgement went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media. (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America provides an excellent description of this case).

Click to expand...

www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Barnes & Noble

Re: Actually. . .

There have been PA authors who were uncomfortable with the "too good" aspect of PA and those folks did look around harder and saw that warnings existed....but they also found cheery cheery reports of how wonderful PA life is and dire warnings about listening to the "watchdogs" who were nothing but puppets for big publishing. So those folks chose to believe the cheer, signed up, got burned. Despite the fact that those authors were scammed, plain and simply, most of them NOW choose to accept part of the responsibility for being scammed. They felt unsure at some point but they let all the good reports sway them in the direction that they wanted so much.

But many others didn't know...they looked around, saw plenty of glowing reports, didn't know who the heck writer beware or preditor and editors were but certainly saw many of those same glowing reports said to "watch out" for the "watchdogs" who were in the backpocket of big publishing. So, they never doubted that PA was a real publisher (after all, look at those happy writers) and that the watchdogs really were in the pocket of big publishing (after all, don't we just love conspiracy theories). But apparently those folks are responsible for what happened because they didn't direct their natural skepticism in the right direction, right?

I've seen a lot of scammers "warn" against the watchdogs.
The reality is that one of the first things the scammers do is make sure you distrust anyone who gives you a warning. So, fine, even many of those who did their homework simply believed the wrong "warnings" -- the guilt still lies with the con, not the victim. I rather doubt that those literary scammers who HAVE been prosecuted got off on the "but my victims should have believed the watchdogs (despite my putting hours and money into trying to discredit the watchdogs) so they hold part of the responsibility."

Guess how far a pickpocket gets with a judge when he argues, but I just had to pick his pocket...he was carrying a wallet -- he must have been told not to carry a wallet on the subway. I oughta get a lighter sentence because he deserved to get robbed.

PA has put a good bit of time, energy, and even money in trying to discredit the watchdogs. They've pushed the envelope of legally actionable time and again because they know the value of putting out those "warnings" -- after all, if you know nothing about publishing and your shiny new publisher and all their happy authors are warning you not to listen to "watchdogs," I guess REAL WRITERS just have some kind of psychic ability to tell which person is lying. And if you don't...well, you're not a real writer and you got whatcha deserved -- right?

Ahem

Do we get a response from Nameless65 about the inaccuracy of his own cynical research regarding the coffee?

Truth is, this is a common problem with other writers. Too quick acceptance of information that fits what they believe is or should be how the system works. This is why justice uses the reasonable man parameter. Would a reasonable man be likely to find the falseness of some business claims in which that man is clearly not an expert and is, if anything, a complete neophyte? I don't believe that most will.

Statistically, only a few will do enough indepth research to find the real truth. Scammers know and rely upon this tendency of human nature in order to bring in victims.

Re: silly

I bet you people are the sort who also say a battered woman asked for it or that she could leave if she wanted to and blame her for everything that happens. Get real folks.

Click to expand...

Shawn invokes Godwin's law, and renders her argument null and void.

coffee

Just because a jury found for the plaintiff, does not mean that a) it was a correct verdict - juries are known to be fallible - can you say ROBERT DURST? And incidentally there are a number of different opinions on the coffee verdict other than the one on snopes.

b) the plaintiff was not an idiot for balancing a hot cup of coffee on his lap while driving.

Guess what? If he'd used a cup holder, he could have avoided the whole thing!

Re: coffee

SimonSays should go back to remedial reading. Get your facts straight and don't assume other facts not included. For all you know, there might have been a cup holder that didn't fit. However, that would be speculation based upon your own speculation and that is not how you base a judgment. In fact, if you'd read that more carefully, you would have noticed that it was one of numerous scalding instances which was partly why the jury found in favor of the plaintiff.

Now let's discuss how many writers have been harmed by PublishAmerica. That is what the topic is really about.

define harmed.

Dave please define who is harmed. Do you mean all those who contracted with PA? ONLY those who are unhappy with PA? EVEN those who are happy with PA and aren't good enough to be published elsewhere and are living their dream?

And if third group on the list above is harmed, would you be so kind as to tell me how?

As for the coffee once again you miss the concept of personal responsibility. Whether or not the coffee was too hot is not the issue. It is a choice to balance a cup on your lap when you're driving, it is a stupid choice and a dangerous choice, especially when it's a cup of hot coffee - scalding or not, it could still at the very least make you look down, lose control or inadvertently press down on the gas pedal.

Incidentally, I was shocked, SHOCKED to discover that the Trial Lawyers Association supported the verdict. Afterall, the association is made up of.... Trial Lawyers who coincidentally usually get a standard fee of something like 30 or 40% of these types of jury awards. Who'da thunk?

Your kids if you have any must be holy terrors with your version of personal responsibility. "Run across the street kids. Don't bother looking both ways, if you get hit it's the bus driver's fault." Or of course if they are hit by the driver who spilled the coffee and lost control of the wheel, you can always blame McDonald's.

Accept At Least Some Responsibility

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Do we get a response from Nameless65 about the inaccuracy of his own cynical research regarding the coffee?<hr></blockquote>
What I have to wonder Dave is whether you would have researched the coffee issue on your own or would you have hoped someone else would provide it for you? I’m guessing the latter. Or is this an example of your research skills – one person posting something that you agree with and you buy it part and parcel?

Whether the coffee example was a good one or not is subjective, the fact is that some people just want to blame PA. “I didn’t have enough money to do the research”, “My library doesn’t carry the book”, “My internet is too slow”, “My bookstore was closed the day I went there to do research”. I don’t buy that Dave.

The truth is that you can scream to the hills all you want about being ripped off but it’s time that you accept at least some responsibility for being scammed (I’m assuming you were scammed from your hostile attitude towards anyone that doesn’t tow the “party line”). Yes, do something to prevent others from being scammed. Educate authors on the sharks and scammers – on the industry itself. But please, please spare us from the “We’re all helpless against the power of the EVIL [Insert evil power here]”. I accepted my part in being scammed, it doesn’t make you less of a person.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Statistically, only a few will do enough indepth research to find the real truth. Scammers know and rely upon this tendency of human nature in order to bring in victims.<hr></blockquote>So does this mean they shouldn’t do in-depth research? Wouldn’t you recommend that an author research a prospective publisher or agent because if they don’t they might be asking for trouble? Be careful, if you say yes you're agreeing with my original post.

Re: coffee

"Run across the street kids. Don't bother looking both ways, if you get hit it's the bus driver's fault."

Click to expand...

in this case, you, the responsible adult, are misinforming the children by telling them to run in traffic. So, being a responsible adult, you inspire trust in these children, and unless they have any reason to doubt you, they will follow your instructions.

I’m all for personal responsibility, but the art of the scam is to cheat the mark before they notice. And when they notice, it's too late. For those happy with PA, that's spectacular, but as you can see from their boards, it's the same 100 people trading quotes from PA like baseball cards.

The point of this board is to offer support to those who are looking into PA, and for those who have signed with PA and want out after realizing that PA isn't going to fulfill their dream.

Us seasoned researchers will search out PA every which way but loose; however, most writers won't type in more than Publish America into google and come up with several pages of praise. Obviously, with all that praise, they seem completely legit. Hell, even I'm called in by their siren's song about being published. How nice it would be to hold my book in my hands. Really printed and available to the world via brick and mortar stores and other sites.

And unlike most vanity presses, it doesn't cost me a thing. They'll do it all for me. And then there's the support group of proud authors. Woo Hoo! My dollar.

Sounds great to the rejected, the newbies, etc. Although there is an amount of personal responsibility, most of us only learn through mistakes and experience. Most of these new pups see exactly what they expect to see in PA. They see a "traditional" publisher who is not going to cost them a penny.

They offer editing and free covers. Everything is done for the author, except marketing. But how many people know, without a good bit of research and being able to ask the right questions, about how the publishing industry really works, especially with all the false and misleading information slung across the web? Do I blame the authors? Not as much as I blame the scammers.

So, back to the kids. If we think of new authors as children, inexperienced and wanting to learn but unable to come up on their own exactly how, then we can start to see how the big “publisher” can lead these young writers (young in terms of experience) into the fires. Lots of “facts,” “info,” and other nifty little tidbits that effectively sell products all the time.

You want it. You need it. And when it looks so shiny and new, who would guess that the engine is crap and only will run a few miles? Next time you buy a new car, check under the hood. It might have that new car smell, but it might be a lemon. Despite what the salesman says, check under the hood. It’s your responsibility as a consumer to make sure it’s not a lemon before you buy it. Right?

Or, wait. Sometimes you don’t know it’s a lemon until it breaks down a few times. Whose fault is that? Gee…I don’t know. Stupid consumer should’ve done their research and seen it coming.

Re: define harmed.

Whether or not the coffee was too hot is not the issue. It is a choice to balance a cup on your lap when you're driving....

Click to expand...

Didn't read the article, did you?

looking under the hood

I would be very curious to know what percentage of disgruntled, disillusioned PA'ers actually LOOKED under the hood or did more than glance at the engine and take the owner's word for everything. If I were buying a car without a warranty, I'd probably get my own mechanic to take a look at it before I bought it.

Of course, there is a chance that even with taking precautions - you wind up with a lemon. And that is a different situation entirely. But with all the information out there on publishing, PA, etc. it's hard to believe that so many people did solid research and did not find any information anywhere that gave them pause.

If you don't take precautions, don't vet something properly then you are responsilbe for not vetting properly. If you're looking at an old pinto, and didn't do enough research to know that some of them had a tendency to explode......... you DID NOT do enough research.

And even if you were hoodwinked into buying the pinto by a slick, smooth-talking con artist, that is going be of little comfort to you after you're rear-ended and crispier than a piece of KFC chicken.